The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-06-21
rAMMANY OPPOSITION TO CLEvE-
LAND.


land factions at Chicago is peculiar in one
respect. The anti-Hiil Democracy at their
Syracuse convention declared against free
silver coinage. and placed Cleveland on
free trade platform. On the other hand.
Hill, the Tammany candidate, is disposed
TO favor ''free silver" and is not for ''free
trade;" he was in sympathy with the
policy of the Springer congressional
Democracy that defeated Mills and
made Crisp speaker of the House.
Hill is willing only to repeal the McKin-
ley tariff. which means that he would
favor protection to the extent Of the tariff
of 1883. Here we have Cleveland, urged
by New York faction as ''free trader"
and as an enemy of "free silver" and yet
the Democratic national convention is two
70 one in favor of Stree silver" however
much they may be divided between the
policy of gradual "tariff reform" and "free
trade"
Another curious fact is that the conven-
ton of Cleveland supporters that met at
Syracuse found not the slightest fault
with anything done by Hill except his
brilliant success in beating Cleveland out
of the New York delegation to Chicago;
these Cleveland supporters did not con-
denim Hills theft of the New York legis-
lature; they are quite willing, if Cleveland
Is nominated, to profit by the political
burglary of Hill. Not only this Syracuse
convention did not condemn Hills meth
DDS of political theft and burglary. but I'M
der their resolutions they would be obliged
to support Hill if he should be nominated,
for they pledge their support to the nomi-
nee of the convention.
There is no moral choice, therefore
between the Hill Democracy and the
Cleveland Democracy in New York; the
Cleveland Democracy do not denounce
Hills rsscality or place their revolt on
high moral grounds; they leave it on the
low plane of personal politics. The
Cleveland rebels silently indorse Hills
corrupt methods in state affairs, and
agree to support him if he is nominated
Morally there is no choice between the
Cleveland "rebels" under William B.
Grace and the Tammany supporters of
Hill. for Grace says, "Give US Cleveland
for president and We are ready to indorse
everything evil that Hill and Tammany
have wrought"
This failure 70 denounce Hills rascally
methods in politics will rob Cleveland of
ali chance of popular support from thou
sands of Independents, who now say that
men who are willing to support Hills
nomination in case he is made the candi-
date nj Chicago are no better than Tam
many that boldly declares for HILL The
independents hold that Hills chief out
rage is not that ne outwitted and outvoted
Cleveland's friends, but that he stole the
control of the New York legislature and
secured the appointment of his leading
confederate to the court of appeals.
If Mr. Cleveland is nominated his
friends will find out that they made 8
very bad blunder when they lost all
chance of q strong moral appeal for popu-
lar support by weakly saving that if Hill
would only consent to help nominate and
elect Cleveland they were willing TO endorse
every other &C; of his disreputahls career.
The argument Of the Hill men against
Cleveland is shrewdly put, when they say
that the nomination of Cleveland means a
proposition 70 elect Democratic candi-
date without the vote of New York. The
thir;y-six electoral votes OF New York are
absolutely essential 70 Democratic success
while the margin afforded by the new
states makes It possible for the Republi-
cans 10 lose New York and vet elect their
man. To lose New York for the Demo-
cratic candidate is 10 lose the election of
lS92
In proof that Cleveland would lose New
York. the Tammany Democracy quote the
fact that in 1884 Cleveland carried New
York hy Democratic plurality of loi7,
and then was defeated by splugality of
lsooo votes in ISIS He fell behind in n
vote larger than the vote for state officers.
and in the very middle Of period when
Governor Hill was leading his party year
after wear TO victory by regularly increas-
ing pluralisies: ll,lSi in 1855. i7,01T in
1857. la,I7i in 1855. ~. SIT in 1859. and 81 931
in 1891. Four months after the Demo
cratic victory Of November, 1891, Mr..
Cleveland failed of support enough, in
this Democratic state Of 5000, 90 people
and thirty-four congress districts. 20 con-
test more than one congress district, and
that Republican district; and, after con,