I. HISTORY OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES OF THE UNITED STATES (part 4 of 4)
“Yes, but might not the great farming class be benefited by importing articles from Europe instead of buying them at higher prices at home?”
“The moment,” answered Mr. Blaine, “you begin to import freely from Europe you drive our own workmen from mechanical and manufacturing pursuits. In the same proportion they become tillers of the soil, increasing steadily the agricultural products and decreasing steadily the large home demand which is constantly enlarging as home manufactures enlarge. That, of course, works great injury to the farmer, glutting the market with his products and tending constantly to lower prices.”
“Yes, but the foreign demand for farm products would be increased in like ratio, would it not?”
“Even suppose it were,” said Mr. Blaine, “do you know the source from which it will be supplied? The tendency in Russia to-day, and in the Asiatic possessions of England, is toward a large increase of the grain supply, the grain being raised by the cheapest possible labor. Manufacturing countries will buy their breadstuffs where they can get them the cheapest, and the enlarging of the home market for the American farmer being checked, he would search in vain for one of the same value. His foreign sales are already checked by the great competition abroad. There never was a time when the increase of a large home market was so valuable to him. The best proof is that the farmers are prosperous in proportion to the nearness of manufacturing centres, and a protective tariff tends to spread manufactures. In Ohio and Indiana, for example, though not classed as manufacturing States, the annual value of fabrics is larger than the annual value of agricultural products.”
“But those holding the President’s views,” remarked the reporter, “are always quoting the great prosperity of the country under the tariff of 1846.”
“That tariff did not involve the one destructive point recommended by the President, namely, the retaining of direct internal taxes in order to abolish indirect taxes levied on foreign fabrics. But the country had peculiar advantages under it by the Crimean War involving England, France, and Russia, and largely impairing their trade. All these incidents, or accidents, if you choose, were immensely stimulating to the trade in the United States, regardless to the nature of our tariff. But mark the end of this European experience with the tariff of 1846, which for a time gave an illusory and deceptive show of prosperity. Its enactment was immediately followed by the Mexican War; then, in 1848, by the great convulsions of Europe; then, in 1849 and succeeding years, by the enormous gold yield in California. The powers made peace in 1856, and at the same time the output of gold in California fell off. Immediately the financial panic of 1857 came upon the country with disastrous force. Though we had in these years mined a vast amount of gold in California, every bank in New York was compelled to suspend specie payment. Four hundred millions in gold had been carried out of the country in eight years to pay for foreign goods that should have been manufactured at home, and we had years of depression and distress as an atonement for our folly.”
“Then do you mean to imply that there should be no reduction of the national revenue?”
“No; what I have said implies the reverse. I would reduce it by a prompt repeal of the tobacco tax, and would make here and there some changes in the tariff, not to reduce protection, but wisely foster it.”
“Would you explain your meaning more fully?”
“I mean,” said Mr. Blaine, “that no great system of revenue, like our tariff, can operate with efficiency and equity unless the changes of trade be closely watched and the law promptly adapted to those changes. But I would make no change that should impair the protective character of the whole body of the tariff laws. Four years ago, in the act of 1883, we made changes of the character I have tried to indicate. If such changes were made, and the fortifying of our sea coast thus undertaken at a very moderate annual outlay, no surplus would be found after that already accumulated had been disposed of. The outlay of money on fortifications, while doing great service to the country, would give good work to many men.”
“But what about the existing surplus?”
“The abstract of the message I have seen,” replied Mr. Blaine, “contains no reference to that point. I, therefore, make no comment further that to endorse Mr. Fred. Grant’s remark, that a surplus is always easier to handle than a deficit.”
The reporter repeated the question whether the President’s recommendation would not, if adopted, give us the advantage of a large increase in exports.
“I only repeat,” answered Mr. Blaine, “it would vastly increase our imports while the only export it would seriously increase would be our gold and silver. That would flow out bounteously, just as it did under the tariff of 1846. The President’s recommendation enacted into law would result, as did an experiment in drainage of a man who wished to turn a swamp into a productive field. He dug a drain to a neighboring river, but it happened, unfortunately, that the level of the river was higher than the level of the swamp. The consequence need not be told. A parallel would be found when the President’s policy in attempting to open a channel for an increase of exports should simply succeed in making way for a deluging inflow of fabrics to the destruction of home industry.”
“But don’t you think it important to increase our export trade?”
“Undoubtedly; but it is vastly more important not to lose our own great market or our own people in vain effort to reach the impossible. It is not our foreign trade that has caused the wonderful growth and expansion of the republic. It is the vast domestic trade between thirty-eight States and eight Territories, with their population of, perhaps, 62,000,000 to-day. The whole amount of our export and import trade together has never, I think, reached $1,900,000,000 any one year. Our internal home trade on 130,000 miles of railway, along 15,000 miles of ocean coast, over the five great lakes and along 20,000 miles of navigable rivers, reaches the enormous annual aggregate of more than $40,000,000,000, and perhaps this year $50,000,000,000.
“It is into this illimitable trade, even now in its infancy and destined to attain a magnitude not dreamed of twenty years ago, that the Europeans are struggling to enter. It is the heritage of the American people, of their children, and of their children’s children. It gives an absolutely free trade over a territory nearly as large as all Europe, and the profit is all our own. The genuine Free-trader appears unable to see or comprehend that this continental trade—not our exchanges with Europe—is the great source of our prosperity. President Cleveland now plainly proposes a policy that will admit Europe to a share of this trade.”
“But you are in favor of extending our foreign trade, are you not?”
“Certainly I am, in all practical and advantageous ways, but not on the principle of the Free-traders, by which we shall be constantly exchanging dollar for dime. Moreover, the foreign trade is often very delusive. Cotton is manufactured in the city of my residence. If a box of cotton goods is sent 200 miles to the province Of New Brunswick, it is foreign trade. If shipped 17,000 miles round Cape Horn to Washington Territory it is domestic trade. The magnitude of the Union and the immensity of its internal trade require a new political economy. The treatises written for European States do not grasp our peculiar situation.”
“How will the President’s message be received in the South?”
“I don’t dare to answer that question. The truth has been so long obscured by certain local questions of unreasoning prejudice that nobody can hope for industrial enlightenment among the leaders just yet. But in my view the South above all sections of the Union needs a protective tariff. The two Virginias, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia have enormous resources and facilities for developing and handling manufactures. They cannot do anything without protection. Even progress so vast as some of those States have made will be checked if the President’s message is enacted into law. Their Senators and Representatives can prevent it, but they are so used to following anything labelled ‘democratic’ that very probably they will follow the President and the progress already made. By the time some of the Southern States get free iron ore and coal, while tobacco is taxed, they may have occasion to sit down and calculate the value of democratic free trade to their local interests.,”
“Will not the President’s recommendation to admit raw material find strong support?”
