The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-06-19
AYERT OLD CHESTNUT.
That story about Cleveland's Not Carrying
New York.


New York.
The morning after the Democratic State
Convention of 1884, which had been con-
trolled by persons who favored the nomina-
ton of Grover Cleveland for President, there
appeared in the, Times correspondence from
Saratoga. where the convention was held, the
following prediction
The purpose of the opposition 70 Cleve-
land-if it can be said TO have any fixed
purpose-will be 10 claim that there IS not
sufficient unity in the party IN the State TO
warrant the National Convention Ia selecting
its candidate from New York.
If one fact more than another has been
prominently developed IN al these conven-
tion prelimnarles and proceedings II IS that
the politicians are the ones who are opposed
10 Cleveland, and not the people, and some OF
the worst specimens of the Democratic party
have been lowering about the opposition
camp since Mr.. Flower pitched its tents.
Ii will be noticed that tins prediction was
of twO-fold nature, covering not SIMPLY the
purpose of the anti-Cleveland men. but
prophesying as well what the people would
do when 1t should come their time 70 act.
In both respects the prediction was amply
fulfilled. The Cleveland haters rested neither
day nor night from the time that the Sarato-
ga convention was over until the nomination
at Chicago was made in their effort 10
persuade the Democrats of the country that
Cleveland could not carry New York. but the
convention nominated Cleveland IN spite OF
their croaking, and New York gave him her
electoral vote
This year the same old cry of 1881 10 re-
peating: Cleveland can't carry New York.
il would be party suicide TO nominate him.
The same woeful stories are telling that
were told eight years ago OF faction OF the
Democratic party of New York irrec0ncilably
opposed TO Mr.. Cleveland. and the same
solemn warning Is uttering against taking
q steu that would put New NOrk's thirty-six
electoral votes into the Republican column
But there IS this essential difference be-
tween the conditions prevailing eight years
ago and those prevailing now.
In 1884 there was a regularly organized op-
position 10 Mr. Cleveland. with John Kelly,
lanmany Halls 20 600 votes behind him, for
its head, extending throughout the State,
made up Of men who were not only maleyO-
lent but also apparently determined 10 do
lust what they were saying that they would
do.
This wear there is no organization in this
State threatening TO operate against Mr..
Cleveland should he be nominated. Nobody
declares ANYTHING more than fear that
somebody else may DO something that would
imperil Mr.. Cleveland's chances of election.
is there an organization anywhere in the
State that threatens 10 bolt il Mr.. Cleveland IS
made the Democratic standard bearer
Nobody can point % such an organization.
Is there q Democrat of any importance in
his party who has expressed the intention of
doing anything else than Loyalty supporting
the candidate OF the Chicago Convention.
whoever he may be:
Nobody can name one.
This is the fact which the Democrats of the
country must bear ia mind. and when they
are talked to about a great split in the Demo-
cratic party of New \ ork and of tremendous
antagOnism 10 Dir. Cleveland. let them ask
What's the opposition made up of Name
us an organization, a campaign club, even
one man who would not give his vote TO Mr.
Cleveland if he should be nominated"
The convention of 1884 was not deferred
from carrying out the will of the people by
the talk of a few New York politicians,
although il calmly weighed their words: this
year there would be still less sense in heed
ing the protests against Mr.. Cleveland for
they are making in the form of gloomy fore
holdings simply, whereas eight years ago
there were threats, undisguised, cruel
threats.
Tho prediction is safe one that the con-
ventlon Of 1872 will follow the lead Of the
convention Of 1884 and say to the melancholy
prophets This convention dominates
Cleveland, and believes that il can trust New
York to do her duty. New York Times