The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-02-24
chicago-The Convention.

The talk about holding the Democratic
National Convention In this. that. and the
other place did not mislead us. We had
confidence Ia The potency Of the claims OF
Chicago. But we were rather surprised
thai 81. Louis proved 10 be so nearly q
match for the Lake City. Cincinnati re-
ceiyed but one vcte--that Of the Ohio
member Of the Democratic National Com
mitsee, we suppose--and ought not to
have received that one. Nobody who at
tended the last Democratic National
Convention could reasonably have been
expected TO be In favor Of holding another
national convention In that unclean city.
Besides, the leading Republican Journal oil
that city has most sbanefully traduced the
Democratic party and misrepresented the
people OF the southern States for months
mast. Even whilst contributions from this
and other southern States we're on their
way 10 Cincinnati, 10 be used for the BEN
eft OF the sufferers from the recent flood
In the Ohio river, that paper was daily en-
gagged In waving the bloody shirt. That
Cincinnati Is " one-horse" town no bet
ter proof Is needed.
Louisville received three yotes-three too
many. That city Is not large enough to
accommodate comfortably the numerous
persons other than delegates who always
attend the sessions OF Democratic National
Conventions. Our recollection Is tbat
there were six hundred journalists at st.
Louis. Besides, Louisville is a southern
city, or at least nominally so, and IT is still
considered impolitic to hold q national
convention In any such city, so illiberal are
the northern people, and so "solid" In
their opposition to aught that could remind
them Of the "rebellion." And, then,
il may have been in the minds oil
the members OF the Democratic National
Committee that Mr.. WATTERsoN and other
anti-protectionis Democrats claimed the
election OF Mr.. CARLISLE to the speakershlp
rs great victory for the so-called "Reve-
nue. Reformers and the committee may
have feared that the selection OF Louisville
as the seat Of the Convention would be
claimed as another Wattersonian victory,
though we must confess that we suppose
its inability properly to accommodate the
Convention was the real reason why that
city received in committee but three votes.
Does the selection Of Chicago indicate
aught as to the favorite candidate OF the
members OF the committee that selected
that city? BY no means. 1t signifies that
Chicago is the most accessible city to the
delegates from the Pacific States and Ter
ritories. II signifies that Texas, Arkan-
sas, and Louisiana, as well as South Caro-
lima, Georgia, and Florida, can get to
Chicago easily and quickly. Itsigniies that
the Democrats have never held q Ma
tlonal Convention in Chicago, and de-
sired to test the liberality Of her people,
the capaciousness OF her halls, and the ac-
eommodatibility of her hotels. 1t does
not signify that Mr.. MORRISON, or Mr..
HOLMAN, or Mr.. PALMER. or any other
Illinois aspirant to the presidency OF the
United States, found favor in the eyes OF
the Democratic National Committee, nor
that any particular aspirant, let him reside
where he may, will profit by the fact that
Chicago is the seat OF the Convention. 1t
does signify that westward the star OF
empire takes It's way" and that the bloody
shirt will not wave to any purpose in the
approaching presidential campaign.