Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1884-07-03
0LEVELAND's CANDIDACY.

states that are close.
CLEYELAND'S OARDIDAOi.
what Evidence Is There That HE
Ever Was BtrongT
baltimore Day Of June 26.
We reprint elsewhere an article from
the New York Star, stating that journal's
reason for opposing me nomination OF
Gov. Cleveland as the Democratic osndi-
date Cor the Presidency. The Star is the
Tammsuy organ, Tut we see no reason
why Democrats In other states should at
.empt 70 impugn its motives or question
its accuracy on that account The "regu-
larity" Of the Tammany organisation, and
the fact that II represents at least one
half the Democratic voters Of New York,
were freely and fully conceded by the
recent Saratoga convention, and surely
the newspaper organ of such body Of
voters ia better prepared 10 estimate the
strength OF New Yorker in New York
City than the politicians Of Maine or
Georgia can claim TO be. That Governor
Cleveland has done many good things as
governor Of New York and has made an
excellent officer we gladly admit, and
the Day has said again and again that II
nominated 1t would give him vigorous
support.
But he ls not yet nominated, and the
question Il, day is not whether he should
be elected in preference to Blaine, bu.
whether or not he shonld be chosen as
the Democratic standard-bearer. But
one argument has ever been made for his
nomination, and that was that he is an
exceptionally strong candidate In New
York. II this were true and the New
York Democracy had unitedly and
enthusiastically resolved to present HE
name to the Chicago convention, the
argument would have appeared oonolu-
sivs to all who regard mere availability,
rather than tried fitness, as the control
ling confederation in making nomina-
tiohs. But the New York Democracy did
nothing Of the kind. The state oonven-
tion did not instruct for Cleveland and
his friends did not even dare attempt to
secure the delegates at-lsrge. This does
not conolusively prove that a majority Of
the delegates do not favor Cleveland, but
1t does demonstrate beyond question that
there is no such unity and enthusiasm Of
feeling for him In New York as was rep
resented, and which aloLe could juetify
the delegates from other states, who do
not know him, in urging his selection as
our candidate. The 80 called boom for
him in other states is neither sponta-
neous nor sincere, but the direct product
OF the old Tilden machinery, which ia no
longer guidsd by its master hand.
Since New York failed to instruct for
Cleveland people who are seriously en-
deavOring to secure the best candidate
rather than engaging In Wild efforts to tie
fast to winning one are thouEhtfully
examining into the basis OF the supposed
great popularity OF Mr.. Cleveland In New
York. They find, many Of them To their
surprise, that he never did Command the
full party vote In the state. We all knoE
that Hancock did not do SO and that the
534, ,61l votes given him fell more than
10000 short OF giving him q majority.
Did Mr.. Cleveland receive 10000 more
votes 7 Let the figures answer. There
were cast for Cleveland at the election
which gave him his phenomenal majority
b3b, ,3O8 votes-that ia, 807 more than
Hancock received In an election In which
be iell more than 20, 900 short OF snoush.
How, then, did It come that Cleveland re-
uetved 30 enormous a mSj0rity2 The
figures again answer oonolusively. Gar.
field received In 1880, 555,544 votes.
Folger received In 1882, 342, ,464, q Repub.
lioan loss Of 213, ,080. Cleveland then
owed his enormous majority exclusively
to the fact that the Republicans in vast
numbers refused to vote. Again, It is
said that many thousands of Rspub-
licans not only refused to vote for FolRor,
but voted directly for Cleveland. II that
Is true what does 1t prove Clearly
that Cleveland fell many thousand votes
short of polling even the unfortunately
small number Of votes that were cast foi
Hancock.
But the facts Of high interest at this
particular junoture do not end here.
Who were the people that defeated
Folger The New York Tines and Evsninq
Post supported him, at least nominalIy /;
but II is probable that many Of their
readers either voted against him or re.
fused to vote at all. But this does not
aooount for his astonishing failure.
Folger was Stalwart and his nomination
was forced by the Arthur administration,
and 1t was the Halt Breeds - the Garfield
Blaine Republicans who slaughtered
him. These men are now more than
satisfied and no repetition Of their boiling
in behalf OF Cleveland is dreamed Of by
anyone. What is there, then, in the
New York election OF 1882 to indicate
that Mr.. Cleveland would be an exoep
ttonally strong candidate In New York In
1884f
II the people who are shouting for him
in other states will shut their mouths
long enough to enable them to think
that is, II they have anything to think
with-they will find this query worthy
Of their most serious consideration. Then
thsy may comprehend why 1t was that
the New York state convention failed TO
present his name, and pay some atten-
tion to the voices Of protest against his
selection which come to us from New
York. II Ia useless to fling aside suoh
testimony as that Of the New York Star,
on the ground that It comes from Tam
many. Tammauy represents at least one
half OF the Democratic voters OF New
York City, and Its half Of the voters OF
that city are every bit as necessary to
Democratic success In New York, as sue
CESS In New York Ia essential n we are 10
elect Democratic President. II does not
matter whether we like this or not, Il "a
one Of the facts Of politics, and In the
discussion Of the only question that ex.
lists with regard to Mr.. Cleveland, his
strength in New York, no one with par
ticle OF political sagaoity would leave this
important fact out Of consideration.