New-York tribune., 1910-03-10

mind OF the genulneness OF the posthumous
statement of Mr. Platt which Mr.. Curtis
published yesterday. But that statement
has not only been contradicted by Senator
Elkins. but Il is inconsistent with the state
ment on the same subject which Senator
Hoar inserted In his autobiography, and a
copy Of which statement l lnclose herein
FOR Your convenience.
ALBERT II. WALKER.
New York. March 2. 1910.
EXTRACTS FROM THE AUTOBIOC
RAPHY or GEORGE F. HoAR.
VOL. l. PAGE al.
The New York delegation had authorized
its vote 20 be cast unanimously for anv
person on whom the four delegates at large
.Iy.aatt Miller Depew and Hiscock. repre-
Republican party OF that state-should
agree. Three of these gentlemen Platt
Miller and Hiscock, were present at the
syvania delegation. was also authorized to
cas-; the vote of that entire delegation as
copsn nhairman 5pH Of the Of Mls
ton. was present with a like authority
MI. Far1ell, chairman Of the Illinois dele
cation. was present with a like authority
from his state Mr. Clarkson. chairman Of
the Iowa delegation. was present with au-
thority TO vote for Mr. Allison from the he
ginning. De Young. of California thought
he coul6 speak for his people, though | be
lievs without claiming authority from them
Fhley of Missouri. WAS also present There
were several other gentlemen of influence
though not all of them delegates and not
ali OF them entitled to speak for their
states. but feeling able TO assure the com
p3nv that their states would aCcede to
whatever agreement might he made there
The names of several candidates were dis
cuSsed. ] made very earnest speech in
favor of Mr.. Allison, setting forth what l
thought were the qualities that would make
him a popular candidate and would make
him an able and wise President.
al
should vote for Mr.. Allison when the con
vention came in in the Afternoon Depew
as have said, was absent. But his three
colleagues said there could be no doubt
tnat he would agree TO their action and
there would be no difficulty about New
ork- We thought il best as matter of
precautlon 70 meet again half hour be
fore the coming in of the convention, TO
make sure the thing was to go through all
right ! suppose that everybody in that
room when he left it felt as certain as
of any event that Mr.. Allison would he
nominated in the convention
BIt when We met at the time fixed the
three delegates -at-iarge from New York
SaiG they We're sorry they could not carry
out their engagement. Mr.. Depew. who
had been supported as candidate by his
state IN the earlier ballots, had made a
81 ee"h withdrawing his name But when
The action of the meeting was reported TO
MIN he said he had been compelled 70
withdraw by the opposition of the agra
RAN element, which was hostile 10 rail-
foaGs. lie was then president of the New
VIh tehJFSI d t1udSon klNer Railroad
company He said that this opposition TO
MIN came largely from Iowa, and from
the Northwest. where was found the chief
support of Allison; that, while he had
WlthdraWn his own name. he would not so
Tar submit 10 such an unreasona BILE and
socialistiC sentiment as TO give his con
sent that II should dictate candidate for
the Republican party. The three other
legateS-at-large We're therefore COM
PEELED 10 refuse their support to the ar
rangement which had been conditionally
agreed upon. and the thing fell through.
If it had gone on New York. Illinois
Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts.
Iowa. California and perhaps Missouri
would have cast their votes unanimously
for Allison, and his nomination would have
been sure. I think no other person ever
came SO near the Presidency of the United
States and missed it
The result was the nomination of MI
Harrison