New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-07-30

written by Judge Pafker before the 81 i-oulS
convention. in reply to personal communica-
| ton from Mr. Creelman, lin behalf of the Ed
! itor OF The World:
Albany. June H. 1904
You max be right in thinking that express
sion OF my views is necessary to secure the
nomination. II SO. let the nomination go.
/ took the position that / have maintained
| first because 1 deemed 1t TO be my duty TO Inc
court; second. because | do not think the NOM
nation for such an office should be sought. l
still believe that l right, and therefore ex-
pect TO remain steadfast. Very truly yours.
ALTON 3. PARKER.
Judge Parker thus politely conceded that Mr..
Creelman might be right in thinking an express
sion of his views, such as The World was
daily urging him TO make, was essential 10
secure his nomination, but there Is no indlca-
ton in his letter that he shared that opinion
At all events, he declined the request out OF a
sense Of duty TO the Court of Appeals and be-
cause he did not think the Presidential nomina-
ton ought to be sought. 1t appears TO us that
the publication of this letter like the sending
of the telegram to the convention after Judge
Parker had been securely nominated Is be-
lated But undoubtedly the letter was connden-
tial and so Mr.. Creelman is 10 be praised Tor
resisting the temptation TO print it as soon as
il received.
The views" of which an expression by Judge
Parker was considered by Mr.. Creelman TO be
ably his financial views. But if his financial
views were the same on June IL that they were
on the day after he nominated. IL is now
perfectly plain that IN expression of them on
the former date would have been fatal 10 his
nomination The judgment Of the prospective
candidate was far superior to that of the anx-
ious Journalist, and when he wrote that If MT
Creelman was right he was ready 10 let the
nomination 60" he really ran no risk whatsO
aIx ,ai,acr Thas IDdu
Parkers views on the financial question have
not changed since June II, his only safe course
was silence All the talking that was neces-
sary was being done by others. So long as Hill,
before the convention, and Hill, Littleton and
Sheehan, during the convention. were at liberty
to point to Judge Parkers explicitly avOwed
votes for Bryan and 10 declare that his policy
will be that policy which finds expression in
the platform of his party. the last thing his
managers wanted was 10 have him speak.
But there came time when Judge Parkers
sense of duty TO the court was overborne by
another consideration The nomination had
been bestowed upon him. but he was instantly
and eagerly assisted TO perceive that II was
worse than worthless. To make it in any de-
gree valuable he must break his long silence.
and the next day he broke it with his gold
standard telegram TO q convention which had
passed beyond the possibility of choosing with
its eyes open a substitute for the candidate
whom IT had chosen under a delusion.
Two facts are established beyond the posi-
blity OF dispute: First, that Judge Parker in.
CURED no hazard of losing what he wanted
when he maintained silence until after he had
been nominated; second. that he then took the
only chance of making what he had wanted
worth keeping. A third fact is strongly sup
ported by competent testimony namely that in
the general estimation of the American people
MI Bryan was right when he said that if ii
was manly thing for Judge Parker TO express
MS opinion before the convention adjourned lit
would have been manler thing 10 express
IL oeIore the convention met We do not
MINK that June IL. the date of his letter to Mr.
Creeman. would have been too ear,v -or s,,ob
an expression