Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-02-18
A Significant Omission.

Tho Cooper Institute meeting OF last
week Was composed largely of men who
clsim TO be not only Democrats but Demo-
Gratis of the straitest sect--advocates OF
Democratic principles and despisers Of the
emoluments Of Office. Its promoters saY
that there were present IN that meeting
several thousand OF the best men IN New
York, and that about ten thousand of the
good men and true of that city signed the
call for the meeting. They also claim
that the meeting was one IN which every
good Democrat in that city might consis-
tently have taken part, and that the sign
ers OF the call were not oil CLEVELAND
men. They even 60 80 far-or went so TAR
last week-ss to say that the call was
signed by men who prefer HILL to CLZvE-
LAND as the nominee OF the next Demo-
cratic National Convention tor President
of the United States.
These claims naturally lead one to In
uuire WHY the name of GRovEG CLEVELAND
was not appended to the call. Ii 1t was
not CLEVELAND meeting but Democratic
meeting why was not Mr.. CLEVELAND asked
20 enter his protest against the action OF
the New York Democratic State Commit
tee? We intimatcd the other day that no.
body and no consideration could have IN
duced HIM to sign such a call, or to speak
in such meeting. or 10 vote for such q
resolution as one OF those which were
adopted by that meeting. We allude. OF
course, 70 the resolution providing Tor
committee of fifty TO ask the State COM
mittee to postpone the date Of the State
convention, and. failing to secure that
postponenent. to take such steps as might
be necessary TO insure seats IN the State
convention for the faction represented in
and by the Cooper Institute meeting. Why
else was Hamlet left out of the play OF
Hamlet2
But let us suppose that Mr.. CLEVELAND
had attended that famous meeting and
had there voted for the resolution to
which we have just called attention:
Would it have been proper for the State
convention soon to be held to have
elected him as q delegate to the Demo-
cratic National Convention? Would the
regularly chosen delegate from the other
States have considered it right TO admit to
fellowship with themselves man who had
endeavored TO discredit the credentials OF
the regular New York delegates? What
sort Of credentials. let US ask just here,
would the committee of fifty furnish TO
their so-called delegates? Would not the
appearance of such boilers IN the Chicago
convention cut down the number of Mr..
CLEvELASp's supporters in that body?
We beg pardon of Mr.. CLEVELAND and
his honest supporters in Virginia for thus
using his name to illustrate our argument
against the unjustifable proceedings Of
the Cooper-Institute meeting. He did not
sign the call. He did not attend the meet
ing. He is not one Of the committee OF
fifty. He will not accept, if rendered 10 him,
the honor of being a boiling delegate 70
the Chicago convention. He is a bold
man, but not bold enough TO array himself
under the banner borne by FAiRcHILD and
OrrxNpoRFER Oh, no. The Cooper insti-
tute meeting was one OF those blunders
which are worse than crimes. Mr.. CLEyE-
LAND cannot endorse 1t; and yet his friends
in every State must bear Their share of the
odium Of it. The first question the Cooper
Institute delegates will have to answer at
Chicago will be whether they intend to
support the nominee of the Chicago con-
vention. II they answer in the affirmative
they will be told that their duty Is TO stand
by the regular Democratic delegation from
New York. If they answer in the negative
they will be turned away from the doors Of
the Chicago convention.