The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-07-18
Why is il n BlUndcr!

There is perfect accord among those who are
not restrained by feaity. and party necessity
from avowing their convictions in averrng
that the late Democratic National Conven-
tion blundered sadly. Every one who
feels at liberty to say what he thinks says
this, because every one feels 1t. GLOW could
they have thrown away their chance of sue
cess % is the universal inquiry. Here were
collected over six hundred delegates from
every section of country; many of them
men of decided ability; nearly all OF them ex
perienoed politicians. The Rebel Con
gress was largely, the Rebel
army still more bounteously represented;
and the Rebel chiefs are generally shrswd
men. Add to these most of the candidates for
Governor, Congress, etc. ETC., in the loyal
States who have been defeated or run out dur
ing the last seven years, from Horatio Sey-
mour and Judge Woodward down to Vallan-
dighan and prisoner MahOny, and you would
suppose that Lere was collected wit enough
to keep out of the fire. And yet they walked
right into it What is the explanation of
this ? Conventions generally nominate to
win; why did this Que violate the rule so
fagrantly that even the British Tory oracles
which hate the Republicans lmplacably-
give upthe contest as hopeless
These questions answer themselves when we
have realized that the case of the sham Demo-
cracy was essentially hopeless, and only to be
retrieved by an adroit, mastery juggle. And
there were powerful and implacable factions
among the delegates, each more intent on its
own special eud than on party triumph.
Mr.. Pendeton was the candidate of the
strongest and most positive interest in the
Convention-that whose primary object is the
virtual Iepudiation OF the national debt But
for the twO-thirds rule, We think he might
have been nominated Every delegate from
the South would have heartily supported him
from first to last, had his success been proba.
bic. But his greenbacl1 dodge had been sys-
| tematically trowned on by the leaders of the
Eastern sham Democracy, and pointedly by
| Horatio Seymour. So strong pre- ju dice h Ad
been aroused against his "lawful money"
! scheme that had he been nominated, he would
| probably have eceived no single electoral vote
from the populous North and East. So his
nomination was rendered imp ,ssible.
Whether Chief Justice Cuase would have
run better is questioned; but this, at least, was
| obviously true of him-had he been nOmi-
mated, the result would not have been evident
| from the outset. We cannot doubt that the
nomination of Chase was advisable; aud we
! believe the ceverest politicians in the Conveu-
tion, Seymour included thought so. But
! Brick Pomeroy and his Rebel crowd wouldn't
stand it, Tney threatened to bolt and make
a general smash if he were put up. They We're
strong enough to veto any nomination spe-
cally obnoxious to them, and they did it. So
Chase went overheard.
There remained one strong combination
Hendricks for President, with Hancock or
English for Vice. Hendricks is able and pau-
sibl-, holds opinions substantially identical
with PendletOn's, yet is by no means so OBJ
nOxiOus as he to Eastern prejudices. We do
| not believe he could have been elected-we do
believe he could have made far better run
| than Seymour-prObably better than any COM
petitor Then why was he not nominated
| Because the Pendletonites wouldn't stand
it. They held that he had not shown their
man fair play-that he ought not to have been
a candidate against Pendleton-and that they
had long since resolved that, if their favorite
were not nominated, Hendricks should not be.
They were for Pendeton in dead earnest; if
he could not be the man, they would have the
nomination thrown East, SO as to have a clear
track tor their nag in ~. Hence, when Pen
dleton was withdrawn, Seymour was instantly
nominated.
Well; what is there bad in ssymour's no.
minationP
Simply this: The country knoWS him. He has
repeatedly avowed views which others have
held in reserve. His speeches, ETC., supple
mented by Blair's recent letter, place their
party distinctly before the country on plat
toIm which the country does not and will not
accept. Their nomination was a blunder,
simply because it exposes what should have
been kept concealed if success were desired.
1t is just such blunder as though the Con-
federste flag had been raiseds and saluted in
pioclaimiDg the Tammany nominations. 1t
renders a Democratic triumph hopeless, by
letting all men know exactly what Demo
cratic triumph would involve.