have him vote my ticket in order to please me. I prefer that he should select his own candidate, and vote independently; and I respect him for doing so.

There are a number of persons

men of culture and leisure who refuse to vote because their votes will be neutralized by those of foreigners or uneducated persons. They would like to have all such persons disfranchised; then, perhaps, they would condescend to vote themselves. But if any

are to be disfranchised, I would not have those disfranchised who perform their duty by voting, but those who neglect it. I respect the foreigner who, not having had the advantage of education, prizes his new privilege as a freeman, and is willing to pay his poll-tax, and take time, in order to vote. I respect him more than I respect the man who, having education, leisure, opportunity, thinks himself too good to do his duty to his country and its institutions.

I once heard this anecdote of Judge Parsons, the great Massachusetts jurist and lawyer. It is said that, being about to try a mercantile case, he ordered a special jury to be summoned; and among the names was that of Colonel Thomas H. Perkins, the leading merchant of Boston in that day, and a personal friend of Judge Parsons. When the officer made his return, he laid down a fifty-dollar bill before the judge. "What is that?" said Parsons. "Colonel Perkins says he is very busy to-day, and

prefers to pay his fine." "Take that bill back to Colonel Perkins," said the judge, " and tell him to come here at once; and if he refuses, bring him by force." When Colonel Perkins appeared, the judge looked sternly at him and said, "What did you mean, sir, by sending money when you were summoned to sit on this jury?" Colonel Perkins replied, "I meant no disrespect to the court, your honor; but I was extremely busy, fitting out a ship for the East Indies, and I thought if I paid my fine I might be excused." Fitting out a ship for the East Indies, sir!" exclaimed the judge; "and how happens it that you are able to fit out a ship for the East Indies?" "Your honor, I do not understand you." "I repeat, then, my question: How is it that you are able to fit out a ship for the East Indies? If you do not know, I will tell you. It is because the laws of your country are properly administered. If they were not, you would have no ships. Take your seat, sir, with the jury."

There is an important lesson in that story. Here are men inheriting, acquiring, retaining, enjoying, large properties under the law. They are asked in

return to pay their taxes, and, by voting, to take their share of the work of putting honest and sensible men into office. But that is beneath their dignity. They do not wish to mingle with such a democratic crowd. Such men spend their time in undervaluing free institutions, declaiming against

universal suffrage, and praising the despotic governments of Europe. Until the French Empire fell through its own baseness, they were its admirers, and wished that Heaven had given us such a ruler as Napoleon III. Some of them are only contented when they are on the boulevards of Paris or in the gaming-rooms of Homburg; and it is no great misfortune to our country to have them there.

When a man belongs to a party with whose general aims he is in sympathy, let him vote for this party, but with two provisos, — that it shall advocate good measures and nominate good men. For the sake of the party itself, to keep it pure, its members should refuse to vote for it when it proposes bad measures or offers bad men as its candidates. That is the warning, and the only warning, which party leaders understand.

But when good men are on one side and important measures on the other, what are we to do? Perhaps I vote with a party in whose principles I believe. But it does not nominate as good men as the other party. Shall I say, " Measures, not men," and vote for my party ticket; or shall I say, "Men, not measures," and vote for the upright candidate? This question requires some consideration, for it is one which we are often called on to answer.

First, I should say this at least, very decidedly: Never be persuaded to vote for a bad man, though he may be ever so able, ever so popular, and may

have the regular party nomination. Do not vote for a man who is intemperate, licentious, dishonest, false; or a man who has been found guilty of a rascality. Such a one is sure, sooner or later, to betray those who trust him. Let it be understood, once for all, that the party contains a large body of conscientious men who cannot be allured or driven to the support of any selfish politician, merely because by adroit bargains and promises he has succeeded in getting a nomination. Bolt such nominations openly, and they will not be repeated. Conscientious men are not only the salt of the earth and the salt of the Church, but also the salt of their party, to keep it from destruction.

Do not vote for a man, either, because he is smart. Smartness in a public man may do harm as well as good. Smartness is the American idol, the god we worship, as the English worship power, and the French reputation. Endow a man with great strength, with power to compass his ends, power of position, power of wealth, power of rank and of office, and the average Englishman falls on his knees before him. Let a man be famous, capable of making a grand display, and the average Frenchman will worship him. Let a man be quick, adroit, full of wit and ingenuity, able to do and say bright things, and the average American looks up to him with devotion and reverence. But not always. I once knew an instance to the contrary in American politics.

In Jefferson County, Ky., the Whig majority some forty years ago was overwhelmingly large, so that two Whig candidates were running against each other. One was Thomas F. Marshall, then in his prime, one of the most brilliant speakers, full of wit, and master of all the arts of oratory. His opponent, Mr. Graves, was a plain Kentucky farmer. The rival candidates were expected to address the people every day and evening before election at each of the voting precincts. Every night the people collected in crowds to hear Tom Marshall speak, and kept him talking to them all the evening. Graves they would hardly listen to at all. Marshall was quite sure of success, but when the day of election came Graves was elected by a large majority. The people had confidence in him; they knew he was an honest, upright man, a man of simple common sense. Marshall they knew to be a man whose moral habits made him unreliable. They liked to hear him speak, and were willing to have him entertain them. But they could not trust him. What happened then may happen again. I suppose the people of Massachusetts are as sagacious in such matters as the people of Kentucky.

A candidate who beforehand makes great promises of what he will do if he is elected is not a safe man to vote for. Great promises are apt to be followed by small performance. Nor is it well to vote for a man whose character you do not approve and with