The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-03-21
FAvORiTE SONS.
A Feature OF National Conventions Espe'
ciaIly In Favor Among Republicans

n feature OF NdttOuti @%'PS
cially In Favor Among Republicans
From the New York Sun.
Candidates nominated at national
conventions by the delegates of their
fellow citizens, without any expecta-
ton that the convention will regard
their claim favorably, have come to
be known among politicians or both
parties as favorite sons But ii is
fact that favorite sons are much more
common among republicans and
at republican conventions than among
democrats, who, in the larger states
at least, are seldom united in favor
of any candidate who has the senti-
ment of local pride as his chief re-
commentator. In the national re-
publican conventions of 1864, 1868, and
1872. there were no favorite sons, for
the nomination in each convention was
unanimous.
In 1876. among the minor candidates
were John F. Hartranft. the favorite
son of Pennsylvania, who received its
support for six ballots, and Marshall
Jewell of Connecticut, who received
the support of his state for one bal
lot. In the 1880 convention there were
three favorite sons, neither of whom
cut any serious figures in the ballot
ing, after a complimentary vote had
been cast. They were VIM. Window OF
d, w
and George F. Edmunds of Vermont.
In the 1884 convention Joseph r. Haw-
ley of Connecticut was the only fav-
rite son, and in 1883 there were Allison
of Iowa, Depew of New York, Rusk
of Wisconsin, ingalls, of Kansas, Ed
win Filter of Pennsylvania, then May
or of Philadelphia, and William Wal
ter Phelps of New Jersey. After the
third ballot (there were eight ballots
L., oIN only of
these heard of. In the republican
national convention of 1892 there were
no favorite sons.
Favorite sons in Democratic national
! conventions have not been very faVora-
bly, regarded since 1868, when nearly
each state had its own favorite: Pen
dleton of Ohio, English of Connecticut,
! Packer of Pennsylvania. Parker of New
! Jersey, Doolittle of Wisconsin, Adams
of Massachusetts, and Stephen j. Field
/ of California. In 1876 the Ohio demo-
Gratis tenaciously supported William Al
/ len, former governor of that state, and
! the Missouri democrats James o.
| Broadhead of st. Louis, afterward
| United States minister to Switzerland.
| In 1880 the Illinois democrats voted for
William r. Morrison, but the other
| states were badly divided in their pre-
| ferences, Pennsylvania having two can
| didates, Samuel j. Randall and VIM
field S. Hancock, and Ohio three candi-
/ dates. Henry p. Payne, Allen @. Thur
man and Thomas Ewing. The failure
| of the Ohio delegates to unite on any
of the three probably led TO the loss oil
| the nomination by the Buckeye men
| at least such was the judgment OF
many impartial democratic observers
of that conventions proceedings. In
! 1884 the democrats of Kentucky gave
complimentary support to John q. Car
Isle of Kentucky, while the votes OF
Indiana were recorded in favor of Jo-
| seph Il. Mcdonald of Indiana and those
| of Ohio for Allen G.. Thurman OF that
state. In the last democratic conven-
ton. that Of 1892, Horace Boies mad the
solid support as a favorite son OF the
democrats of Iowa, while John @. Car
Isle was favored by large traction oil
| the Kentucky delegation.
The support of favorite sons has beer
! generally popular among politicians
| for. besides enabling the delegates OF
state to pay a desirable compliment &c
a fellow citizen, II permits the leaders
| TO hold a delegation intact after the
| complimentary votes have been cast OF
the first or preliminary ballots, ana t'
act without disclosing at first their rea
preferences. There are plenty OF favor
| tie sons this year.