Conflicting Testimony on Political Methods
The Michigan Christian Advocate has this to say concerning the charges of political methods in the late Methodist conference in this city: “One delegate to the general conference wants to testify that there was no cause to set afloat stories of political wire pulling. He deliberately states that ‘these stories originated with persons who fail to get the recognition they think themselves entitled to. Everything was open and above board, and the efforts to secure the election of certain men were made in a perfectly fair and open way.’ Other men give an opposite report. Which shall we believe? Which is right? Believe both. Both are truthful. Both bear veracious testimony. The only difference between them is that one doesn’t know and the other does. One neither saw nor heard anything improper, the other did.” The charge that political methods were used does not necessarily mean dishonest methods. Political conventions are sometimes conducted in a perfectly “fair and open way.” The Advocate is doubtless correct: one man saw things the other did not see. He was not a wise justice who discharged a man accused of stealing a pig, because while only two witnesses testified positively that they saw the defendant steal the pig, twelve witnesses testified that they did not see him steal it. The ignorance of one man concerning a fact, however monumental that ignorance may be, cannot offset the positive knowledge of another man, however limited that knowledge may be.