New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-07-20
A BUNC0ED CONVENTION.
The Part Judge Parker Played at
St. Louis.
70 the Editor Of The Tribune.

leas. IN the editorial rooms Of The Times
The Evening Post" and one two other news
pagers.
The 8aa{a59s .T 0ssf ro from ON 6 HiPlins
Il may lie worth while restate briefly just
what happened at St. Louis and just what part
Judge Parker played in those happenings.
Many months ago a systematic attempt was
set on foot 70 harmonic" the warning factions
OF the Democratic party on the occasion OF their
national convention OF 1904. with Judge Parker
as the ''harmonizer' and Mr.. Bryan relegated
10 the rear. II order that harmony might
be achieved il vas essential that the prelmi-
nary canvass for the control Of the convention
and for the nomination should be based upon
silence and evasion TO any and all Of the
important matters which had rent the Demo-
cratic party in twain since 1898 The news
papers duly reported that Judge Parker
party 10 this 'harmOnizing' policy and that he
was present at several conferences-notably at
one held on April l., 19O4-where plans Of pro-
oedure considered and agreed upon No
reasonabl person can doubt that Judge Parker
was fully aware OF the plans. both in general
and in detail, formulated by Mr.. Belmont
MT Hin. M. Sheehan and Mr. McCarren that
lie approved Of them and that he hoped to
benefit by them. The platform adopted by the
New-York Democracy was hailed by those per
sons and newspapers committed to Judge Par
ker's fortunes as an admirable expression OF the
essence Of the Democratic faith. represent
irg the views Of Judge Parker himself. and as
presaging victory at the polls in November.
Events during the last few weeks show con-
clusively that had the Neyy-York State Denoc- /
racy declared for the gold standard IN ever so +
half hearted a way, the plans OF the Parker /
syndicate would have miscarried and Judge
Parker himself would have failed OF nomination 1
az ST Louis
In other words. the nomination of Judge /
Parker at St Louis was possible only because (
he successfully avoided stating his personal /
views on any disputed political question. Had I
he stated those views he could not have been 1
nominated. The convention. therefore, was /
tricked by Judge Parkers managers. with Judge
Parkers own concurrence, into nominating him /
The order Of events at ST. Louis was this:
On July . the members Of the Parker syndi- |
cate arrived in the city and straightway an
nounced with much emphasis and unaniTnity /
that Judge Parker's nomination upon the first /
ballot, or at latest upon the second ballot, was /
certain. Having in this way created a cover OF /
dust and noise behind which 10 work the mem
bers Of the syndicate set about securing the /
votes necessary 20 insure Judge Parker's nom |
ination. One reason why they dragged the pro- Z
ceedings Of the convention along YEARLY |
was that it took some time 10 get the necessary
under instruction for their candidate, and no
more L required 667 votes 10 nominate him. !
In ways that be as well imagined de- /
scribed. the Parker syndicate secured the sup /
port OF Colonel Gurey, OF Pennsylvania, and hts |
g. delegates. and the support also Of Maryland /
and West Virginia, whose delegates were under /
the control Of Mr.. German Aided by these i'm /
portant accessions the Parker syndicate were
able on Thursday, july :. count about 420 /
votes for their candidate.
II was in order 10 get the 24T additional votes
which must be- had that Mr.. Hill and MI Will |
Jams entered into the bargain with Mr. Bryan /
70 omit from the platform all reference 10 the !
money question, provided Mr.. Bryan would /
cease urging his planks dealing with the income /
tax and with the national banking system. |
Whether or not Mr.. Hin told Mr.. Bryan the /
truth when at a heated session Of the commit /
tee on resolutions. he stated In a reply 10 ques-
lion from Mr.. Bryan. that he did not know what /
Judge Parker's views the money question /
were, may be left 70 the casuist to decide That |
however, he distinctly implied that whatever /
views on the money question Judge Parker held /
would be subordinated 10 the declarations OF the
convention is certain. Mr.. Littleton in his nom
mating speech, made after the platform had /
been adopted expressly urged this same point /
as one Of Judge Parkers great qualifications for
President. Mr. Littleton denied with much IN |
leader Of his party and asserted that he was |
content TO be its servant. Referring to Judge |
Parker's long silence. Mr.. LittIeton went further
and definitely stated that no one need be in |
doubt as 10 Judge Parker's views because they
would OF necessity be the views Of the conven- |
ton
The crux Of the matter, then IS here: Had |
Judge Parker's telegram to Mr.. Sheehan been |
sent forty-eight hours earlier he could under no
circumstances have been nominated. In this |
view every important delegate to the St Louis |
convention with whom I have conferred concurs |
What changed Judge Parker's attitude? Be
yond any question 1t the scathing editorial
IN The New-York World" OF Saturday. July O.
Even so far away as St. Louis. where that edi-
torial transferred bodily 10 the front page
OF early edition OF The Post-Despatch' II !
made distinct sensation. Imagine its effect up
on the candidate Of evasion and silence who had
reached his goal only be told by those who
could play influential part in electing
defeating him that he doomed TO over
whelming disaster. Then Judge Parker sent
his extraordinary telegram. Having been a
party 10 deceiving his fellow partisans in
national convention assembled he made a
desperate endeavor 70 save something for him
self Of the wreck. His party head
ing straight for defeat. but perhaps he could
save his reputation -.here at home. where it
meant most TO him. That his telegram required
some nerve and some sagacity is indisputa BILE;
TO burn incense before IL as an epoch making
act of moral heroism is TO provoke Homeric
laughter
Let the doubter read Judge Parker's tele-
gram again. What does it say II does not
say that he believes that the gold standard is
right. II does not say that he believes that his