The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1892-02-06

The causes Of his defeat are on
the surface Of events and are
plainly visible.
In 1884, he was elected as Dem
ocrat. The battle was fought and
the victory was gained by the uni
ted force of Democrats, who stood
shoulder to shoulder in the ranks,
and with the battle-cry Of turn
the rascals out" placed Cleveland
in the position of Chief Executive
of the nation.
No sooner was he elected than
he assumed the role of dictator for
the party which had given him po-
sition. In his appointments he
studiousIy catered to the demands
of the mugwumps, while II strong
Democratic Endorsement for II po-
sition was certain harbinger Of
defeat
The retention of Pearson, as post
master in New York City, lost
him the State in 1888, while the
selection of Fuller, as Chief JUS
tice, was surprise to every renow-
ned Democratic jurist in the coun-
try.
In 1888, we had the unique eXhi-
itiOn of Democratic President
running for reelection, while two
ffths Of those he had appointed to
positions during his administru-
tion were contributing money and
labor to aid in his defeat.
Mr.. Cleveland made the greatest
mistake Of his life when he failed
to recognize the individuality of
the Democratic party, and attemp-
ted to make n handful of
mugwump friends, the nucleus
of Il party that should recog-
nize himself as its only visible
head.
This is Grover Cleveland in 1888,
| when he was beaten in the race by
pigmy from the capital of the
| HOOsier State, and we may perti-
nently ask any who clamor for his
selection as the candidate this year,
what he has done to increase his
strength since then?
If the answer is nothing; then it
is safe to conclude that he is weak
er now than then, for the reason
that time, nations, govern y ents
and parties have been "Mar hing
on" and Mr.. Cleveland has failed to
keep abreast with the procession.
But from whence does the de-
mand for Cleveland come? Prin-
cipally from states that have not
cast n vote in the Electoral college
for Democrat, for more than a
quarter of century, if ever, since
their admission as states.
If it be true, which we don't ad
NIT, that the Democratic masses OF
Ohio demand the nomination o
Cleveland, the answer is that Ohio
has not cast vote for Il Democrat
ic candidate for President since
1852, and cannot be expected to dc
better for Cleveland, in '92 than il
'SS, when her favOrite son was /
candidate With him on the ticket
1t is said the Democracy of Kan
s0s are for him, but the chance
are that Kansas will go from fort.
to sixty thousand Republican.
The same may be said Of the De
mocracy of Minnesota, Neva q
Washington and California. Wha
then is the logic of the situation
Fairly stated; The candidate o
f the Democratic party must carr.
all four of the Democratic state
of the North, viz: Connection
f New York, New Jersey and Ind
ana, Il thing which Grover Cleve
land failed to do in 'SS, and hi
, chances are no better in '02.
1 The sensible thing to do is t
9 leave the selection of candidate
a for President and Vice Presiden
to the four Democratic states M
med, and ratify their selection i
Chicago. Ohio, Kansas, Minnesc
f to and the rest may hold thei
= peace, until they are purged of pc
I litical sin.
Ohio | emocrats who stage
away from the election last fal
and thus aided in placing Ohio i
the rank Of Republican states thi
year, have no right to be hearC
For ourselves, we would hail tn
nomination of EX-GovernOrs Hi
of New York, and Gray of indiana
as an exhibition of sound wisdor
on the part Of the Convention, bu
we stand ready to endorse tn
choice Of the Big Democratic Foul