“Not by wise Protectionists in our time. Perhaps some greedy manufacturers may think that with free coal or free iron ore they can do great things, but if they should succeed in trying will, as the boys say, catch it on the rebound. If the home trade in raw materials is destroyed or seriously injured railroads will be the first to feel it. If that interest is crippled in any direction the financial fabric of the whole country will feel it quickly and seriously. If any man can give a reason why we should arrange the tariff to favor the raw material of other countries in a competition against our material of the same kind, I should like to hear it. Should that recommendation of the President be approved it would turn 100,000 American laborers out of employment before it had been a year in operation.”
“What must be the marked and general effect of the President’s message?”
“It will bring the country where it ought to be brought—to a full and fair contest on the question of protection. The President himself makes the one issue by presenting no other in his message. I think it well to have the question settled. The democratic party in power is a standing menace to the industrial prosperity of the country. That menace should be removed or the policy it foreshadows should be made certain. Nothing is so mischievous to business as uncertainty, nothing so paralyzing as doubt.”
G. W. SMALLEY.
THE NATIONAL CONVENTIONS OF 1888.
The Democratic Convention.
The Democratic party, being in power, assumed the customary rôle of the majority party, and after a close struggle its National Committee called its Convention at St. Louis, June 5th, two weeks in advance of the time fixed by the Republicans. The sessions continued throughout three days, being somewhat prolonged by the differences of opinion upon the platform, the immediate friends of the Cleveland administration desiring an unqualified endorsement of the Presidential message relating to the tariff, and as well to the Mills bill, the measure supported in the lower House of Congress by all of the Democrats save those led by Samuel J. Randall, who stood upon the platform “straddle” of 1884. Finally the differences were partially adjusted by a reaffirmation of the platform of 1884, and very decided endorsements of both the President’s message and the Mills bill. The result was not satisfactory to the Protective-Tariff Democrats, but they were without large or courageous representation, and the platform was adopted with but one dissenting vote. (For platform and comparison of platforms of the Conventions of the two great parties, see Book II.)
On the third day Grover Cleveland, of New York, was nominated for President by acclamation. A ballot was started for Vice-President, between Allen G.Thurman, of Ohio, and Governor Gray, of Indiana, but before it closed Thurman’s nomination was so apparent that Gray was withdrawn, and the nomination made unanimous. In the midst of the applause which followed, the California delegation presented to the Convention thousands of the “red bandana” worn by the “old Roman” Thurman, and it was immediately placed upon the standard of every State, and accepted as the emblem of the Democratic party.
The Republican Convention.
The National Convention of the Republican party met in Chicago, June 19th, and continued its sessions until the evening of the 25th. Major McKinley, of Ohio, was the Chairman of the Committee on Platform, and on the second day made a unanimous report, which was adopted with great enthusiasm.
The platforms of the two great parties, better than anything else, illustrate the lines of difference between them. One of the lines was plainly drawn by President Cleveland’s message to Congress. This paper plainly advocated a reduction of tariff duties with a view to reduce to the actual requirements of an economic administration of governmental affairs, the surplus in the treasury, then approximating $80,000,000. He opposed the repeal or reduction of the internal revenue taxes, upon the ground that they were placed upon luxuries. Mr. Blaine answered this message for the Republican party, and opposed any system of tariff reduction which tended to free trade, and favored the repeal of the internal revenue taxes upon tobacco and upon all liquors used in the arts. So that the truthful and probably the most compact statement of the position of the two great parties is this: The Democratic party in the campaign of 1888 favors an established tendency to free trade; the Republican party opposes any such tendency, and rather than promote it in any way, would repeal all of the internal revenue taxes and enlarge the pension list—in this way disposing of the treasury surplus. The platform of the Republican party not only followed, but went beyond the expressed views of Mr. Blaine, and accepted in the plainest way the issue thrust upon the country by Mr. Cleveland’s message. The position of the two great parties had been anticipated by their respective leaders, and both Conventions advanced beyond the lines laid down by these leaders, and entered upon the campaign in this shape.
During the ballotings of the Republican Convention Mr. Blaine was upon all save the last solidly supported by the California delegation and by scattering votes. On the last day Hon. Charles A. Boutelle, Chairman of the Maine delegation, read two cablegrams from Mr. Blaine, who was then in Edinboro, Scotland, asking his friends to respect his Paris letter of declination. It was at any time within the power of his friends to nominate him, but his final refusal led nearly all of them to vote for General Benjamin Harrison, of Indiana, at all times one of the leading candidates before the Convention. There was no general combination, but the nomination was largely traceable to the expediency of selecting both of the candidates from pivotal States.
Summary of the Ballots. │ │ │ │ Friday. │ Saturday. │ Monday. ─────────┼──────────────┼───────────┼────────────── │ 1st 2d 3d│ 4th 5th│ 6th 7th 8th Sherman, │ 229 249 244│ 235 224│ 244 231 119 Gresham, │ 111 108 123│ 98 87│ 91 91 59 Depew, │ 99 99 91│ Withdrawn. Alger, │ 84 116 122│ 135 142│ 137 120 100 Harrison,│ 80 91 94│ 217 213│ 231 278 544 Allison, │ 72 75 88│ 88 99│ 73 76 Ingalls, │ 28 16 Withdrawn. │ Phelps, │ 25 18 5│ │ Rusk, │ 25 20 16│ │ Fitler, │ 24 Withdrawn. │ Hawley, │ 13 Withdrawn. │ Lincoln, │ 3 2 2│ 1 │ 2 McKinley,│ 2 3 8│ 11 14│ 12 16 4 Miller, │ 2│ │ Douglas, │ │ 1 │ Foraker, │ │ 1 │ 1 1 Grant, │ │ │ 1 Haymond, │ │ │ 1 Blaine, │ 35 33 35│ 42 48│ 40 15 5 ─────────┼──────────────┼───────────┼────────────── Total, │ 830 830 830│ 829 827│ 829 832 831
Mr. Griggs, of New Jersey, presented the name of William Walter Phelps, of New Jersey, for Vice-President, which was seconded by Mr. Gibson, of Ohio, Mr. Eagan, of Nebraska, and Mr. Oliver, of Iowa, and others.
Senator Warner Miller, of New York, presented the name of Hon. Levi P. Morton, of New York, which was seconded by Mr. Sage, of California, Governor Foster, of Ohio, Mr. Oliver, of South Carolina, General Hastings, of Pennsylvania, and others.
Mr. McElwee, of Tennessee, presented the name of William R. Moore, of that State.
One ballot was taken, resulting as follows:
Morton 591 Phelps 119 Bradly 103 Bruce 11 Thomas 1
The nomination was then made unanimous.
Mr. Boutelle, of Maine, then addressed the Chair and stated that he desired to offer a resolution to be added to the platform, as follows:
“The first concern of all good government is the virtue and sobriety of the people and the purity of the home. The Republican party cordially sympathizes with all wise and well-directed efforts for the promotion of temperance and morality.”
