The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1892-05-18
II. Y. Tlrnoa.l

very large majority and receive its thirty
six electoral votes. Persons in any degree
familiar with the political feeling of party
men and independents readily concede
this to be the case. Even among the sup
porters of Senator Hill, those who feel any
sense of responsibility for their utterances,
have ceased to deny it. The currents of
public sentiment run that way in a vol
ume that has been visibly swelling of late.
Recent steps in political organization give
abundant proof that the name of Mr..
Cleveland is potent to awaken the masses
OF the New York democracy. Among the
people of New York who can watch these
currents and see these growing proofs
from day to day, doubt, where it existed,
has given place TO an assured conviction.
There is no longer any question about it
here.
But in states remote from New York
there is here and there some apprehen-
sion lest the apparent party division and
personal resentments in this state shall
imperil the success OF the democracy
with DIR. Cleveland as its candidate.
Some part of this doubt, we are convinced,
is the honest birth of political prudence
and forethought; mucn OF it has been art
fully created by the alarmist talk Of the
partisans of other candidates. But alike
with those who prefer Mr.. Cleveland but
are afraid of New York and with those
who prefer different candidate and seek
a pretext, doubt takes its rise from the
disaster of 1888. Ii Mr.. Cleveland lost
New York and with it the presidency in
1888, how can he expect to carry New
York and win the presidency in 1892? is
the question of some anxiou5i democrats
OF the West and the South. That question
calls for an answer. We will answer It.
The democratic party may expect Mr..
Cleveland TO carry New York in 1892,
though losing il in 1888, because there is
no governor to be elected this year, no
state canvass to be made, no local issues
to be fought over. State conditions that
would have defeated Thomas Jefferson,
had he been the democratic candidate in
1888, are completely altered in 1892. A
brief review of Warner Miller's canvass
against Governor Hill will show that
fact.
The state platform of the New York
republicans in 1888 declared for high
license and the restriction OF the LIQUOR
traffic. Warner Miller, their candidate
for governor, was a pretty good pf0hibi-
ZIONIST all through the campaign.
But IL Mr.. Miller succeeded in winning
votes from the ranks of temperance, he
and his party's platform were rank poison
to the LIQUOR dealers, who, with the large
vote they control, went boldly over to the
support of Governor Hill. Nor were they
content with this. They took votes for
Harrison over into the camp Of the Tepub-
lcans and exchanged them for Hill votes.
For Mr.. Hill personally they may have
felt no very warm affection. For Mr.. Har-
rison they Certainly cared nothing at all.
But for the privilege of selling liquor under
liberal laws they cared q great deal, and
the presidency was of small account
weighed in the scale against this dominat-
ing self-interest. They literally traded a
presidency for a governship, cooperating
effectively in that commerce with other
interests then practically identified with
their own.
The attitude of the liquor interest in
that contest was perfectly well known in
New York. For the benefit of readers
outside the state it will be worth while to
quote the liquor plank of the platform
adopted by the republican state conven-
ton in 1888:
The republican party unequivocally con.
dennis the course Of Governor Hill in obstruct-
ing by his vetoes acts for increasing the fees
for licenses by which larger share Of the cost
of government might be levied on the liquor
traffic, and we approve the efforts of the re-
pubIicans in the last legislature upon the liquor
question, and especially in passing the act
nullified by such executive action to restrict
that traffic by changes which would lift some
of the burdens OF taxation caused BY the
liquor traffic from the homes and farms, and
l. H.. I-I- 49, h. I'D I'D 40
standards similar to those successfully en-
forced in other states under republican con-
troll.
Mr.. Kraus, one of John ]. O'Brien's dele
gates from this city, vainly tried to get the
convention to substitute for this the brief
declaration that it favored "a fair and
equitable excise law" He was squelched
by the chairman, and the convention ad-
joprned while ne was on his feet. 1t was
this evident disposition to cater to the pro-
hibitionists that made the liquor dealers
resolve to defeat the republican candidate
for governor at any cost 70 the democratic
candidate for president. And the words
and the conduct Of the republican candi-
date himself strengthened them in that
resolve. In the course of the campaign
Mr.. Warner Miller uttered this sentiment
The saloon evil is monstrous evil, and
mean that its power shall be broken. This il
the meaning of my campaign. This is my OBJ
ject. / would rather be defeated than let 20
that object
But If we may believe Mr.. Miller's as
sertions after the election, he co-operated
indirectly but powerfully with that part
of the electorate that strove to give the
state a democratic governor even at the
cost of defeating Grover Cleveland. In
the New York Tribune of Nov. IA, 1883, q
few days after the election, Mr.. Warner
Miller is reported as saying:
| When accepted the nomination my chances
| OF being elected were exceedingly slight
| did not expect then frat could win. Ny wife
| did not want me to lake it. / told her, how
ever, that believed IL was possible 70 keep
! down the prohibition vete, and thereby sAv G
the state for Gen. Harrison. 1 started
IN with that object in view. Il wal
accomplished. Last year the prohibition
vote in this state was 10000 an in
crease over $4,000 above 81. Johns vote...in
1884. They started in TO gel million yoteI
this year, and in all probability would have
pollsd upward of $1,000 had NO temperanc'
issue been made. Thst or much less than tina
would have given Cleveland the state. Blu
polling, a. they did. less than $1,000 votes gave
US the state.
Thus Mr.. Cleveland in 1883 was ham
! pered by conditions In no wise personal Il
| himself, and fell a victim to local contiict
and selfish interests that would have de
feated any candidate. Moreover, the trad
J ing in votes that worked against him al
over the state was carried on with thu
greatest animation in the three-cornereC
| fioht for MAYOR in this CITY, The com