The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1888-06-23

|rewemhexUd Iong atoES 0e eeue< q -
PRESENT e.mpsisn- An wese geod bue
npns uas exrelient.
Tke best speeches were those rsac-
|inx Senator eherman b nominsfSon-
That q Aftosney Genex.l HasfinF,
q Pennsylv.nia, was WY czeditahfe
slgsss- He psssensed ~ arguments y
/ favor u de nomination Of DE- Ohio
SENATOR eieasiy and directly His
sentences were ven roundesl. and be
brought out his i1eas with commend
ahle skiD- His speech. hovever, did
not create anything Ike 70 great an
impression on the convention - did
that Of Governor Foraker. Who inn
medisteiy followed him Perhaps one
reason for The greater effect Of For
aker's speech was the more interest
ing personality Of the orator. He r
man o. national reputation. and his
reputation IS Of precisely the right
Kind to create enthusiasm in popular
assembiage- In addition 10 this. how
ever, Fcraker's speech was better sEit-
ed to his surroundings than that Of
Hastings His sentences we're short
and sharp. His arguments were
clothed In the fexest possible words,
and he vas continually DEPRESSING
from the direct line Of his speech to
direct little shafts at President Cleve-
land or at the Democratic party. His
was decidedly the most taking speech
Of the convention, ~ the wonderful
outburst OF applause which II called
forth made evident.
Leonard SWEETS speech Placing the
name OF Gresham before the conven-
ton was not received with 80 great
favor. IL was a studied effort, but Il
was rafhez long. and in some parts
triie prosy. The review of Gresharn's
career would have appeared to excel
lent advantage in an address before .
truly delibcratiye body, but il was
somewhat too tedious for the impa-
tient temper Of the convention. Har-
rison was more fortunate. The speech
OF ex Governor Porter in his behalf was
bright and taking. and evidently called
forth more applause than any other
speech except that Of Foraker. His
cocks speech in favor Of Depew was
also a noble effort, and Frazsr's pre-
sentation OF the name of Alger was
such as to set the friends of that can
siidate wild with enthusiasm.
As has been said, however. none Of
the speeches can be compared with the
treasured gemsof convention oratory.
Indeed, none of them can be COM
pared with the speech of Daniel
Dougherty in nominating Cleveland
at 81. Louis. which was an elegant and
polished Grafton. The best nominal
ing speech that has ever been delivered
was unqnestionabiy tina. of Robert @.
Ingersoll In nominating Blaine at Gin
cinnati in 1876. This fairly set the
convention wild, and for time carried
even the enemies of Mr.. Blaine off
their feet. His nomination would
have followed q. once il a clever trick
had not been resorted to to compel the
convention to adjourn over night. by
the next morning the effect Of Colonel
ingersoil's eloquence had largely dis
appeared, and the convention nomi-
mated Hayes. The Cincinnati conven-
ton. however. is remembered not so
much for the nomination OF Hayes as
because il was the scene Of Ingersolfs
speech. That one short address over
Swallowed everything else in the pro-
ceeiings, and ii has had no little to do
with the great popularity which Mr..
Blaine has since attained. 1t was in
this speech that he was first referred
to a. the ''Plumei Knight" and the
title thus bestowed will doubtless cling
to the Maine statesman as long as he
lives.
Next to Ingersoil's effort the bright
est gem OF convention oratory was the
speech of Roscoe Conkling in NOM
mating Grant in 1880. Without so
great vim and spirit as the Ingersoll
speech. this was both elegant and
strong. Whether correctly or not. il
will always be regarded as among the
greatest oratoricai efforts OF Conkling's
life. The speech OF Garfield in pre-
sen;ing the iiamc OF Sherman at the
same convention was scarcely less ex-
cellent than that of Conkling. Indeed,
there are many competent to judge
who think that Gariieid's address was
the better of the two. The principal
nominating speeches of 1881 were
that OF William III. West in present
ing the name of Blaine, that OF John
ID. Long in presenting the name Of
Edmunds, and that OF Joseph u. For
aker in presenting the name OF Sher-
man. The last named drew forth the
most applause, but it was not such APP
plause rs the orator wanted, rs il was
provoked by an inadvertant mention
of the name of blaine.
FORT TOWNSEND.
A very striking demonstration ,f