Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1892-06-04
FROM WASHINGTON.
iNO-f1 W .ts5tI =" v 4
Correspondence of the Alexandria Gazette

Father Cronin, of the Buffalo Catho-
Tic Union, called upon Secretary Blame
last night ut the latter's invitation. Be
ing asked by the Secretary he thought
his letter to Father Doucey had lessen
cd his popularity among the Catholics;
Father Cronin assured him that 1t had
not. When the interview was over
Father Cronin said Mr., Blaine would
moi only accept the Presidential noml-
nation. bat confidently expected 1t
would bc offered to him. i
A prominent republican Senator, OF
liberal views. and ore who voted against
The consideration Of the infamous
Force bill, in reply to an inquiry as to
thc probable outcome of the NIinneap-
oils convention, to-day said Il don't
know who will be nominated, harrison
probably, Blaine possibly, or some
western man in the event of neither OF
these gentlemen being selected Harri-
son is weak politically, Blaine is re-
ported TO be weak physically, and am
not prepared to say either of them Is
strong enough to be elected unless you
democrats commit one of the hlunders,
for which you are famous, by nominal,
inc some one at Chicago whose record
or whose probable policy in the admin
istrution OF affairs would be more ohJec,
tionahlc to the masses than is the record
of the gentlemen whose names | have
mentioned. do not hesitate TO say
that both political parties, or rather
the apparent managers OF the two pr!n-
cipal political parties, are radically
wrong in snpposing and undertaking TO
educate the people UP TO the idea that
either Harrison or Blaine on the re-
publican side, or Cleveland or Hill Oh
the democratic side arc the true expo
nents of the political principles of their
respective organizations, nor are
they the strongest candidates before
the people which either or both parties
might nominate | am republican
because believe in the principles OF
that party. You are democrat be-
cause YOU believe the principles of your
party are most conducive to the best
interests of the country. So VIC dliler.
vet have no doubt you are as sincere
in your views as / profess to be in the
advocacy Of mine. ! am not radical.
| did not approve of and voted (practi-
callv) against the so-callcd Force bill. |
believe this is a white mans govern
ment and should so continue to be. !
do not approve of protective tariff
measures simply for protection yet l
favor the fostering of home industries.
favor and earnestly desire the free
coinage of silver, because such meas
ure will bring to our people of all sec
tons incalculablc benefits but where
do the prominent gentlemen whose
names l have mentioned, stand on
these questions ? Harrison is for pro-
lection. per SC, said to be in favor ofthc
Force bill, and reported to be opposed
to free coinage; Blaine is an unknown
laniit Z, he combines 4 system OF recl-
procity with protection | don't believe
he would favor Force bill, at least not
such an one as was submitted to the
last Congress, and no one is authorized
to say where he stands as to silver.
Now MI Cleveland's views on tariff
are well defined and meet with consid-
cradle opposition his own party. l
naturally presume he would oppose any
force measure and as to silver coinage
he is Of record as being under the in
auence of what is plausibly termed
the gold bugs" Mr. Hill is for low
tariff, ne is an anti-force man, is non
committal on silver coinage, an astUte
politician. admit, but lis craftsmanship
has vet to be tested Why don't your
party and why can't my party throw
aside these seeming necessary factors
and present new men, who are IN ac-
cord with the people, and fight our bat
ties upon broader field than these
politicians recognize?" The questioner
said that while these views were upon
the whole, logical, yet, he had the to-
mcrity to ask if the Senator would not
support the nominee of the Minneapo-
lis convention under any and all cir
cumstances ? TO which question the reply
was, 'tell me whom you will nominate
at Chicago and then will answer"
Senators Chandler and Hill, of the
Senate committee on immigration, to-
day examined Mr.. John |. Davenport,
chief supervisor Of elections, OF New
York, relative to the evils Of the pre-
sent administration of the naturaliza-
ton laws in New York as set out in the
petition presented to the Senate
recently by Senator Hiscock. Be-
fore Mr.. Davenport made his state
ment he was closely criticized
by Senator Hill as to the petition
itself. He developed the fact that the
petition which was signed irrespective
of party" bore the signatures of five
democrats and nineteen republicans,
nearly all of the latter being members
of the union league club. Mr.. Daven-
port read prepared statement in which
he said he appeared, not as republican
but in his official capacity. He pre-
cecded to give a history of the admin
istration of the naturalization laws i'll
New York When he referred to Judge
Barnard's impeachment Senator Hill
declared that that impeachment had no
connection with naturalization. Mr..
Davenport was about to explain that
naturalization frauds formed no part of
the charges because he OavenporDwho
was present as witness, was not per-
mitted to testify when Senator Hill as
serted that he Senator HilD had been
one of the impeachment managers and
questioned Mr.. Davenport's knowledge
of the facts of the case. After COLO
guy between himself and Mr.. Daven-
port the latter proceeded with his state
ment. He said that in the month of
October, 1866, two New York courts
had granted 10000 certificates of citi-
zenship but Senator Hill compelled him