Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-06-30
HANCOCK'S NOMINATION.
The Action of the Chairman of the Pehnsy
vania Delegation at Cincinnati.

The Action of the Chairman of the Pehnsyl-
vania Delegation at Cincinnati.
The Pittsburgh Telegraph says g: I" The
action of Malcolm Hay, esq, chairman of
the Pennsylvania delegation to Cincinnati,
according to the statement of a delegate,
has been misrepresented in dispatches to
several of the Pittsburgh papers. This
delegate says that Mr.. Hays position is
correctly set forth in the Cincinnati papers
and has only been misrepresented by por-
tiOn of the Pittsburgh press. He asserts
that there was no misunderstanding in the
delegation and no dissatisfaction at the
course of Chairman Hay at any time,
and that the latter did the right
thing at the right time, and the only right
thing when he nominated Hancock by the
vote of Pennsylvania. This delegate says
that Mr.. Hay recognized the right fevery
individual delegate and treated each with
equal and exact justice. There being no
unit rule, every delegate was the peer of
every other, and Mr.. Hays province was
simply to voice to the convention their in
dividual will as expressed it to him. Conse
quently seven oreight candidates were voted
for on the first ballot, and the result an
nounced to the convention by Mr.. Hay. Then
the critical moment came for placing
candidates in nomination. MIR. Hay was
prepared for the emergency. Daniel
Dougherty, who was to nominate Han
cock, had been substituted for Mr.. Spear
at the opening of the days session. Mr..
Hay had carefully considered beforehand
what ought to be said by him, and had
communicated to several of the most
judicious delegates, who were for other
candidates than his own CTilden), what he
%o &c ho 10
guage used by him in announcing to the
present Hancock's name. "The delega-
ton from Pennsylvania came here absO-
lutely free to express their individual pre-
ferences for candidates. The Pennsylvania
delegation, as a delegation, has no candi-
date to present, but a delegate from Penn
sylvania desires to make nomination" "
At that time General Hancock had not a
majority of the delegation, but that made
no difference, as the delegation had been
sent to Cincinnati expressly against the
unit rule, and it was Mr.. Hays place to
recognize the position of every individual
delegate. The language used by Mr.. Hay
was approved by the delegation, and no
word of dissent, however slight, was heard
and no apprehension arose save in Pitts
burgh. When Mr.. Hay determined to cast
the vote for Hancock on the second ballot,
he consulted nobody, but did it as chair
man of the delegation, exercising the just
responsibilities belonging to his position,
trusting to the assent and approval of del
egates, which was cheerfully given by all.
1t has been reported that Senator Wal
lace has sent the following despatch to
Gen. Hancock after Hay had made his
speech:
81 have just thrown you our solid vote
and congratulate you on your nomina-
ton. WIN. A. WALLACE,
''Senator of Pennsylvania. :"
1t is hardly possible that Mr.. Wallace
would send such presumptive and unjus-
tifiable message, since neither Mr.. Wal
lace, Mr.. Randall nor any of their friends
outside the delegation were consulted, and
the nomination Of Hancock was the work
of Chairman Hay and the Pennsylvania
delegation alone, and they "settled it -
without aid OF intimation from Mr.. Wal
lace.