The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-06-06


and timid, and before he could execute
| his part valandigham and Mclean, OF
| Ohio, who hated Chase most cordially,
| rose and nominated Seymour. Seymour
tried to decline, but Tilden, who wanted
| to be United States Senator, overcame his
scruples, believing that Seymour would
carry New York by SO large majority
| that the legislature would be Democratic.
Had Seymour been a little quicker and
nominated Chase with the plausible, per-
suasive clog uence for which he was justly
| famous, Chase would have been pitted
against Grant, and would have made
strong run.
In 1872 Grant was unanimously renom-
mated at Philadelphia. Had the Democ-
racy that year supported Greeley with the
same energy and ardor they did Tilden in
1876, Hancock in 1880 or Cleveland in 1884,
Greeley would possibly have been the first
"Mugwump" president, but the South
was sullen, and the bourbon democracy
of New Jersey. Indiana and New York let
the election go by default-so cordially
did they hate Greeley, who for quarter
of a century had stabbed them with red
hot pen.
With the retirement of Grant in 1875 the
Republican party began to be torn by the
discussions of powerful party leaders. On
the first ballot at Cincinnati in 1876 Hayes
had but 81 votes, while Blaine had 2s5. On
the final ballot Blaine had 351, and lacked
but twenty-eight of the number necessary
for a choice, but the delegates for Morton,
Conkling, Hartranft and Bristow yielded
to the cry of anybody to beat Blaine"
1t required thirty-six ballots at Chicago
in 1880 to nominate Garfield. The conven-
ton was divided on the first ballot betwee
the names of Grant, Blaine, Sherman,
Edmunds, Washburne and Window. In
1854 at Chicago the fight was between
Arthur and Blaine; the names of Logan
and Sherman were withdrawn after the
third ballot, and on the fourth ballot
Blaine was nominated.
In 1888, with Blaine eliminated by his
own hand from the situation, the contest
was between Gresham, Allison, Harrison,
Depew, Alger and Sherman. Gresham's
personal purity, superior public talents
and fine military record might have made
him a strong candidate, but the presence
of Harrison as a candidate lost Gresham
the support he could otherwise have
counted upon from Indiana, and as
member of President Arthur's cabinet he
was not as acceptable to the Blaine fac
ton as Harrison. Depew had no chance
from the start, and yet he was not
bright enough to see that the
labor and agricultural vote Of
the West would be largely repealed from
the Republican party by the nomination
of a man who had been for years the brains
and head of one of the greatest and most
powerful railway corporations in the
world. The republican leaders of the
West finally had to bluntly tell Mr.. De-
pew that party seeking success could not
afford to ignore the deep-seated yet honest
prejudices of the people of the great West
against railway corporations that had
too often been tyrants or traitors to the
public interests in the past to be trusted
for the future. Mr.. Depew then withdrew
his name; he had kept the vote of New
York just long enough away from John
Sherman, to whom it naturally belonged,
to beat the great statesman of Ohio
and nominate Harrison. Mr.. Blaine,
through his friends, did his duty;
declining the nomination in advance for
himself his strength was largely thrown
| for Harrison and gave him the nomina-
ton, when otherwise John Sherman
J, Gn
no aid or comfort to Mr.. Depew, who was
| open to the general charge that he was
| the candidate of the corporations, the
| monopolies, the tiger trusts that rob
American industry of its rights and justly
incense the people. Mr.. Depew has doubt
less not forgotten his utter failure to pose
| at Chicago in 1883 as the assumptive
! political heir" to Mr.. Blaine's popular
| strength; he has not forgotten that Mr..
| Blaine's friends sat down on the little
Depew boom then, so he is disposed to op-
| pose the Blaine boom now.
| The history of the Republican conven.
| ton of 1883 furnishes abundant proof that
it was controlled by the friends of Mr..
| Blaine; that the friends of Mr.. Blaine
| threw their strength for Harrison at a
critical moment, when New York was
about to cast solid vote for John Sher-
man, with every prospect of his ultimate
| nomination.
The history of the convention of 1892 be-
| gins tomorrow morning; We trust that no
| counsels or action less magnanimous than
those OF Mr.. Blaine and his friends in 1ssS
| will influence its deliberations and finally
| settle its decision.
1
| NEBRASKA.