Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-04-05

| er which Is taken to the wen cohstan.iS
| gets broken at last. and the poiitica
| precedent which has been accepted "
| all Difference for many years doesn''
amount to much after 1t has been once
| broken
n is one OF The unwritten laws Cor
was until 1ss2) that a favored presidential
! candidate, who 10 the leading aspirah'
| for the nomination, inspires a combination
against him by all the other candidates,
| and such combination brings about ms
| defeat 1t was IN this way that judge
| Mclean was defeated in the first hepup-
| lican convention, that of 1856; Governor
| Seward, the favorite OF New York state
Republicans In 1850; Mr.. Blaine, the Ia
vored choice Of the Republican conven-
ton on the first ballot In the convention
OF 1876; General Grant In 1880. and Sena-
tor Sherman In 1858. In 1864, 1858, ano
1872, there was no contest for nominal
ton in the Republican convention, the
nomination in each case being made by
reclamation. But this rule OF successful
combination against a favorite. wnicn
regulated the choice OF every contested
Republican convention since the founda-
ton Of that party, was smashed beyond
the possibility OF restoration in the Min
neapolis convention of 1855. when Gene
raj Harrison, the leading Republican can
didate for the presidential nomination.
carried II off against the field made up
of the ablest and most astute Republican
leaders and the solid sentiment of nearly
|. all of the important determining States,
particularly New York, Pennsylvania, and
Ohio.
Prior TO 1892 1t was an unwritten law
in the annals Of both political parties.
and, in fact, OF all political parties which
have been prominent In American poll
tics, that candidate who did not re-
ceiye the support Of his own State could
not be nominated for the presidency,
and In Democratic conventions, especial
ly, this rule has been Insisted upon most
vigorously. But the national convention
of 1892. in Chicago. completely disregard
ed this rule, and put In nomination MI.
Cleveland, against the unanimous objec-
ton of the seventy-two delegates from
his own State-an unparalleled perform
ance. Never before in a national con-
yention Of either party was a candidate
who was not even put in nomination for
the consideration OF the convention by
a representative OF his own State accept
ed as an eligible or possible candidate
by the delegates from other States.
IL has been for many years an unwrit-
ten law Oh the IttPuDuSeH ldAtys VI Woo'
until 1892, that, where the candidate was
chosen in the West, success attended
the Republicans; whereas, IL they came
East for a nominee, they were defeated.
The chief leadership of the Republican
party has at all times been recruited
from the Eastern States, and eastern
candidates have uniformly been those
favored by the larger number OF Repub-
lIcans. But, In 1856, when New York
furnished the candidate. and in. 1884,
when Maine did. the Republicans were
defeated; whereas, their nominees from
Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio were uni
formly successful or, at least, success
full enough to be inaugurated. After an
broken record of victories with western
candidates, the Republicans, In 1892,
nominated Mr.. Harrison for the second
time, and against all precedents and
teachings were not only defeated, but
lost Indiana, the Presidents home-State.
II was one OF the paradoxes of that re-
cord-breaking election that Indiana,
which, In the Minneapolis convention.
voted unanimously for the nomination
of Mr.. Harrison, cast its electoral votes
I'm November for his opponent; whereas.
New York, which voted unanimously
against Mr.. Cleveland In the Chicago con-
vention. gave its electoral votes for him
by substantial majority In November.
It was, prior to 1892, an unwritten law
In American politics that the nomina-
ton for the yice-presldency on the Demo-
cratic ticket given to a doubtful State
strengthened the presidential ticket there:
and Missouri, which gave a majority Of
2l.Oo0 for the Republicans In the preced-
ing national election, swung to the Demo-
cratic column by 10000 in 1872, with Gov
ernor Brown on 1t for yice-President.
In 1876 and again in 1854, the nominal
ton OF Thomas A. Hendricks brought to
the Democratic column the vote OF In
diana, which. In the latter year. was
essential to Democratic success. In 1892.
however the Democratic National Con-
vention at Chicago, disregarding all
previous presidents. chose vice-presi-
Dental candidate from the State OF ILL
nols. Illinois had been uniformly until
then Republican State, and Mr.. Steven
sons nomination was not defended on
any strategic ground or supported with
any notion that it would assure to the
Democratic electoral ticket the vote Of
this strong Republican Commonwealth
Nearly all the doubtful States in the con-
vention voted against the choice OF Mr..
tevenson-Connecticut (soldidly). Indi-
ana (solidly), Michigan (solidly), New
Jersey, Oregon. and Maryland. Mr..
Stevenson was nominated against all ex-
pectation and all previous computations.
and Illinois, for the first time. went DEM
ocratic. and its electoral votes were re-
corded In favor OF an Illinois Democrat
for Vice-Presldent.
Prior 10 1892, the polling Of large
vote by an outside political party had
al l.. H., IL
representation In the House OF Repre-
sentatives OF that political party, the
President and congressman being voted
for on the same day, and In 1892 in many
States on the same ticket. A very large
vote for an outside candidate was cast
In 1892 the largest vote polled by such
third party" candidate In many years
100000 votes for General Weaver, the
Populist nominee. But, OF $50 represent
tatlves chosen to the F1fty-third Con-
gress, twelve only belonged to or affiliated
with or had the fun support Of the Popu-
list party.
These changes In political rule and Gus
tom which marked the election Of 1892
are matters or record, undlsputed; but
the reasons which account for such
changes are matters OF opinion solely, and
In such matters, perhaps, the
opinion OF one intelligent man is as
good as another. The most satisfactory
and probably correct explanation Of these
changes In 1892 IL as follows: Thirty
States participated in the presidential
election OF 1873; 81 in 1852 and 1856; 80 In
1850; So In 1854; 81 in 1868 and 1872; 50 in
1876, 1880 1884, and 1888. But In 1882 the
total had risen to A. and with the in
crease in the number of States, the sepa-
rate influence OF each had declined.
Moreover. the great conservative force in
public and political life of the United
States Is New England, the six States