New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-03-18
r. care ]. F. whitney & CO.. 2ois Broadway. New
BOURBON DISINTEGRITION.
THE MOVEMENT IN KENTUCKY.

CRATIC PARTY-THE REPUBLICANS DIVIDED oN
THE QUESTION or COOPERATING WITH HE
DEMOCRATIC BOLTERs-1HE GRANT slAL"ANi'
STANDING IN HE WAY or UNION.
iron STAFF CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRlboNi"'
WASHINGTON. March l8--The Democratic revolt
N Kentucky. taken with other Democratic revoits
in the South is an encouraging and Significant ini
oot,o, hu+ II is too soon to say whether 1t Is more
than that Talks with wel-nfonned Kentucky
Repnblcans here give reason for fear that some OF
the e expectations which have been formed OF inc
results to follow this movement nave peeh uoo
sanguine The degree of success which Is to attend
il depends necessarily on the cooperation oil the
Republican party and that, unfortunately IS lar
from being assured.
One mr. two facts connected with the origin of the
Democratic revolt. which occurred some time before
il began to attract the attention of the country may
he noted here. The issue was distinctly made by
The Kentucky Democratic Convention before the
State and tie country that an ex-Confederate SOL
der is better man than Union soldier. SIMPLY DC
cause he was a Confederate soldier. The office OF
Clerk of tho Court of Appeals Is very lucrative
one. and the nomination was earnestly contested In
the Convention. Colonel Wolford, of the noted
Wolford's cavalry who was a Union officer but
Democrat was candidate, and was defeated py
Colonel Henry Confederate soldier after speech
by one of the later's supporters, distinctly urging
hun on the ground of his service in the Confederate
Army and intimating In the broadcast way that that
was the kind of men Kentucky Democrats wanted
The manner in which the speech was received
showed Enthusiastically that 1t embodied the sent-
ment of the Convention. Then followed the letter
of Colonel John II. M5iienry, declaring that III all
the seventeen years since the the only recOg-
milton the Union element of the party had re-
| oeiyed had been q single nomination for q
nettv office and calling for action: the organjza-
tion of the committee which nominated Colonel ia
cob: tho ratification Of the nomination by large
meeting in Louisville; and the organization OF an
INDEPENDENT movement throughout the State which
is said to be steadily going on The number OF these
Union democrats is variously estimated. Kentucky
RenulIicaus here who are entirely friendly to the
| movement do net put it higher than 10000 or
80 GOO though some more liberal estimates nave
been Idade. There is a Greenback vote which has
remained almost steady in spite of the decline OF tho
marty in other States. In 1879 1t was 1891; In
1850. l1490. 1t is believed that the Greenbackers
| would readily enter into coalition against the
| Bourbons, especially as many Republicans think
| they would be glad. in many cases of such an easy
| road back into the Republican party. If sucha
| coalition could be made, and the Republican party
| should give 1t its full vote. the Union Democrats
would need on the basis of the vote Of 1850, only
| 90 600 votes TO defeat the Bourbons by majority
! of 200.
1t is fact Of Importance TO be considered in con-
nection with the advisability OF Republican CO.
operation that, in all probability, no Republican
candidate wo uld have been put i'll the field II the
Demo cratic party had remained united. 1t would
probably have been impossible to get any Republic
can Of standing to undertake, for a forlorn hope,
the expense and LABOR involved in a Kentucky can
vass No candidate was nominated last year for
| State Treasurer, and the Democrat elected
| without opposition. Now that split has occurred
in the dominant party, and there is chance TO give
| it hard blow, 1t is proposed by one faction OF
| the Republican party to take no advantage of the
| opportunity but to persist further in a hopeless
| opposition than they would have done If there mad
been no opportunity offered them. The movement
| against coalition has already begun. local con-
vention was held in Louisville recently which
| WAS controlled by Walter Evans and other leaders of
the Grant faction and resolutions were passed OPP
| posing union with he Democrats. 1t seems 10 be
fS Sa 6a sh0 m H"%e %ho for
nearly ten years preceding the lst OF aot Jan
nary. the Editor OF hf doH''r rule CONT "
| Kentucky is now in Washington as TIE corresp0n-
! dent If The Courer-JourHdt, hut has not changed
hi opinions with his newspaper. His present CON
nection with Democratic paper is simply That OF
| Journalist in the department. of news Mr. Hewlett
was in favor OF ,he novnnator "t General Grant III
| 1850 He was asked the other day now he accounted
for The opposition Of the Grant Nawarts 10 a com
| bInation with the Union Democrats. His reply was:
" II comes from who have got control OF the
| Republican organizations in their respective DIS
trict5, and who do not want to Lose H.. heN are
afr iii thar n coalition with these Union Democrats
will result in partial roarTan cement Of party lines
| will bring III men and new Dl0Od, ana may re-
suit in deprlving them Of the control OF the party
machines ID their districts. hat is the whole
secret Their public pretcxt IS that thoy do not see
that the Republican party is 10 get any adNaniage
b. helping dIsgIuntled Democrats INTO Office lhere
can be doubt that from one-hali to twO-thrds OF
the intelligent Republicans IN kentucky art III favor
| of coalition. Such mon as Ganeral John
CoviLgIon, Colonel X. VI. Kelly, Pension Agent
at Louisville and proprietor or Inc L0u'Sr'ue COM
naercidi, Judge George NJ Thomas, United states
| District Attorney tor Kentucky, state Senator r..
| g. Hunter William Berkele, chairman OF the Re
publican State Committee, ard others like them,
| are heartily i'll favor OF coalition. mere rs one
thing aud only one 10 be sad Iii orhaf OF tae Grant
men. There Is. perhaps some doubt whether the
negro vote could be gwen soiidly 1or jacob III Is
! charged that ne went out OF tlc Union army Ne
cause ne did not approve OF the emancipation
proclamation, and the same IS charged against
| McHeury, the leader of the movement. The mon
who did this took the ground thai the Government
| had no night 10 take private property from ITS
owners. This is known to many OF the negro voters
ana might "a prejudice among them against
the coalition. But the experiment ought To be
tried. and if it were not Tor the reasons have
stated. il would be 1Iicd. The danger Is that the
opposition of the Grant men viii prevent a union.
In that case, should not look ion any permanent
result from the present movement III kentucky but
some time III tDo next i've eight years there wli
be another such movement and successful one
| The attitude OF the Administration toward tho
movement is regarded with deep interest by hrll-
| tncky Republicans 1t Is believed that the Presi-
dent is IN favor of tho policy dividing the Demo
cratic party in every State where II can be done.
Ills appointments in Virginia thought 10 be suf-
hcIent to show this, and he Las been regarded ~
| favorable to the Kentucky movement IN particular.
Ihe fear of Republicans OF that state who are anA-
ions tor its sucress is that If the influence of the
Grant StalWarts is brought TO bear upon the Prcsi-
dent against II. il may be LETT without hope.
ID. d. l..
| THE SNALLPOY At SOUTH BETHLEHEM
| PHILADELPHIA March ia dispatch from