As soon as this was read there was a rush from the various States to second the motion, and, after some time, the question was put and the resolution adopted by a rising vote, only one delegate from Maryland recording himself in the negative. In this way the above temperance sentiment was made part of the platform. It was due largely to the attitude of the Republican party within many of the States, where in the current and previous year it favored high license laws and the submission to a vote of the people prohibitory constitutional amendments.
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1888.
Shortly after the adjournment of the National Conventions, the National Committees of the two great parties opened headquarters in New York City, Senator M. S. Quay being Chairman of the Republican National and Executive committees, with full authority in one head, while ex-Senator Barnum headed the Democratic National, and Calvin Brice its Executive Committee. Both Committees devoted themselves to practical political work, and the result was a greater expenditure of money than was ever previously known. From information gathered by the writer, it can be safely stated that the Democratic National Committee, with its drafts upon the Federal office-holders, raised two millions of dollars, while the Republican business men and manufacturers contributed one million three hundred thousand to their National Committee. It was a business battle, largely waged between the manufacturing and importing interests, the smaller farmers being allies of the manufacturers, the planters adhering to their support of the Free Trade tendencies of the Democratic party. The literary and oratorical features of the canvass were not neglected, and tariff discussion was the order of the day and the night throughout the entire country. The pivotal States were, in the order of their importance, New York, Indiana, Connecticut, New Jersey, West Virginia, and California. From the day of General Harrison’s nomination, Indiana became, and continued, the scene of the most intense political excitement. Visiting delegations called upon the nominee from every town and hamlet in the State, and the fever extended to adjacent States. The ordeal was a most trying one for a candidate, and, for a time, there was grave fear that a mistake might be made, or a trap sprung, like that of Burchard’s upon Blaine in 1884; but General Harrison was singularly fortunate in all of his remarks, and yet so earnest and able that his own work soon began to be recognized as the best of the campaign. President Cleveland was compelled by his official duties, and probably by inclination, to keep out of even the speaking part of the campaign.
Senator Quay regarded New York as the sole key to the contest, and his determination to carry that State, even at the risk of all others, was maintained with the greatest firmness. The usual appeals came from hopeful States, like Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and even Delaware and Maryland, while alarming predictions as to Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa flew thick and fast; but the Republican National Chairman, wisely clothed with absolute authority as general of the battle, kept up his steady assault upon New York, and organized so closely that the usual frauds in New York City and Brooklyn became impossible. The wisdom of this policy was confirmed by the result, and to it is directly traceable the Republican victory which followed. General Harrison carried New York by 14,000 plurality, while Governor Hill, the Democratic candidate for reëlection, carried it by 18,000. This apparent political phenomenon finds its explanation in the liquor issue, which attracted wide attention throughout the State. Warner Miller, the Republican candidate, favored high license, while Governor Hill opposed it.
The Northwest, always before believed to be inclined to Free Trade, gave surprising tariff majorities, while Kansas proved the banner Republican State, giving over 80,000 for Harrison in a territory made up mostly by farmers. Indeed, the farming excelled many of the manufacturing sections in showing tariff or Republican gains.
Results proved to be very close in Connecticut, the two Virginias, Maryland, and Tennessee, and for a time the attitude of the lower House of Congress was in doubt. At this writing the Republican majority is estimated at seven, and the new Congress will have to consider more than a dozen contested seats. The Republicans made a net gain of one in the Senate by their success in the counties of Sussex and Kent, in Delaware. This was due to a quarrel between the Bayard and Saulsbury factions of the State. New Jersey remained with the Democrats, and the Republicans elected General Goff for Governor of West Virginia, with three Labor men holding the balance of power in the Legislature.
ELECTORAL VOTE.
Harrison. Cleveland. California 8 Alabama 10 Colorado 3 Arkansas 7 Illinois 22 Connecticut 6 Indiana 15 Delaware 3 Iowa 13 Florida 4 Kansas 9 Georgia 12 Maine 6 Kentucky 13 Massachusetts 14 Louisiana 8 Michigan 13 Maryland 8 Minnesota 7 Mississippi 9 Nebraska 5 Missouri 16 Nevada 3 New Jersey 9 New Hampshire 4 North Carolina 12 New York 36 South Carolina 9 Ohio 23 Tennessee 11 Oregon 3 Texas 13 Pennsylvania 30 Virginia 12 Rhode Island 4 West Virginia 6 Vermont 4 ——— Wisconsin 11 168 ——— 233 168 ——— Harrison’s majority 65
Here is a majority of 65 electors, and yet less than 3000 votes in New York, cast for Cleveland, would have reëlected him, but with grave danger to the country, because of disputed results in the two Virginias.
THE POPULAR VOTE—1888.
Rep. Dem. Pro. Labor. Alabama 57,197 117,320 583 Arkansas 58,752 85,962 614 10,613 California 124,809 117,899 5,761 1,591 Colorado 50,831 37,345 2,490 1,287 Connecticut 74,584 74,920 4,234 240 Delaware 12,950 16,414 400 1 Florida 26,659 39,561 403 Georgia 40,413 100,742 1,802 136 Illinois 370,241 348,360 21,562 8,556 Indiana 263,361 261,013 9,881 2,694 Iowa 211,598 179,877 3,550 9,105 Kansas 182,610 102,580 6,452 36,236 Kentucky 155,154 183,800 5,225 622 Louisiana 30,181 84,941 130 Maine 73,734 50,482 2,690 1,345 Maryland 99,761 106,172 5,358 1,241 Massachusetts 183,447 151,990 8,641 Michigan 236,307 213,404 20,942 4,542 Minnesota 142,492 104,385 15,341 1,097 Mississippi 30,096 85,476 218 22 Missouri 236,325 261,957 4,954 15,853 Nebraska 108,425 80,552 9,429 4,226 Nevada 7,088 5,149 41 N. Hampshire 45,728 43,457 1,570 13 New Jersey 144,344 151,493 7,904 New York 650,337 635,965 30,321 5,362 N. Carolina 134,784 147,902 2,788 Ohio 416,054 396,455 24,356 3,496 Oregon 33,293 26,524 1,677 363 Pennsylvania 526,223 446,934 20,758 3,873 Rhode Island 21,960 17,533 1,281 South Carolina 13,740 65,825 Tennessee 138,988 158,779 5,969 48 Texas 88,422 234,883 4,749 29,459 Vermont 45,192 16,788 1,459 Virginia 150,442 151,977 1,678 West Virginia 75,052 75,558 669 1,064 Wisconsin 176,553 155,232 14,277 8,552 ────────────────────────────────────────────────── Totals 5,438,157 5,535,626 250,157 150,624
ANALYSIS OF THE POPULAR VOTE.
In the following tables the vote is arranged according to sections: The Northern States, the Middle or Border States, and the Gulf States.
THE NORTHERN STATES.
