The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-06-17

distinct set of conventions still pecu-
liarly loyal to Bryan, but anti-Hearst-
In most of the country, however, the
old Bryan revolutionists have fallen IN
for Hearst, and at the convention IT is
assumed that the two kinds of dele
gates will stand together in any Inn
portant vote where unity of action
would give them strength. Assuming
that the uninstructed delegates who
have expressed no preference are still
undecided as to a choice. the roll on the
first ballot, rejecting the wishes of the
State Conventions. would appear some
thing like this:
states Preferences and Instructions ia
Delegates.
Alabama, Parker, but not Instructed;
unit rule ............. ~
Arkansas. Parker ................. L.
California. Hearst ..........:...:.:. ~
Colorado. Bryan; Kansas City plat
form. but anti-Hearst 10
Connecticut. Parker ............... IL
Delaware. Gray ....................
Florida, Hearst. 8; Parker. I; no -
unit rule .,-... ......'....'... "
Georgia, Parker .................. ~
Idaho, Hearst ....................
Illinois, hearst ~
Indiana, Parker ................... 81
Kansas. Hearst, s; conservatives, IA;
.uninstructed ..,.............. 20
Kentucky. Parker; without instruc-
lions ...:.. ~
Louisiana. Parker ............,.... Is
Maine, Parker IL
Maryland, German; awaiting his dt-
Massachusetts,. olney ............. 81
Michigan. uninstructed ....... q
Minnesota, probably uninstructed;
convention June % ....... 2:
Mississippi, Parker ........ go. 2(
Missouri, Cockrell. convention June
20 1855. ......!. .............. 81
ufp
Nebraska, Bryan ............ II
Nevada, Hearst ...... ...... 49,. {
New Hampshire, Parker -. 49,.
New Jersey, uninstructed .......... q
New York, Parker ....... ........ II
North Carolina, Parker; convention
June % ........ ....... $3.50. u
North Dakota, Hearst; convention
June I'll ........ ....... ......
Ohio. uninstructed: modified unit
rule ...... .'..ssss ..,....s.... Al
Oregon. uninstructed ...,.... -.
Pennsylvania, uninstructed 80. :. 81
Rode Island, Hearst $3.50. ......
South Carolina. Parker ..... go. II
South Dakota, Hearst 800. $3.50.
Tennessee, Parker ...... ......... 2.
Texas. Parker; convention June 81. 81
Utah, uninstructed ...... ........
Vermont, Parker 80. $500. .....
Virginia, uninstructed $500. s.,.. 2.
Washington, Hearst ...... $500. II
West Virginia. German; some
Hearst delegates ...... 49,. -. II
Wisconsin, Wall ...... ...... .... ~
Wyoming, Hearst ........ ........
District of Columbia, German ....
Hawaii, Hearst ........ ..........a
Arizona, Hearst ......... ........
New Mexico, Hearst ..............
Alaska, Hearst ........ .........
Oklahoma, Bryan ........
Indian Territory. Bryan ...s.. ....
1t is somewhat difficult to present
the Convention outlook in tabulai
form. because of the speculative ele'
ments which enter into the discussion
Certain States have been put in as fol
Parker, where 1t Is believed to be the
purpose of the delegates to vote fol
him although they are not under IN
struction tel do so. The "uninstruct
ed" designation really means uncom
mitted as well as uninstructed. In
structions have been given also In &
variety of forms ranging from mere
expressions OF opinion on the part OF
the Convention to the most binding
pledge. Georgia, for example, where
a Parker victory was recentlv scored
told it's delegates to cast their votes
for Alton B. Parker 80 long as in the
opinion of the majority II the dele
gates there is a reasonable probability
delegates are instructed to present
the name of Hon. George Gray as the
choice of the Democracy fol
the nomination for President, and sale
delegates are hereby instructed to sup.
port the presentation OF his name fol
said nomination"
The unit rule has played mucf
larger part than usual in the prepare
tions for the st. Louis Convention
Each side has used 1t arbitrarily Il
pie are evidently disposed 20 resist the
application of the rule in States like
Ohio and Massachusetts,, where dlstric
conventions which declared for Hears
are overridden thereby. But this pro
test will be wholly unavailing. Som,
of Mr.. Hearst's delegations, notably
those of Iowa, New Mexico and Cali
fornia have been held by very mar
row maiorities. which were quite a!
arbitrary in the exercise of their pow
err as were the Parker conventions il
Indiana and Connecticut. 1t is no
thing by the unit rule tradition of thu
Democratic party. Just as many dele
gates would have escaped from him ii
the States which he now controls alb
solutely, as would have been gained
by him where he was minority can
didate.
Summary of the Table.
The above table with it's inevitabI,
imperfections. shows that Parker will
have on the first roll-call not fewe
than AIS votes, not counting any o
the delegations now uninstructed anC
still unoommittcd, which may swing
into line for him. Hearst will hav'
not far from 200 votes. Bryan will
dire city control perhaps 40. German
in Maryland, West Virginia and TIN
District of Columbia. may be set down
for Sc. The uninstructed and yet un
committed group, including Pennsyl
vania, New Jersey. Ohio and Michigan
have on their rolls about 200 delegate
present and prospective. There ar
four "favorite sons" likely to be pre-
sented-Cockrell Olney. Wall and era!
representing States which have l0l
delegates. This makes the 994 dele
gates who will compose the convention
Parker will thus lack but so votes o.
a majority, and PAS of the necessar!
two thirds for a nomination. He viii
have two great resources from which
to draw in attempting to make up this
dehciency--the uncommitted group anc
the favorite sons delegates. In three
of the four States which will presen
faVorite sons this course was quite "a
much a move to check Hearst as to ad
vance the candidacy of the favoritC
sons. No one has for a moment sus'
pected that Cockrell or Wall would be
nominated. Olney and Gray woult
make excellent Presidential candidates
many people think better men thar
Parker. but that their candidacy has
from the start appeared in the ''alsC
ran" class Is evidenced by the success
sive interviews of Mr.. Grover CleVc-
L.. =