appears that the difficulties the Citizens' Union
has to overcome in order to meet the views of Mr. as to what kind of a municipal government Greater New York should have for the coming four years, and how the candidates should be brought out, are fairly insurmountable. Some time ago, when there was a rumor that the committee of the Citizens' Union intended to make nominations for the municipal offices about the middle of June, Mr. violently denounced the temerity of such a purpose, and all his organs vociferously admonished the Citizens' Union that it was its solemn duty to “go slow.” The Citizens' Union actually did “go slow,” although probably more in obedience to its own good judgment than in obedience to Mr. behest. It did not make any nominations about the middle of June. It only resolved to address to the citizens of Greater New York the respectful inquiry whether the nomination of Mr. as a candidate for the Mayoralty would be agreeable to them, the intention being that if affirmative answers to this inquiry were received in sufficient number to indicate a widespread popular desire for it, the nomination of Mr. should then be formally made, in compliance with the popular will. This proceeding, which in a community enjoying democratic institutions is manifestly most proper, being in evident accord with the principles of popular government, seems to have exasperated Mr. still more; for he caused it to be violently denounced by his agent, Mr. , as an attempt to “overreach and humiliate” him by encroaching upon what he considers his personal prerogative — namely, the right to nominate the candidates for the municipal offices to be supported against Tammany Hall.
The right to nominate a candidate for office
belongs to every citizen as clearly and as essentially
as does the right to determine which candidate he
will vote for at the election. It is recognized by
the law. Every citizen may, if he chooses, nominate
his own candidates at every election, and write
their names upon the official ballot. Certain specified
numbers of citizens may by way of petition
demand the printing upon the official ballots of
the names of candidates nominated by themselves. In doing so they encroach upon nobody else's rights. They simply exercise their own. In truth, they use this method for the very purpose, not of encroaching upon the right of others, but of resisting attempted encroachments upon their own rights. It is a notorious fact that combinations of politicians inside of our political parties, commonly called “the machines,” have managed by way of organized co-operation to get and to keep control of the nominating caucuses or conventions, and thus to dictate the nominations according to their liking. In some instances, notably in the Republican party in New York, that control has passed into the hands of one man. In this way nominations are brought about which very frequently are not in accord with the sentiments of the majority of the party, and in the making of which that majority had really no voice. That “the machine,” or the boss ruling it, will ordinarily nominate no candidates who cannot be counted upon, if elected, to serve their selfish ends, and that thus the general interest is very often shamelessly sacrificed is a matter too notorious to need elaborate proof. It may be said without exaggeration that this perversion of the nominating machinery of our political parties is one of the most dangerous evils of our political life. It tends to exclude men of high public spirit and of genuine self-respect from places of power and responsibility, and to drive them away from active participation in public affairs altogether. It impairs the value of the elective franchise by frequently limiting the choice of citizens between the candidates of the different parties to a choice between evils. Thus it most seriously imperils the working of our free institutions which are based upon universal suffrage.