1884. │ 1888. ────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────── Rep. Dem. │ Rep. Dem. Maine 72,209 52,140│ 72,659 49,730 N. Hampsh’e 43,249 39,183│ 45,728 43,444 Vermont 39,514 17,331│ 45,192 16,788 Massachus’ts 146,724 122,352│ 183,447 151,990 Rhode Island 19,030 12,391│ 21,960 17,533 Connecticut 65,923 67,199│ 74,584 74,920 New York 562,005 563,154│ 649,114 635,715 New Jersey 123,366 127,778│ 144,426 151,154 Penna. 473,804 392,785│ 526,223 446,934 Ohio 400,082 368,280│ 416,054 396,455 Indiana 238,463 244,990│ 263,361 261,013 Illinois 337,469 312,351│ 370,241 348,360 Michigan 192,669 149,835│ 236,307 213,404 Wisconsin 161,157 146,459│ 176,553 155,232 Iowa 197,089 177,316│ 211,592 177,899 Minnesota 111,685 70,065│ 136,359 99,664 Colorado 36,166 27,603│ 51,796 37,610 California 102,416 89,288│ 124,809 117,729 Kansas 154,406 90,132│ 182,610 102,580 Nebraska 76,912 54,391│ 108,425 80,552 Nevada 7,193 5,578│ 7,238 5,326 Oregon 26,860 24,604│ 33,293 26,524 ────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────── Totals 3,608,965 3,153,912│4,081,971 3,610,556
Republican majority in 1888 471,415 Republican majority in 1884 455,053 ——————— Republican gain 16,362
MIDDLE (OR BORDER) STATES.
1884. │ 1888. ────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────── Rep. Dem. │ Rep. Dem. Delaware 12,951 16,964│ 12,950 16,414 Maryland 85,699 96,932│ 99,761 106,172 Virginia 139,356 145,497│ 150,442 151,977 W. Virginia 63,096 67,317│ 75,052 75,588 Kentucky 118,122 152,961│ 155,154 183,800 Tennessee 124,078 133,258│ 139,815 159,079 Arkansas 50,895 72,927│ 58,752 85,962 N. Carolina 125,068 142,950│ 134,784 147,902 Missouri 202,929 235,988│ 236,325 261,957 ────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────── Totals 922,194 1,064,794│1,063,035 1,188,851
Democratic majority in 1884 142,600 Democratic majority in 1888 125,816 ——————— Democratic loss 16,784
GULF STATES.
S. Carolina 21,733 69,890│ 13,740 65,825 Florida 28,031 31,766│ 26,659 39,561 Georgia 28,617 97,292│ 40,496 100,499 Alabama 59,444 92,973│ 56,197 117,320 Mississippi 43,509 76,510│ 30,096 85,476 Louisiana 46,347 62,540│ 30,181 84,941 Texas 93,141 225,309│ 88,442 234,883 ────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────── Totals 328,822 656,280│ 285,811 728,505
Democratic majority in 1888 442,698 Democratic majority in 1884 327,458 ——————— Democratic gain 115,240
PRESIDENT HARRISON’S MESSAGE ON THE CHILEAN TROUBLES.
In October, 1891, directly after the overthrow of Balmaceda by the Congressionalists of Chile, U. S. Minister Egan sheltered a number of political refugees, as did other foreign ministers. Both the government and populace at Valparaiso took special umbrage at the action of the authorities of the United States, and as a result a mob of citizens, police and soldiers assaulted American sailors on shore, killing two and wounding sixteen. President Harrison’s message, sent to Congress on the 25th of January, 1892, is the strongest state paper in behalf of the rights of American citizens abroad yet given to the country. It explains all of the facts as to the Chilean difficulties, and as well lays down the principles which conduct his course. It was well received by the American Congress, and compelled Chile to act promptly in answer to the American demands. We quote its text, for it will be historically very valuable:
TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: In my Annual Message, delivered to Congress at the beginning of the present session, after a brief statement of the facts then in the possession of this government touching the assault in the streets of Valparaiso, Chile, upon the sailors of the United States steamship Baltimore, on the evening of the 16th of October last, I said:
“This government is now awaiting the result of an investigation which has been conducted by the criminal court at Valparaiso. It is reported unofficially that the investigation is about completed, and it is expected that the result will soon be communicated to this government, together with some adequate and satisfactory response to the note by which the attention of Chile was called to this incident. If these just expectations should be disappointed, or further needless delay intervene, I will, by a special message, bring this matter again to the attention of Congress for such action as may be necessary.”
In my opinion the time has now come when I should lay before the Congress and the country the correspondence between this government and the government of Chile from the time of the breaking out of the revolution against Balmaceda, together with all other facts in the possession of the Executive Department relating to this matter.
The diplomatic correspondence is herewith transmitted, together with some correspondence between the naval officers for the time in command in Chilean waters and the Secretary of the Navy, and also the evidence taken at the Mare Island navy yard since the arrival of the Baltimore at San Francisco. I do not deem it necessary in this communication to attempt any full analysis of the correspondence or of the evidence. A brief restatement of the international questions involved, and of the reasons why the responses of the Chilean government are unsatisfactory is all that I deem necessary.
It may be well, at the outset, to say that whatever may have been said in this country or in Chile in criticism of Mr. Egan, our minister at Santiago, the true history of the exciting period in Chilean affairs, from the outbreak of the revolution until this time, discloses no act upon the part of Mr. Egan unworthy of his position, or that could justly be the occasion of serious animadversion or criticism. He has, I think, on the whole borne himself in very trying circumstances with dignity, discretion and courage, and conducted the correspondence with ability, courtesy and fairness.
It is worth while, also, at the beginning to say that the right of Mr. Egan to give shelter in the legation to certain adherents of the Balmaceda government who applied to him for asylum has not been denied by the Chilean authorities, nor has any demand been made for the surrender of these refugees.
That there was urgent need of asylum is shown by Mr. Egan’s note of August 24, 1891, describing the disorders that prevailed in Santiago, and by the evidence of Captain Schley as to the pillage and violence that prevailed at Valparaiso. The correspondence discloses, however, that the request of Mr. Egan for a safe conduct from the country, in behalf of these refugees, was denied.
The precedents cited by him in the correspondence, particularly the case of the revolution in Peru in 1865, did not leave the Chilean government in a position to deny the right of asylum to political refugees, and seemed very clearly to support Mr. Egan’s contention that a safe conduct to neutral territory was a necessary and acknowledged incident of the asylum. These refugees have very recently, without formal safe conduct, but by the acquiescence of the Chilean authorities, been placed on board the Yorktown, and are now being conveyed to Callao, Peru.
This incident might be considered wholly closed but for the disrespect manifested towards this government by the close and offensive police surveillance of the legation premises which was maintained during most of the period of the stay of the refugees therein.
After the date of my annual message and up to the time of the transfer of the refugees to the Yorktown, the legation premises seem to have been surrounded by police, in uniform, and police agents or detectives, in citizens’ dress, who offensively scrutinized persons entering or leaving the legation, and, on one or more occasions, arrested members of the minister’s family.
