{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-11:political-morality",
  "slug": "political-morality",
  "title": "Political Morality",
  "subtitle": "Essay.",
  "excerpt": "A short essay on the morality — and amorality — of American public life at the close of the nineteenth century.",
  "year": 1899,
  "volume": 11,
  "category": "Essay",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/political-morality/",
  "wordCount": 609,
  "body": "THE room of the House Committee on Elections was crowded this morning\nwith committeemen and spectators to listen to an argument by Col. Robert\nG. Ingersoll in the contested election case of Strobach against Herbert,\nof the IId Alabama district. Colonel Ingersoll appeared for Strobach,\nthe contestant. While most of his argument was devoted to the dry\ndetails of the testimony, he entered into some discussion of the general\nprinciples involved in contested election cases, and spoke with great\neloquence and force.\n\nThe mere personal controversy, as between Herbert and Strobach, is\nnot worth talking about. It is a question as to whether or not the\nrepublican system is a failure. Unless the will of the majority can be\nascertained, and surely ascertained, through the medium of the ballot,\nthe foundation of this Government rests upon nothing—the Government\nceases to be. I would a thousand time rather a Democrat should come\nto Congress from this district, or from any district, than that a\nRepublican should come who was not honestly elected. I would a thousand\ntimes rather that this country should honestly go to destruction than\ndishonestly and fraudulently go anywhere. We want it settled whether\nthis form of government is or is not a failure. That is the real\nquestion, and it is the question at issue in every one of these cases.\nHas Congress power and has Congress the sense to say to-day, that no man\nshall sit as a maker of laws for the people who has not been honestly\nelected? Whenever you admit a man to Congress and allow him to vote and\nmake laws, you poison the source of justice—you poison the source of\npower; and the moment the people begin to think that many members of\nCongress are there through fraud, that moment they cease to have respect\nfor the legislative department of this Government—that moment they\ncease to have respect for the sovereignty of the people represented by\nfraud.\n\nNow, as I have said, I care nothing about the personal part of it, and,\nmaybe you will not believe me, but I care nothing about the political\npart. The question is, Who has the right on his side? Who is honestly\nentitled to this seat? That is infinitely more important than any\npersonal or party question. My doctrine is that a majority of the people\nmust control—that we have in this country a king, that we have in this\ncountry a sovereign, just as truly as they can have in any other, and,\nas a matter of fact, a republic is the only country that does in truth\nhave a sovereign, and that sovereign is the legally expressed will of\nthe people. So that any man that puts in a fraudulent vote is a traitor\nto that sovereign; any man that knowingly counts an illegal vote is a\ntraitor to that sovereign, and is not fit to be a citizen of the great\nRepublic. Any man who fraudulently throws out a vote, knowing it to be a\nlegal vote, tampers with the source of power, and is, in fact, false to\nour institutions. Now, these are the questions to be decided, and I want\nthem decided, not because this case happens to come from the South any\nmore than if it came from the North. It is a matter that concerns the\nwhole country. We must decide it. There must be a law on the subject. We\nhave got to lay down a stringent rule that shall apply to these cases.\nThere should be—there must be—such a thing as political morality so\nfar as voting is concerned.—New York Tribune, May 13, 1883.\n"
}