But he is a free man; and even though he is associated with a political party, he is not its slave, nor the apologist of all its measures and leaders, right or wrong. He will not allow any party to be the keeper of his conscience, or swallow up his individuality. He remembers his re sponsibility to God first of all, and will not let the party or its policy stand between God and his soul. What is wrong in itself shall be wrong to him, whatever the party may say of it, and he will oppose it with his utmost power, though it cost him his place, or the party disown him. So also what is right he will advocate, though a hostile party has taken it up and put it forth as an issue in the contest. He will be a man by himself, if it comes to that, alone, single-handed, eclectic in his politics; but he will be an honest man, a Christian man, chosen of God, if not of the party.

It is not to be overlooked, however, that the man of conscience and principle meets with cases in politics, as well as in business, where it is difficult to decide what is right, and what is the proper course for him to pursue.

For example: It is a received rule that good, moral, true men should be elected to office, especially to those places which involve legislation, the making and executing laws, treatises, opening diplomatic relations and negotiations, declaring war, &c. For the execution of such work it is universally allowed that wise and good men, men of moral character, and sterling integrity, ought to be elected, and ought therefore to receive the support of all, but especially of every man of principle.

Suppose, now, it is well ascertained that one political party, if it attains to power, will declare an unjust and iniquitous war against a neighboring nation, in which, of necessity, thousands of lives will be lost, towns and villages destroyed, and whole provinces be laid waste, and tens of thousands of unoffending people reduced to the extremity of suffering. The candidate of this party is a man of pure character, honest, upright, and capable; but on the question of the war, mistaken and misguided. by false ideas of justice and honor. He may, when the question is debated in the national halls, be convinced of his error, and if so he will promptly set his face against it. But at present he is wrong, and a change is wholly problematical, at best only possible.

Now the opposite party will, if they come into power, prevent this unjust war; but their candidate is a man of notoriously bad character-a drunkard and gambler, without religious or moral principle, thoroughly dishonest and reckless, having neither honor, truth, nor purity. But on the question of the war he will vote right, and use all his influence to prevent the national crime. Though he also may change before the question is decided, may be bought, or find it in some way for his interest to vote with the other party.

Now here is the difficulty; and what shall the really conscientious man do in this case? If he votes for the good man, he votes indirectly for a bad measure; but if he votes for the bad man, he votes indirectly against a bad measure. It may be said that it is safer to put power, in the long run, into the hands of good and honest men, even though mistaken on some points, than to trust it with the corrupt, dissolute, and abandoned, even though politically orthodox on some important measures of the present. But it may also be said on the other side, that the vote should be given for measures, and not for men; that the candidate is elected, not on his personal merits, but as the representative of a great principle, which is, in fact, the real object of the ballot. The man is only the instrument with which the people work; the means to a certain end, for which only he is used. But it might be asked, in reply, Is this man the best means to the end? Has the party become so poor morally, so utterly bankrupt, that it has no good man-not one-that it may elect to represent its principle or secure its end?

But we cannot enter into this discussion in all its details. We have introduced this example to show that the really moral and Christian man, resolved to be true to principle, to the right, still sometimes finds it difficult to decide on the course he ought to pursue in a given case, and also to show that we would not talk in an idle and flippant style, and censure, in an ex cathedra spirit, without considering the real doubts and difficulties which rise up before the thought and conscience of those whom we address, and often become very distressing to the honest and sincere man who acts in the fear of God.

In all cases like the one presented, the Christian politician, the man of high moral principle, will consider the

question in all its relations, and will take in the future as well as the present, in summing up the results, and determining his course of action. He will consider, on the one hand, the present evils resulting from the election of wise and good men, wrong on some particular questions, but true as steel to the right and the just, when clearly seen; and on the other, the future evils that will result from delivering the government into the hands of corrupt and selfish men, who would not stick at any wrong or crime which might help the party, even though politically right on some important question which presses for immediate decision. He will carefully estimate, and, as far as possible, strike the balance between a present national error or crime, or the failure of what he regards as an important national measure, or the existence of a present social evil; and a course of policy which may lead to still greater wrong or evil in the future, and pave the way to the final entire corruption or dissolution of the government. And if, after a patient review of the whole subject, he feels it his duty to ward off a present threatening evil through the agency of a bad man, he will still give his vote under protest, and with a declaration of the obvious truth that no party has a right to set up vile and abandoned men for election to places of trust and power.