Commander Evans, who, by my direction, recently visited Mr. Egan at Santiago, in his telegram to the Navy Department described the legation as “a veritable prison,” and states that the police agents or detectives were, after his arrival, withdrawn during his stay. It appears further, from the note of Mr. Egan, of November 20, 1891, that, on one occasion at least, these police agents, whom he declares to be known to him, invaded the legation premises, pounding upon its windows and using insulting and threatening language towards persons therein.
This breach of the right of a minister to freedom from police espionage and restraint seems to have been so flagrant that the Argentine minister, who was dean of the diplomatic corps, having observed it, felt called upon to protest against it to the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Chilean authorities have, as will be observed from the correspondence, charged the refugees and the inmates of the legation with insulting the police; but it seems to me incredible that men whose lives were in jeopardy and whose safety could only be secured by retirement and quietness, should have sought to provoke a collision which could only end in their destruction, or to aggravate their condition by intensifying a popular feeling that at one time so threatened the legation as to require Minister Egan to appeal to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
But the most serious incident disclosed by the correspondence is that of the attack upon the sailors of the Baltimore in the streets of Valparaiso on the 16th of October last. In my annual message, speaking upon the information then in my possession, I said: “So far as I have yet been able to learn, no other explanation of this bloody work has been suggested than that it had its origin in hostility to those men as sailors of the United States, wearing the uniform of their government, and not in any individual act or personal animosity.”
We have now received from the Chilean government an abstract of the conclusions of the Fiscal General upon the testimony taken by the Judge of Crimes in an investigation which was made to extend over three months. I very much regret to be compelled to say that this report does not enable me to modify the conclusion announced in my annual message. I am still of the opinion that our sailors were assaulted, beaten, stabbed and killed, not for anything they or any of them had done, but for what the government of the United States had done, or was charged with having done by its civil officer and naval commanders. If that be the true aspect of the case, the injury was to the government of the United States, not to these poor sailors who were assaulted in the manner so brutal and so cowardly.
Before attempting to give an outline of the facts upon which this conclusion rests, I think it right to say a word or two upon the legal aspect of the case. The Baltimore was in the harbor of Valparaiso by virtue of that general invitation which nations are held to extend to the war vessels of other powers with which they have friendly relations. This invitation I think must be held ordinarily to embrace the privilege of such communication with the shore as is reasonable, necessary and proper for the comfort and convenience of the officers and men of such vessels. Captain Schley testifies that when his vessel returned to Valparaiso, on September 14th, the city officers, as is customary, extended the hospitalities of the city to his officers and crew.
It is not claimed that every personal collision or injury in which a sailor or officer of such naval vessel visiting the shore may be involved raises an international question; but I am clearly of the opinion that where such sailors or officers are assaulted by a resident population, animated by hostility to the government whose uniform these sailors and officers wear, and in resentment of acts done by their government, not by them, their nation must take notice of the event as one involving an infraction of its rights and dignity, not in a secondary way as where a citizen is injured and presents his claim through his own government, but in a primary way, precisely as if its minister or consul of the flag itself had been the object of the same character of assault.
The officers and sailors of the Baltimore were in the harbor of Valparaiso under the orders of their government, not by their own choice. They were upon the shore by the implied invitation of the government of Chile and with the approval of their commanding officer, and it does not distinguish their case from that of a consul that his stay is more permanent or that he holds the express invitation of the local government to justify his longer residence. Nor does it affect the question that the injury was the act of a mob. If there had been no participation by the police or military in this cruel work, and no neglect on their part to extend protection, the case would still be one, in my opinion, when its extent and character are considered, involving international rights.
The incidents of the affair are, briefly, as follows: On the 16th of October last, Captain Schley, commanding the United States steamer Baltimore, gave shore leave to 117 petty officers and sailors of his ship. These men left the ship about 1.30 P.M. No incident of violence occurred; none of our men were arrested; no complaint was lodged against them; nor did any collision or outbreak occur until about 6 o’clock P.M. Captain Schley says that he was himself on shore and about the streets until 5.40 P.M.; that he met very many of his men who were upon leave; that they were sober and were conducting themselves with propriety, saluting Chilean and other officers as they met them. Other officers of the ship, and Captain Jenkins, of the merchant ship Keweenaw, corroborate Captain Schley as to the general sobriety and good behavior of our men.
The Sisters of Charity at the hospital to which our wounded men were taken, when inquired of, stated that they were sober when received. If the situation had been otherwise, we must believe that the Chilean police authorities would have made arrests. About 6 P.M. the assault began, and it is remarkable that the investigation by the Judge of Crimes, though so protracted, does not enable him to give any more satisfactory account of its origin than is found in the statement that it began between drunken sailors. Repeatedly in the correspondence it is asserted that it was impossible to learn the precise cause of the riot. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Matta, in his telegram to Mr. Montt under date of December 31st, states that the quarrel began between two sailors in a tavern, and was continued in the street, persons who were passing joining in it.
The testimony of Talbot, an apprentice, who was with Riggin, is that the outbreak in which they were involved began by Chilean sailor spitting in the face of Talbot, which was resented by a knock-down. It appears that Riggin and Talbot were at that time unaccompanied by any others of their shipmates.
These two men were immediately beset by a crowd of Chilean citizens and sailors, through which they broke their way to a street car and entered it for safety. They were pursued, driven from the car, and Riggin was so seriously beaten that he fell in the street apparently dead. There is nothing in the report of the Chilean investigation made to us that seriously impeaches this testimony. It appears from Chilean sources that almost instantly, with a suddenness that strongly implies premeditation and preparation; a mob, stated by the police authorities at one time to number 2000, and at another 1000, was engaged in the assault upon our sailors, who are represented as resisting “with stones, clubs and bright arms.” The report of the Intendente of October 30th states that the fight began at 6 P.M. in three streets, which are named, that information was received at the intendencia at 6.15, and that the police arrived on the scene at 6.30, a full half hour after the assault began. At that time he says that a mob of 2000 men had collected, and that for several squares there was the appearance of a “real battle-field.”
The scene at this point is very graphically set before us by the Chilean testimony. The American sailors, who, after so long an examination, have not been found guilty of any breach of the peace, so far as the Chilean authorities are able to discover, unarmed and defenceless, are fleeing for their lives, pursued by overwhelming numbers, and fighting only to aid their own escape from death or to succor some mate whose life is in greater peril. Eighteen of them are brutally stabbed and beaten, while one Chilean seems, from the report, to have suffered some injury; but how serious or with what character of weapon, or whether by a missile thrown by our men or by some of his fellow-rioters is unascertained.
The pretense that our men were fighting “with stones, clubs, and bright arms,” is, in view of these facts, incredible. It is further refuted by the fact that our prisoners, when searched, were absolutely without arms, only seven penknives being found in the possession of the men arrested, while there were received by our men more than thirty stab wounds, every one of which was inflicted in the back, and almost every contused wound was in the back or back of the head. The evidence of the ship’s officer of the day is that even the jack-knives of the men were taken from them before leaving the ship.
