Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1892-04-22
AN OPEN LETTER
70 EX-JUDGE WALLER r. STAPLES
HIS OBJECTIONS TO GROVER CLEVELAND AN
SWERED-WHY THE SOUTH SHOULD STICK
TO CLEVELAND.

To Judge Waller r. Staples:
Sir.-I was prevented for two OF three days
by business engagements from reading care
fully your interview in the Dispatch of April
10th, last. Having since done so, found in
it such food for inquiry and suggestions as to
justify me, l think, in writing to you this very
open letter.
Doubtless you did not expect your general
statement that "there are several objections
to the nomination of Mr.. Cleveland" to have
much effect unless the reasons which you
then proceeded to give should be found to be
correct as we'll as ingenious.
LOADED FOR MIR. CLEVELAND.
One would presume fIom the Introductory
remarks of the reporter, that your views were
given extempore. Does not such suggestion
do you injustice? You would hardly speak
in such manner and on such subject with
out having fully prepared yourself. In fact,
Judge, were yon not Gf you will pardon
slang word) loaded for Mr.. Cleveland?
Had you not gathered all the objections which
our mutual friends, who admire Mr.. Hill, had
been vociferously shouting for a couple of
months? Were you not expected to put new
life into those well-worn objections by the eff
feet of your name? Your friends are willing
to admit that if the task had not been an i'm
possible one you might have succeeded.
Allow me to ask you a few questions. Per-
haps upon your answers may depend, with
those whom you wish to bring forth into the
full life of wisdom, in which the Dispatch
thinks that you stand, the decision, whether
you have not uselessly attached your name to
an unattractive cause.
CLEvELAND's NEW YORK MAJORITY.
Speaking of the large majority which Mr.
Cleveland received when he was elected Gov
ernor in 1882 you stated, con the same ticket
with him was Governor Hill, a candidate for
Lieutenant Governor, and also Democratic
candidate for the Court of Appeals Of New
York. Both of these received as large vote
as Mr.. Cleveland, Governor Hills vote being
perhaps largely in excess Of either
You must have been so told by some warm
admirer of Mr.. Hill. Pardon me for suggest
laudatory remarks coming from such source
Hillism is not history. On page 241 OF the
American Almanac, compiled by MI. Spofford.
Librarian of Congress you will find it stated
that in that election Mr.. Cleveland received
$50, 31S votes, while Mr.. Hill received 534, 636
votes. You will not hereafter believe that
MI. Hills vote was "largely in excess" of
Mr.. Cleveland's.
You next cite the fact that in 1884 he only
carried New York by about / 100 votes How
did it happen that you forgot to mention that
at the preceding presidential election New
York went Republican by 81 900 majority, not
outstanding the fact that the popular soldier,
General Hancock, was the Democratic nomi-
nee? Even you would not insist, would you,
Judge, that he should have done more than
overcome such majority?
CLEvELAND's FAILURE IN 1888.
You suggested reason why Mr.. Cleveland
failed to carry New York in 1883. l have seen
in print reason for Mr.. Cleveland's failure
to carry New York in 1883, which | submit to
your consideration as more favorable than the
one you offered. You will remember that in
New York in 1883 the presidential and guber-
Material elections took place at the same time
The Republican party in their State platform
had plank for high license upon the liquor
business. The Republican candidate for Gov
ernor was Warner Miller. After his defeat
he made a statement, which was, in substance,
as follows; That he had not expected to be