So in regard to all the great questions of the time; he will not shrink from meeting them, through fear of affect ing his popularity, losing his office or his election, or hindering the success of the party. To the man of principle, the right and just thing is more sacred than party triumph, and dearer than office or the spoils of victory. He is not of those who stop to count the cost of doing right. He does right, and speaks the truth, and defends what is enjoined by the laws of God and the rights of man, without thinking of the cost. When a great principle is at issue, or an important measure is up, having for its object the interests of the country, or justice to any portion of the people, or the preservation of the constitution, or any part of it, or the just administration of the government, you will never find him asking how it is to affect his party, or opposing it lest it may operate to the prejudice of that party. He aims higher than this, and is moved to action by nobler motives. He loves his party

as well as another man; but he loves his country more. He will go with his party so long as its measures and principles commend themselves to his judgment and his conscience, but no farther. When his party adopts a measure which he believes wrong, or opposes what he believes right, lest its success may be perilled at the next election, then he will not go with it any longer. The bond of connection is broken. He gave his allegiance not to a name or a particular organization, but to the political doctrines and measures which these professed to represent; and when they cease to do this, the contract between him and them is at an end, and casting off the shadow he goes for the substance. He will not sacrifice one jot or tittle of justice or duty to a mere name or a political favoritism.

When some great measure, seeking the removal of a crying evil, or aiming at the promotion of the public good, is before the people for decision, he is not the man to make a party hobby of it. He will not go for or against a license law, he will not vote this year for a temperance candidate, and next year against him, because he thinks in the one case the party may gain, and in the other lose by the success of temperance. He will not flatter and court the vicious and depraved, the vile and criminal, and babble against temperance societies, and utter low slang, and circulate malicious insinuations against the devoted friend of the drunkard and humanity, merely to secure votes for the party. But he will speak the truth, and be just; he will advocate the cause of virtue, though the party lose half its votes, and he himself lose his election or his office. He knows that, lose what else he may, so doing he saves his honor and his self respect. And these are more to him than political success, or any office which can be given him in exchange for them.

If the momentous question of the extension and perpetuation of slavery enters into the canvass, he promptly and fearlessly takes his position, however it may affect his popularity, or darken his hopes of rising to power and place. He does not ask, before taking sides, whether South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, will be lost to the party if it goes this way; or Vermont, Massachusetts,

Ohio, if it go the other way. The certainty of loss of influence and political advancement will not deter him from following his convictions. No threats or bribes can reach him on this point. He fears nothing so much as dishonor and infidelity to duty. He loves nothing so much as truth and justice.

It is the same in all his political action. If he is a candidate for office, every man who will may know his opinions. There is no concealment in the man; no trimming his sails to the popular winds. He will not sell his conscience for the presidency of these United States. If he votes, it is for the measure he thinks right, for the man demanded by the exigencies of the case, though the party disown them, and denounce him for his vote. He takes the newspaper which most truly represents his political views; but if the editor happens to differ from him on some points, or expresses an opinion he discards, he does not explode like a torpedo, talk fiery nonsense, and stop his paper. If the editor is a man who speaks what he thinks, he likes him the better for it, and honors his free thought and free speech. If it happen that he himself is an editor, he does the same thing. He knows the power, and respects the freedom of an honest press. His editorial leaders and paragraphs are the daguerreotypes of his real thought and hearty convictions. If the party or the proprietor of the paper attempt to compel him to another course, they speedily find that, though they may own the paper, they do not own him.

And whatever others may say or do, he rejects with honest indignation the doctrine that all the offices and places of trust, from the President down to the village postmaster and the street-sweeper, are the lawful spoils of party. He looks on offices, and all places of public charge and duty, as created for the public good, for the administration of public affairs. Government, in all its ramifications, is the servant of the people-the whole people, and not the agent or the prize of a party. All places of power and trust are sacred to the interests of the country, and never, therefore, to be distributed as the pay of reckless demagogues and zealots, or as the reward of party devotion and intrigue. The man of true principle abhors and repudiates all such doctrines as dangerous