As to the brutal nature of the treatment received by our men, the following extract from the account given of the affair by the La Patria newspaper, of Valparaiso, of October 17th, cannot be regarded as too friendly: “The Yankees, as soon as their pursuers gave chase, went by way of the Calle del Arsenal towards the city car station. In the presence of an ordinary number of citizens, among whom were some sailors, the North Americans took seats in the street car to escape from the stones which the Chileans threw at them. It was believed for an instant that the North Americans had saved themselves from popular fury, but such was not the case. Scarcely had the car begun to move, when a crowd gathered around and stopped its progress.
“Under these circumstances, and without any cessation of the howling and throwing of stones at the North Americans, the conductor entered the car, and seeing the risk of the situation to the vehicle, ordered them to get out. At the instant the sailors left the car, in the midst of a hail of stones, the said conductor received a stone blow on the head. One of the Yankee sailors managed to escape in the direction of the plaza Wheelright, but the other was felled to the ground by a stone. Managing to raise himself from the ground where he lay he staggered in an opposite direction from the station. In front of the house of Señor Mazzini he was again wounded, falling then senseless and breathless.”
No amount of evasion or subterfuge is able to cloud our clear vision of this brutal work. It should be noticed, in this connection that the American sailors arrested, after an examination, were, during the four days following the arrest, every one discharged, no charge of any breach of the peace or other criminal conduct having been sustained against a single one of them.
The Judge of Crimes, Foster, in a note to the Intendente, under date of October 22d, before the dispatch from the government, of the following day, which aroused the authorities of Chile to a better sense of the gravity of the affair, says: “Having presided temporarily over this court in regard to the seamen of the United States cruiser Baltimore, who have been tried on account of the deplorable conduct which took place.” The noticeable point here is that our sailors had been tried before the 22d of October, and that the trial resulted in their acquittal and return to their vessel.
It is quite remarkable and quite characteristic of the management of this affair by the Chilean police authorities that we should now be advised that seaman Davidson, of the Baltimore, has been included in the indictment, his offence being so far as I have been able to ascertain, that he attempted to defend a shipmate against an assailant who was striking at him with a knife. The perfect vindication of our men is furnished by this report; one only is found to have been guilty of criminal fault, and that for an act clearly justifiable.
As to the part taken by the police in the affair, the case made by Chile is also far from satisfactory. The point where Riggin was killed is only three minutes walk from the police station and not more than twice that distance from the Intendencia; and yet, according to their official report, a full half hour elapsed after the assault began before the police were upon the ground. It has been stated that all but two of our men have said that the police did their duty. The evidence taken at Mare Island shows that if such a statement was procured from our men it was accomplished by requiring them to sign a writing in a language they did not understand and by the representation that it was a mere declaration that they had taken no part in the disturbance. Lieutenant McCrea, who acted as interpreter, says in his evidence that when our sailors were examined before the Court the subject of the conduct of the police was so carefully avoided that he reported the fact to Captain Schley on his return to the vessel.
The evidences of the existence of animosity toward our sailors in the minds of the Chilean navy and of the populace of Valparaiso are so abundant and various as to leave no doubt in the mind of any one who will examine the papers submitted. It manifested itself in threatening and insulting gestures toward our men as they passed the Chilean men-of-war in their boats, and in the derisive and abusive epithets with which they greeted every appearance of an American sailor on the evening of the riot.
Captain Schley reports that boats from the Chilean warships several times went out of their course to cross the bows of his boats, compelling them to back water. He complained of the discourtesy, and it was corrected. That this feeling was shared by men of higher rank is shown by an incident related by Surgeon Stitt, of the Baltimore. After the battle of Placilla he, with other medical officers of the war vessels in the harbor, was giving voluntary assistance to the wounded in the hospitals. The son of a Chilean army officer of high rank was under his care, and when the father discovered it he flew into a passion and said he would rather have his son die than have Americans touch him, and at once had him removed from the ward.
This feeling is not well concealed in the dispatches of the Foreign Office, and had quite open expression in the disrespectful treatment of the American Legation. The Chilean boatmen in the bay refused, even for large offers of money, to return our sailors who crowded the Mole, to their ship when they were endeavoring to escape from the city on the night of the assault. The market boats of the Baltimore were threatened, and even quite recently the gig of Commander Evans, of the Yorktown, was stoned while waiting for him at the Mole.
The evidence of our sailors clearly shows that the attack was expected by the Chilean people; that threats have been made against our men, and that in one case, somewhat early in the afternoon, the keeper of one house into which some of our men had gone, closed his establishment in anticipation of the attack, which he advised them would be made upon them as darkness came on.
In a report of Captain Schley to the Navy Department he says: “In the only interview that I had with Judge Foster, who is investigating the case relative to the disturbance before he was aware of the entire gravity of the matter, he informed me that the entire assault upon my men was the outcome of hatred for our people among the lower classes because they thought we had sympathized with the Balmaceda Government on account of the Itata matter, whether with reason or without he could, of course, not admit; but such he thought was the explanation of the assault at that time.”
Several of our men sought security from the mob by such complete or partial changes in their dress as would conceal the fact of their being seamen of the Baltimore, and found it then possible to walk the streets without molestation. These incidents conclusively establish that the attack was upon the uniform—the nationality—and not upon the men.
The origin of this feeling is probably found in the refusal of this government to give recognition to the Congressional party before it had established itself, in the seizure of the Itata for an alleged violation of the Neutrality law in the cable incident, and in the charge that Admiral Brown conveyed information to Valparaiso of the landing at Quinteros. It is not my purpose to enter here any defense of the action of this government in these matters. It is enough for the present purpose to say that if there was any breach of international comity or duty on our part it should have been made the subject of official complaint through diplomatic channels, or of reprisals for which a full responsibility was assumed.
We cannot consent that these incidents and these perversions of the truth shall be used to excite a murderous attack upon our unoffending sailors and the Government of Chile go acquit of responsibility. In fact the conduct of this government during the war in Chile pursued those lines of international duty which we had so strongly insisted upon on the part of other nations when this country was in the throes of civil conflict. We continued the established diplomatic relations with the government in power until it was overthrown, and promptly and cordially recognized the new government when it was established.
The good offices of this government were offered to bring about a peaceful adjustment, and the interposition of Mr. Egan to mitigate severities and to shelter adherents of the Congressional party were effective and frequent. The charge against Admiral Brown is too base to gain credence with any one who knows his high personal and professional character.
Recurring to the evidence of our sailors, I think it is shown that there were several distinct assaults, and so nearly simultaneous as to show that they did not spread from one point. A press summary of the report of the Fiscal shows that the evidence of the Chilean officials and others was in conflict as to the place of origin, several places being named by different witnesses as to the locality where the first outbreak occurred. This, if correctly reported, shows that there were several distinct outbreaks, and so nearly at the same time as to cause this confusion.
