The People's vindicator. [volume] (Natchitoches, La.) 1874-1883, 1880-06-26

august indifference. This meant T
much for man who had never be'
fore failed to assert his supremacy 10
the Republican politics Of his State.
and had lust concluded his grand.
streuuous battle for Grant. II
illinois Is sore both because OF the
treatment Of her Grant and OF the
Blaine trick by which so many OF hef {
regular delegates wore unseated ana I
Garfield ultimately profited. Sne
exhibits no more enthusiasm than
distinguishes a sedate funeral. sur
render number four. II
Garfield was the product OF q par.
tv anarchy. The anti Grant can
didates. finding each his own am
hilton to be In vain and that Grants
force had almost reach enough TO
grasp the nomination, hurled az
fheir elements pell.mell upon it. It
vas the Cincinnati blunder OF 1876
again, when the naccld hayes Hss
finally permitted TO get 2 9omina:
ton for which great party leaders nan
fiefcely wrestled. Then. a. nov.
Ohio went to New York for 9 vice.
presidential associate on the ticket.
bmt times have changed: there are at
command no Louisiana, Florida and
1outh Carolina and no returning
board system Of peculiar mathema.
tics and there Is the warning that
Ohio goodness" is tealty to moth.
Inv in particular. We're Garfield
and Arthur elected, the latter would
he no factor in the administration,
Int a mere mallet-holder In the Sen.
ate. New York confers an advan'
1 tage then, but derives none by con.
tributing Arthur to the ticket: VINO
ever asks what or where wheeler IS :!
Because New York was soIlclted o.
0hicaQo to furnish the second can.
h didate. does 1t follow that her Repub'
}. iican leaders can or core to deliver
her majority vote !? May not Conk.
h iinc. Cameron, Logan aud other
wrefh masters within the party wisn
y tn show that they are still masters
and tO do in the election ~ they were
Ione by In tho OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
lsriv when their utmost endeavol
MIGHT he "a fruitless AZ It would bt
Q. unwilling? Will they feel tende'
q interest In combating, the OLD scan
=. dais against Garfield p? What es
Y. nocially gals. these men IL the iac
d. fhnt Grant went into tho convention
With q majority, over twenty per cen
~ which was unseated by the YER,
y siaments that had finally to emite
dawn hv common assault. since D
AZ maiminr It they had not conquere
~ T. Anrry prOtests against the CON
VI .s,txnn an cueflAnti0ln arc still IOl(
90 and clearly denote that many kepul
3, licans, feel themselves abso!ved teol
supporting the results OF THICKER!
=. They wilt II numerous cases. Y
NJ doubt not. rebuke Il With Democrat
6aiiOts II. as We have said, q tit p!a
f, form And 3 fit man be preeented
M Wncinnati. Never before was the
' such utter decentralization In the Il
nnblicon ranks. Qarfleld's nomin
|ro. ton VAS due 20 the fact that q
tho anti GRANTEES did not love nun Q
an hated Grant. Their only dismal !,
w. tisiaction for their own chagrln u
st'' in Grants discontinue. Arthu
nomination is venom to nay
mar Eyerts and Sherman, and too latt
': confeselon Of Conkling's power.
omar words, every leader has . BIZ
al, eva. = barked nose and On anxl
disfrOst Of tho new Ohio man. Sho
Nav the Democratic nominee pe y .
Who IL without correspond
ailments-fOr his negative virt0.
w. And fairly strong 10 positive VIZ!
4. ond abilities, the Democratic vic'
~. m already Won.--N. O. Tunes