The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-07-06
Inside History.

=
pointed supporters OF other candidates than
TrLDEN, are beginning to explain away the
results Of the St. Louis Convention. One
man who had predicted HANcocK's nomina-
ton upon the third or fourth ballot--a bal
lot which TILDEN's great strength did not
permit the Convention to reach-telis in
many words OF mysterious import how his
favorite would have been nominated-if
some other state OF things had existed.
Another correspondent, whose prophetic
powers had pointed out BAYARD as
the coming man, manufactures an en-
tireiy different story, and makes it APP
pear to those who do not know bet
ter that the gallant De!awarean could,
under pinch, have taken the lead in the
home-stretch. A third figures out how JOEL
PARKER, Of New jersey, might have been
the lucky man. And so on to the end OF
the chapter. We have before us now, in the
Baltimore Sun, a letter from st. Louis, in
which the writer processes to give the Sim
side political history OF the St. Louis Con-
vention." He reaches the conclusion that
but for the operation OF the unit rule
TILpEN could not have been nominated, and
that THURMAN would have been the fortu-
nate individual upon whom the choice Of
the Convention would have fallen. Com
sidering that THURMAN was never formally
nominated in the Convention at all, and that
he manifested no strength whatever in the
body, this correspondents conclusion is
rather remarkable. We give his OWE words:
s.Yet, withal, unless for The operation Of
the unit rule, Tilden would have failed OF Il
majority at the critical moment, and thereby
in all human probability have lost his oppor-
tunity. Tilden's majority was but thirty
three. By the force Of the unit rule he re-
ceived seventeen votes from New York,
eleven from Kentucky, and five from Vir-
GINA which were opposed to him, and which
made up his whole majority Of thirty-three.
But in addition to this he received not less
than twenty votes from other quarters
which were opposed to him through the
same process"
TILDEN's vote was 534, 80 his majority
was ~ more than the two-thirds rule re-
qlired. The Virginia delegation did not
cast a solid vote for him under the opera
ton OF the unit rule. On the contrary,
each delegate voted for the man Of his choice
when the roll was called; and it was with
the consent OF the delegates that Virginia
changed her vote so rs to cast 81 for TIIDEN.
The vote OF Virginia, however, was III
fact feUcr counted US q unit for T1LDEN.
The four anti-TILDEN votes, which the del
cgates had authorized to be cast for TILDEN,
were counted for and announced for BAY
<I,o+ IVY hoId yptn mn tbnn
n two-thirds majority. ....
The unit rule OF course operated more
against than for TILDES. he being the strong
est candidate. New Jersey asked the privl-
lcrc OF casting six votes for him, but was
refused. Among the Pennsylvania dele
gates were number OF open and avowed
TuDEN men, whose votes were cast for HAN
COCK under the unit rule. SO asto Tennessee.
In fact the whole story is mere specula.
ton. We do not doubt that rs plausible q
programme could be now made out for any
other candidate as for THURMAN. The fact
Is as it is. Explanations arc useless. They
indicate nothing but that those who indulge
in them are disappointed 1t is unjust TO
Our nominee to assume that the unit rule
worked altogether in his favor. 1t operated
both for and against him. But he was the
peoples choice, and the Convention merely
ratified the peoples will. Let him be
chosen by q majority Of the popular vote
that will cause the plunderers to think that
there was unit rule amongst the voters,
working out his election. His name is the
symbol of strength amongst the people, and
to quote Senator KERNAN's words carries
terror to the hearts OF "the carpet-basScrs
ef the South and the thieves of the North"