La Patria, in the same issue from which I have already quoted, after describing the killing of Riggin and the flight which from that point extended to the Mole, says: “At the same time in other streets of the port the Yankee sailors fought fiercely with the people of the town, who believed to see in them incarnate enemies of the Chilean navy.”
The testimony of Captain Jenkins, of the American merchant ship Keweenaw, which had gone to Valparaiso for repairs, and who was a witness of some part of the assault upon the crew of the Baltimore, is strongly corroborative of the testimony of our own sailors when he says that he saw Chilean sentries drive back a seaman, seeking shelter, upon a mob that was pursuing him. The officers and men of Captain Jenkins’ ship furnish the most conclusive testimony as to the indignities which were practiced toward Americans in Valparaiso. When American sailors even of merchant ships, can only secure their safety by denying their nationality, it must be time to readjust our relations with a government that permits such demonstrations.
As to the participation of the police, the evidence of our sailors shows that our men were struck and beaten by police officers before and after arrest, and that one, at least, was dragged with a lasso about his neck by a mounted policeman. That the death of Riggin was the result of a rifle shot fired by a policeman or soldier on duty is shown directly by the testimony of Johnson, in whose arms he was at the time, and by the evidence of Charles Langen, an American sailor, not then a member of the Baltimore’s crew, who stood close and saw the transaction. The Chilean authorities do not pretend to fix the responsibility of this shot upon any particular person, but avow their inability to ascertain who fired it, further than that it was fired from a crowd.
The character of the wound, as described by one of the surgeons of the Baltimore, clearly supports his opinion that it was made by a rifle ball, the orifice of exit being as much as an inch or an inch and a quarter in width. When shot, the poor fellow was unconscious, and in the arms of a comrade, who was endeavoring to carry him to a neighboring drug store for treatment. The story of the police, that in coming up the street they passed these men and left them behind them is inconsistent with their own statement as to the direction of their approach and with their duty to protect them, and is clearly disproved. In fact, Riggin was not behind, but in front of the advancing force, and was not standing in the crowd, but was unconscious and supported in the arms of Johnson when he was shot.
The communications of the Chilean government in relation to this cruel and disastrous attack upon our men, as will appear from the correspondence, have not in any degree taken the form of a manly and satisfactory expression of regret, much less of apology. The event was of so serious a character that if the injuries suffered by our men had been wholly the result of an accident in a Chilean port, the incident was grave enough to have called for some public expression of sympathy and regret from the local authorities. It is not enough to say that the affair was lamentable, for humanity would require that expression even if the beating and killing of our men had been justifiable.
It is not enough to say that the incident is regretted, coupled with the statement that the affair was not of an unusual character in ports where foreign sailors are accustomed to meet. It is not for a generous and sincere government to seek for words of small or equivocal meaning in which to convey to a friendly power an apology for an offence so atrocious as this. In the case of the assault by a mob in New Orleans upon the Spanish consulate in 1851, Mr. Webster wrote to the Spanish minister, Mr. Calderon, that the acts complained of were a “disgraceful and flagrant breach of duty and propriety,” and that his government “regrets them as deeply as Minister Calderon or his government could possibly do;” that “these acts have caused the President great pain, and he thinks a proper acknowledgment is due to her Majesty’s government.” He invited the Spanish consul to return to his post, guaranteeing protection, and offering to salute the Spanish flag if the consul should come in a Spanish vessel. Such a treatment by the government of Chile of this assault would have been more creditable to the Chilean authorities; and much less can hardly be satisfactory to a government that values its dignity and honor.
In our note of October 23d last, which appears in the correspondence, after receiving the report of the board of officers appointed by Captain Schley to investigate the affair, the Chilean government was advised of the aspect which it then assumed, and called upon for any facts in its possession that might tend to modify the unfavorable impression which our report had created. It is very clear from the correspondence that before the receipt of this note the examination was regarded by the police authorities as practically closed. It was, however, reopened and protracted through a period of nearly three months. We might justly have complained of this unreasonable delay, but in view of the fact that the government of Chile was still provisional, and with a disposition to be forbearing and hopeful of a friendly termination, I have awaited the report which has but recently been made.
On the 21st instant I caused to be communicated to the government of Chile, by the American minister at Santiago, the conclusions of this government after a full consideration of all the evidence and of every suggestion affecting this matter, and to these conclusions I adhere. They were stated as follows:
“First—That the assault is not relieved of the aspect which the early information of the event gave to it, viz: That an attack was made upon the uniform of the United States Navy, having its origin and motive in a feeling of hostility to this government, and not on any account of the sailors or any of them.
“Second—That the public authorities of Valparaiso flagrantly failed in their duty to protect our men, and that some of the police and of the Chilean soldiers and sailors were themselves guilty of unprovoked assaults upon our sailors before and after arrest. He (the President) thinks the preponderance of the evidence and of the inherent probabilities lead to the conclusion that Riggin was killed by the police or soldiers.
“Third—That he (the President) is therefore compelled to bring the case back to the position taken by this government in the note of Mr. Wharton on October 23d last, *** and to ask for a suitable apology and for some adequate reparation for the injury done to this country.”
In the same note the attention of the Chilean government was called to the offensive character of a note addressed by Mr. Matta, its Minister of Foreign Affairs, to Mr. Montt, its minister at this capital, on the 11th ult. This dispatch was not officially communicated to this government, but as Mr. Montt was directed to translate it, and to give it to the press of this country, it seemed to me that it could not pass without official notice. It was not only undiplomatic, but grossly insulting to our naval officers and to the Executive Department, as it directly imputed untruth and insincerity to the reports of the naval officers and to the official communications made by the Executive Department to Congress. It will be observed that I have notified the Chilean government that unless this note is at once withdrawn and an apology as public as the offence made, I will terminate diplomatic relations.
The request for the recall of Mr. Egan upon the ground that he was not persona grata, was unaccompanied by any suggestion that could properly be used in support of it, and I infer that the request is based upon official acts of Mr. Egan, which have received the approval of this government. But however that may be, I could not consent to consider such a question until it had first been settled whether our correspondence with Chile could be conducted upon a basis of mutual respect.
In submitting these papers to Congress for that grave and patriotic consideration which the questions involved demand, I desire to say that I am of the opinion that the demands made of Chile by this government should be adhered to and enforced. If the dignity as well as the prestige and influence of the United States are not to be wholly sacrificed we must protect those who, in foreign ports, display the flag or wear the colors of this government against insult, brutality, and death, inflicted in resentment of the acts of their government, and not for any faults of their own. It has been my desire in every way to cultivate friendly and intimate relations with all the governments of this hemisphere.
We do not covet their territory; we desire their peace and prosperity. We look for no advantage in our relations with them except the increased exchanges of commerce upon a basis of mutual benefit. We regret every civil contest that disturbs their peace and paralyzes their development, and are always ready to give our good offices for the restoration of peace. It must, however, be understood that this government, while exercising the utmost forbearance towards weaker powers, will extend its strong and adequate protection to its citizens, to its officers, and to its humblest sailor, when made the victims of wantonness and cruelty in resentment, not of their personal misconduct, but of the official acts of their government.
