The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-01-19

and am a poor prophet if it isn't
improved to the limit.
'"The chief objection to senators
going as delegates in large numbers
to our NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. is, that it
is a complete. departure from the idea
of the fathers,Dsand carries the seed
of danger to OUR institutions. The
more practical sand immediate objec-
ton lies. in the fact that the senators,
in a gathering Of this character, who'll
~ oIvershad4o.NL the other delegates,
and, oof neceaai tyi,,become the whole
convention: 3Eesc ;9a use,, Of Of this fact J
favori sending our senators to Chica-
theiegrave dangers. that Turk in the
system itself. Tram loyal to- my state,
and I want to see it in the Chicago
convention exert maximum degree
Of influence. This it can only do thru
the presence Of our senators as dele
gates. BY keeping the Minnesota sem
ators at home, I'VE, mustn't think that
ton in Chicago from being run ex-
actly as the .Phila delphia convention
was run.
History of Senatorial Participation.
Turning to the reports Of the ma
tional republican conventions, as COM
piled by Colonel c.. w. Johnson of
Minneapolis, for a long time secretary
of the senate, I find that during the
early years of that party, and, in fact,
were not greatly in evidence in the
quadrennial party gathering. The
first convention, in 1856, was not
graced by the presence of senatorial
delegates, the party at that time hav-
ing no representative in the upper
house. In 1850 one senator, j. F.
Simmons of Rhode Island, sat as a
fo tn,
N. A. Farwell and L. N. Morrill, of
Maine, Solomon Foot of Vermont and
j. H., Lane of the new state of Kan
sas; in 1868 there was but one-H.
w. Corbett of Oregon; in 1872 there
were no senatorial delegates; in 1876
there were two--J. B. Chaffee of Colo
RADIO, the centennial state, and J. P.
Jones Of Nevada; and in 1880 there
were four, duplicating the record of
1864-John A. Logan of Illinois, F.
Is. Plumb Of Kansas, George Frisble
Hoar of Massachusetts and Roscoe
| Conkling Of New York.
'The period between 1884 and 1896,
both inclusive, showed an increase in
senatorial representation, altho not
| criticism. In the former year there
were seven republican senatorial
delegates, s.. M. Cullom of Illinois,
Benjamin Harrison Of Indiana, p. b.
Plumb Of Kansas, George f. Hoar Of
Massachusetts, D. M. Sabin of Min
nesota, w. J. Sewell of New Jersey,
and J. N. Do1pl Of Oregon. In 1888
there We're eight, G. B: Farwell of
Illinois, j. r. Wilson of Iowa, George
F. Hoar Of Massachusetts, w. M.
| Stewart and J. p. Jones Of Nevada,
Frank Hiscock Of New York, M. S.
Quay of Pennsylvania, and j. G.
Spooner Of Wisconsin. In 1892 there
I were seven, c. NJ. FELTON, Of California,
| H. M. Teller and E. O. Wolcott OF
/ Colorado. Anthony Higgins of Della
ware, f. T. Dubois of Idaho, S.ssM.
/ Cullom of Illinois and Frank sHiscock
| of New York. 4 ..i
1 "The increase from seven or eight
to eleven in. the convention of 1896
would not considered alone, have
i justified comment, but, when taken in
connection with the republican con-
! vention of four years later, 1900, in
Philadelphia, which was wholly in the
hands of senators, twenty-five OF
them, out of a total republican mem
/ bership in the senate of fifty-one, be-
ing delegates, it suggests the inquiry
as to where senators propose. to STOP
in their manifest plan to contro
/ nominating conventions. The clever
senator's who sat as delegates in the
republican national convention il
/ 1895 We're: III. NJ Teller of Col
orado. H. A. Dupont of Delaware, F
4 T. Dubois of Idaho, j. H. Gear OF
4 Iowa, H. C.sLodge of Massachusetts
i Lee Mantle and T. H. Carter of Mon.
tana, WI: SeweH of New Jersey, r
j. Canno1ls and Arthur Brown Of Utah
and Redfield Proctor of Vermont E
Teller, and Mantle. it vii
g be recalled, led the bolt from ths
J. convention in 1896, and became thu
nucleus of the silver republican part.
J, of that year.
almost one-Ilaf of the republican
members of the senate attended tn,
), 900 convention as delegates The lis