Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-02-10
RICHMOND. FEBRUARY 10, 1894
C.4UCUS TT W.4SHLIGTO.V


The last Nat. Intelligencer contains two no
tihcstioDs arrayed ne il were against each other
IN parallel columnss-Wr have ri, en each of
them place in this days paper. One i. sign
I'd by 81 members of Congress-who pro-
Tess I" have asceftaiued at the request of
their republican colleagues, the number of
members VIII" would not attend IA Caucus :
and ut the request of The said persons. now
come forward to state that out of e61
members of Congress, there are lat leastl
"l8l who deem it inexpedient under ex-
lstnS circumstances TO meet in Caucus."-
The other is signed by IL Democ attic mem
hers, among these are MIR. Chandler of Mime,
Barber of Connecticut Litchfi-ld Of ~ York.
Louvre OF Pennsylvania, Lloyd of .faryLamd,
Thomas of Illinois, Ruggles OF Ohio. inviting
the Democratic members To meet on Satu, day
next, Tor the purpose of recommending candi-
dates TO the people for the Offices Of Pres.
dent and Vice President of the United States
The last notification differs in no rem ,rka-
Die degree from those which were addressed
Ia the members at the caucus of 1908, 'l6.SSc.
except that il is signed by names instead of
one.
The former is perfect unique in every res
peci. There is nothing like IT in all the an
uals OF caucusing or anti-caucusiDs. Why WAS
IT issued ? Was it really To inform the good
people ofthe U. s. as To the number of those
who are opposed at this Time To IA caucus ? If
so, did 1t at once strike those gentlemen, that
the lnct would best speak for itself; that when
| the Caucus came, the people would be com
petent To Judge for thehsel, es ? that they
would see who were present-aud form some
| tnlerable conjecture from the number of alb
| senlers. of the number of those who dee med
| II mexpedIent TO attend Did it not strike
these gentlemen, that their estimate might
he incorrect-and that some whom tA-y
might set down opposed tn Caucus
wonld ultimately attend it? Did not another
| circumstance also occur In those gentlemen
To three of them particularly who Were at
| the caucus of 13I6-that as they had gone so
far To inform the people, they might as well
have assigned the reasons which had Undue
ed them TO decline attending a Gaseous p
Was II the number of candidates which h.d
led them Ia this conclusion Was il the ha-
zard which, we run of sending the final cleo
! ton into the Fl. Of II. II no concert Vas oh
tanned, and no nomination effected Was 1t
the caba and intrigue, which will thus h. ere
ated for the next Twelve months Are sue Il
| the reasons which induced them To- with
draw? Or WAS il because there is not ma
jority of the republicans in Congress who are
willing To 20 into caucus? that these TWEEN
! ty-tour gentlemen a|erse tn a partial
! meeting, which they might be- pleased To de-
nominate IA Cabal !? Ir this were the induce
ment, why could not those gentlemen have
| recolectrd that by assOciating themselves
| with the 80 who are in favor of "a caucus by
| preraillng also upon the other II Represen-
tatives from Pennsylvania, who have with
drawn from it upon similar scrupie, they
| might have formed caucus of lei. more Than
Il minority of all the republicans in Congress (?
And that M man has Il right To complain Of Il
partial caucus which he himself had CREATED !?
| Was this notification then addressed tu the
people-ur was II 10 operate nearer al home !?
! To roose the appiehensioas of their col
leagues aud to prevent Il GAUGES from being
held at all ?
| This effort has been defeated. A Caucus
will be heid-and not all the combined rxcr-
tious of the supporters of the four candidates
can now prevent it. Cenlirmen have sub
caucused against cauers- Many OF them
| have flown in the very teeth 01 their own
votes given eight years ago--undrr circum-
stances infinitely less strong than those of :he
present moment. They have themselves ie-
sorted 70 the very measure which they un.
justly charged against their opponents not 9
weeks ago. They have put around paper
for The signatures of members, that they
might stand bound aud committed against !,
caucus.
| And what is the result of all these exer.
| tons? what is the sum Of the information
out of 26l members, there at most 80 on
| ly, " hO will so into caucus. And are there,
| gentlemen, really 80, who will support one
candidate? Are we tu understand there are as
| many as 80, who will go into 4 meeting for
the purpose of nominating one candidate P
In 1916, Mr.. Monroe had but 90 votes-is
Mr.. Crawford now TO have 80 Is he 10
have against four other candidates as large
proporton of the republican members, as Mr..
VI. had In 1916 against one person only ?
low many would Messrs. Adams, Calhoun.
SC. SIC. have? Half as many?
These gentlemen speak of the members of
Congress in mass-though they come forward
themselves in the name OF the 4" republican
members" Do they then count the federal
members among those with whom they
ought 10 go INTO Caucus ?
Then let us make another calculation for
them-say 26l members in all. DedHct al
least 80 neutrality-suspicious. more-leaying
2Sl republicans.
Suppose Mr.. Crawford to have 80--one of
his friends absent-3l.-Addt those who are
III his faSor, yet whose principles forbid their
attending Caucus at any time And we have
perhaps about 80 republicans in Congress
out Of $50, who may support him against four
other candidates This is really not SO bad,
gentlemen.
But calculations. thus made at distance
from the scene OF action, must be necessarily
destitute of precision. Ii is hoped that The
true state of the facts will be given from
Washlngton-ihat the people may be informed
OF the facts which may transpire ut Washing
tOD-who and how many will be present
how many members are not there who are
/ yet the friends Of the nominated candidate
/ how many Federasts are in both Houses o
Congress. We should wish To know also, how
I 4