Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-06-29
Abo,t Who Made the Nomination.


About Who Made the Nomination.
Our friends of the Harrisburg Patriot
have had the misfortune which generally |
befalls those who prefer to intimate in
directly what they ought to say directly,
if it is fitting that it should be said at
all Sometimes there is doubt OF the
prOpriety of a declaration and then the
temptation comes to insinuate it rather
than declare it. The Patriot, it seems
wanted to let it he understood that the
Hon. Il. NJ. Speer had been the Pennsyl-
vania delegate anOinted to nominate
Hancock and that he magnanimOus-
ly surrendered the honor to Dan
el Dougherty, who was introduced into
the delegation for the purpose. If this
is the fact we do not know why the Pd-
triot should not have stated it directly,
and it might have explained how Mr..
Speer happened to be selected and by
whom. The general understanding at
Cincinnati was that Harman Yerkes, as
the delegate from Hancock's district,
would present his name to the conven-
ton, and that was the arrangement until
the eve of the convention. When there
fore the Patriot said "the national con-
vention was indebted to the Hon. II. M.
Speer, delegate at large from Pennsylva-
MIA for the eloquent speech introducing
the name of General Hancock as can
didate for president 10y the brilliant Irish
orator, Daniel Dougherty," we under
stood it to mean just what it said, and
that we were indebted to Speer for the
eloquent speech" and to Dougherty only
for the oratory. How otherwise the in
debtelness to Mr.. Speer arose was not
ut all apparent, in view of the facts
as we understood them. 1t is not OF inn
portance to the public who prepared the
speech or who was to have done so; the
speech was not extraordinary, but its
delivery was well done. We do not,
however, want 20 be put into the position
of misrepresenting the position of any
delegate at the Cincinnati convention land
we shall not readily again accept the
Patriots declarations at their face value.
If Mr.. Speer had an opportunity to
present General Hancock's s name we are
sorry for his sake that he did not do it.
He would have done it well. But the
fact is that when Hancock was named
to the convention very few among those
who declared him their first choice
thought he would be nominated; nor
would he have been but for the speedy
action of the PENNSYLVANIA delegation in
going over to him in a body.
That action was produced by the de-
velopment of the first ballot that General
Hancock was the choice of nearly hun
dred and fifty delegates outside of Penn
sylvania, and by the knowledge that a
great many more, probably amounting
to Il majority of the convention, would
vote for him on the second ballot.
Under these circumstances it was the
manifest duty of the Pennsylvania dele
CATION to give General Hancock the solid
vote of his own state; and this duty was
recognized during the call of the second
ballot and was performed. Then Han
cocks nomination was certain. The
convention SO recognized it and surren-
dered itself to the widest scene of ap-
plause that any convention has ever seen.
If PENNSYLVANIA had refused to give her
united vote to Hancock, she probably
would have prevented his nomination
but her delegates would have had heavy
account to settle with their constituents
on their return home.
There is nothing fairly to be charged
against the delegates who voted for Mr..
Randall or Mr.. Bayard ut the call of
PENNSYLVANIA on the second ballot. New
York had just voted for Randall and his
friends in Pennsylvania felt it to he right
to express their preference for him before
surrendering to the demand of the other
states for Hancock. They maintained
their vote for another reason; they did
not want to subject themselves to
the suspicion of being controlled by the
strong outside pressure for Hancock.
They wished to show that they acted on
their own judgment; that led them to
Hancock, after they had expressed their
preference. They may have delayed
needlessly long in following the demand
for Hancock of the other states. We
thought they did. The delegates from
this county were not of their number, as
they voted for Hancock on the first ex-
hibitiOn of his strength in the other dele
cations. Then was the time for Penn
sylvania to follow but, under the cir
cumStances, those who delayed little
longer are not to he blamed. They came
when they were needed. Without them
Hancock could not have been nOmina-
ted and those who surrendered an indi-
vidual preference to support him ex-
hibited 4 spirit of self-sacrifice and
concession which is fair offset to the
superior judgment upon which the earlier
supporters of Hancock may justly plume
themselves. Pennsylvania at Cincinnati
became a happy family in Hancock's
support, and Pennsylvania in November
will he happy family in the success
which her vote will give him.
YESTERDAY the Tribune carried Indi-
ana against Hancock and to-day it defeats
him in New York, New Jersey and Con-
necticut 1t may finally delude some of