The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-01-06
RUFFIN, MCKINLEY, GARFIELD AND
RUSSELL--TWO CONTRASTS.


Not many weeks ago the news was
sent out from Washington that ex-Gov
ernor Russell had arrived at the ma
tional capital as the attorney of Miss
Darby. There was a fight on Miss
Darby and she selected Russell as her
best friend and paid his way to Wash
ington to look after her interests. He
friend, as her agent and as her attor
new. He FUSED about" Washington
some days, and then the reporters be-
gan to send out stories intimating that
Miss Darby's chances were slim, and
then it was limited that Mrs. Russell,
wife of Miss Darby's attorney and
friend, would probably be named as
compromise candidate for the place.
And little later Mr. Rollins, the pa
tronage dispenser, visited Washington
and officially gave it out that Mrs.
Russell would be appointed. Unless
there is hitch, she will soon get the
job.
The contrast between Governor Rus
sells action and that of an eminent
North Carolinian and the late presi-
dent of the United States is striking.
In the Congressional convention
held in Raleigh in 1884, the contest
was long one. After many ballots
had been taken, it looked like Meth
er of the leading candidates could be
nominated At that juncture there
was a movement to spring the name
of ex-Judge Thomas Ruffin and make
him the nominee. When it was sprung
on the convention, Judge Ruffin put an
end to the plan at once, saying sub
stantially: 81 thank the gentlemen for
their offer of support l came to this
convention as supporter of John w.
Graham. AS an honorable man, |
could not accept the nomination if it
were rendered to me unanimously. l
forbid the use of my name" 1t was
brief, pointed, plain, conclusive. The
effect w& electrical. Everybody ap-
plauded the noble utterance and re-
GREETED that his sense of honor for
babe his acceptance of the nomination.
In the national Republican conven-
ton of 1880 Mr.. Garfield was there
as a supporter of Mr.. Sherman, but,
from the first falling of the gavel, it
was evident that he was receptive
candidate himself, and helped to bring
about the conditions that resulted in
his own nomination. Let the contrast
between Garfield and Mckinley be
drawn. At the Republican National
Convention of 1888, as the ballotting
progressed an effort was made to nom
mate Mckinley, movement which he
quelled by declining in these words:
Il cannot with honorable fidelity to
John Sherman, who has trusted me in
this cause and with his cause; l can
not consistently with my own views
of integrity consent, or seem to con-
sent, to permit my name to be used
as candidate before the convention
l do not request, l demand that no
delegate who would not cast reflection
upon me shall cast ballot for me-"
Another biographer gives the fol-
lowing:
"A delegate at large to the Republi-
can convention in 1888, Mr. Mckinley,
was chairman of the committee on res
olutions. He supported the candidacy
of John Sherman. There was strong
effort to have him consent to use his
name, but he positively declined and
stuck to Sherman At the National
Convention in Minneapolis, June z,
1892, he was again delegate at large
from Ohio, and was elected permanent
chairman He received 1872 votes for
the nomination, but positively refused
to consider the action of his friends,
left the chair and moved that the nom.