The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-12-20
MORE POLITICAL HISTORY.
Candidates Not Necessarily Defeated
 By Divided Delegations.

From the Indianapolis News.
 In discussing the possibility of divid- ed Ohio delegation to the republican con- vention, the Brooklyn Eagle says that no republican national convention has ever named candidate for President unless the delegation from the candidates state was unanimously in favor of him. It makes special point of this in the case of Oho That state, 1t reminds us. "has had several nominees. William Henry Harrison, James A. Garfield, William Me Kinley twice, Benjamin Harrison, a na- tive of Ohio. but a resident of Indiana and every one of them was unanimously supported by the delegation from the state of his residence" Perhaps the mat ter is not one of great importance, but still it is well to be accurate in such mat ters. General Harrison did not have the unanimous support of the Indiana dele gation in 1888, for one delegate out of the 30 delegates, Judge Field, voted on the first ballot for Judge Gresham This was. to be sure, not much of a break, but still 1t was enough to break unanimity. and so to upset the Eagles theory We would suggest further that Ohio has had other nominees. If General Harrison Is to be credited to Ohio surely General Grant should be also. General Hayes was an Ohio man. too
 We admit that candidate is greatly hampered by fight in his own state, and that the smallest division in it's dele- gation is serious handicap. But neither of these things is necessarily fatal as was proved in 1888, when there was the strongest sort of fight in this state, and there were virtually two candidates. As for Garfield, it is to be said that he did not have the Ohio delegation at all, though, of course, 1t came to him when the convention began to move in his di- recton. Obviously MT. Tafts chances would be much better if Senator Foraker were out of the way. But the fact of his opposition is not of itself, fatal. Combined with other causes it may be enough to defeat the Secretary of War. It may be enough to do it unaided by other causes, for in such cases as this precedents are of little weight either way. Conditions are never quite the same. and so the appeal to history is never conclusive. The mere fact that thing never has happened is no proof at all that 1t never will happen.
 The real danger Is that a bitter strug gle in candidates own state may i'm peril his election. That is a fact that does not always count for much with political machine. If 1t has the power to get the delegates it is quite likely to use it without paying much attention to fu- ture possibilities. Thus a unanimity may be secured that counts for little. This was shown in the case of General Harri- son. He had practically a solid delega- tion from Indiana, but he carried the state by the scantiest of pluralities-less than 5000. Mere success in getting the delegation does not of itself mean much does not always indicate the state of feel ing in the state. Grover Cleveland had the New York delegation in 1888, yet he lost both the state and the nation. In 1892 the delegation from his own state was instructed for another man, and yet Cleveland carried both state and nation. It Is thus easily possible to give too much importance to the maneuverings of poll tcians The Taft men would undoubted- ly be much happier If state of peace prevailed in Ohio The opposition to him is q very important factor in the prob lem But possibly 1t Is less important than the Eagle seems to think il.