Upon information received that Patrick Shields, an Irishman and probably a British subject, but at the time a fireman of the American steamer Keweenaw, in the harbor of Valparaiso for repairs, had been subjected to personal injuries in that city—largely by the police—I directed the Attorney-General to cause the evidence of the officers and crew of that vessel to be taken upon its arrival in San Francisco, and that testimony is also herewith transmitted.
The brutality and even savagery of the treatment of this poor man by the Chilean police would be incredible if the evidence of Shields was not supported by other direct testimony, and by the distressing condition of the man himself when he was finally able to reach his vessel. The captain of the vessel says:
“He came back a wreck: black from his neck to his hips, from beating; weak and stupid, and is still in a kind of paralyzed condition, and has never been able to do duty since.”
A claim for reparation has been made in behalf of this man, for, while he was not a citizen of the United States, the doctrine long held by us, as expressed in the Consular Regulations, is:
“The principles which are maintained by this government in regard to the protection as distinguished from the relief of seamen are well settled. It is held that the circumstance that the vessel is American is evidence that the seamen on board are such; and in every regularly documented merchant vessel the crew will find their protection in the flag that covers them.”
I have as yet received no reply to our note of the 21st inst., but, in my opinion, I ought not to delay longer to bring these matters to the attention of Congress for such action as may be deemed appropriate.
BENJAMIN HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, Jan. 25, 1892.
The National Conventions of 1892.
REPUBLICAN.
The National Republican Convention for 1892 was called to meet at Minneapolis June 7th. The Convention was close at hand before any candidates were named, other than President Harrison. In February Mr. Blaine had written to Mr. Clarkson, Chairman of the National Convention, saying that his name would not be presented as a candidate, and declining in such positive terms that it was accepted as meaning what it said at the time. Later on the opposition to the President’s nomination, led by a syndicate of very strong names—Platt, of New York; Quay, of Pennsylvania; Clarkson, of Iowa; Conger, of Ohio; Kellogg, of Louisiana; Wolcott, of Colorado; Bourne, of Oregon; Filley, of Missouri—agreed to present Mr. Blaine, upon the statement that he would accept if his nomination was plainly for the good of the party. Three days preceding the Convention Mr. Blaine suddenly resigned as Secretary of State, and thus created the impression that he would accept and that he was a candidate. The first effect of the resignation was to enthuse his friends, many of them already assembled at Minneapolis, but when the correspondence was published, and its terseness was traceable entirely to Mr. Blaine’s haste, a great reaction followed in all parts of the country, and groups of businessmen from all prominent towns and cities wired their delegates of the change in sentiment, and as a rule they were asked to re-nominate President Harrison. A feeling affected the Blaine delegates, and many of the leaders began to look for a third man, in the person of Major McKinley, the father of the tariff bill of 1890, since chosen Governor of Ohio. Major McKinley himself voted for Harrison and resisted a proposed stampede in his own behalf, which had been planned to plump Ohio, Oregon and Pennsylvania solidly for McKinley. The plan failed, partly because Harrison had gained largely over estimates after New York had voted, and Pennsylvania cast 19 votes for him at the only moment which could have been at all critical.
The Convention organized at noon on the 7th, with Major McKinley as its President. The first contest was upon the question of the majority and minority reports of the Committee on Contests, the majority being adopted and generally regarded as a victory for the friends of Harrison. The contests were important only in the case of Alabama, where two full sets of delegates disputed for the seats.
Senator Wolcott, of Colorado, presented the name of Mr. Blaine, and it was seconded by ex-Senator Warner Miller, of New York.
Ex-Secretary of the Navy Richard T. Thompson, of Indiana (on that day eighty-three years of age, and a delegate to every previous Republican National Convention), presented the name of President Harrison. It was seconded by Chauncey M. Depew, of New York, in a speech remarkable for its force and eloquence.
The first and only ballot was taken on the morning of June 10th, with the following result:
THE BALLOT IN DETAIL. ─────────────────────────────────────────┬─────────┬─────────┬───────── STATES. │Harrison.│ Blaine. │McKinley. ─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────── Alabama │ 15│ 0│ 7 Arkansas │ 15│ 0│ 1 California │ 8│ 9│ 1 Colorado │ 0│ 8│ 0 Connecticut │ 4│ 0│ 8 Delaware │ 4│ 1│ 1 Florida │ 8│ 0│ 0 Georgia │ 26│ 0│ 0 Idaho │ 0│ 6│ 0 Illinois │ 34│ 14│ 0 Indiana │ 30│ 0│ 0 Iowa │ 20│ 5│ 1 Kansas │ 11│ 0│ 9 Kentucky │ 22│ 2│ 1 Louisiana │ 8│ 8│ 0 Maine │ 0│ 12│ 0 Maryland │ 14│ 0│ 2 Massachusetts │ 18│ 1│ 11 Michigan │ 7│ 2│ 19 Minnesota │ 8│ 9│ 1 Mississippi │ 13½│ 4½│ 0 Missouri │ 28│ 4│ 2 Montana │ 5│ 1│ 0 Nebraska │ 15│ 0│ 1 Nevada │ 0│ 6│ 0 New Hampshire │ 4│ 2│ 0 New Jersey │ 18│ 2│ 0 New York │ 27│ 35│ 10 North Carolina │ 17⅔│ 2⅔│ 1 North Dakota │ 2│ 4│ 0 Ohio │ 1│ 0│ 45 Oregon │ 1│ 0│ 7 Pennsylvania │ 19│ 3│ 42 Rhode Island │ 5│ 1│ 1 South Carolina │ 13│ 3│ 2 South Dakota │ 8│ 0│ 0 Tennessee │ 17│ 4│ 3 Texas │ 22│ 6│ 0 Vermont │ 8│ 0│ 0 Virginia │ 9│ 13│ 2 Washington │ 1│ 6│ 1 West Virginia │ 12│ 0│ 0 Wisconsin │ 19│ 2│ 3 Wyoming │ 4│ 2│ 0 │ │ │ TERRITORIES. │ │ │ Alaska │ 2│ 0│ 0 Arizona │ 1│ 1│ 0 Dist. of Columbia │ 0│ 2│ 0 Indian Territory │ 1│ 1│ 0 New Mexico │ 6│ 0│ 0 Oklahoma │ 2│ 0│ 0 Utah │ 2│ 0│ 0 ─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────── Total │ 535⅙│ 182⅙│ 182 ─────────────────────────────────────────┴─────────┴─────────┴───────── Absent and not voting, 1⅔.
Reed, of Maine, received 3 votes, and Lincoln, of Illinois, 1.
Major McKinley moved to make the nomination unanimous, and it was adopted with great enthusiasm.
In response to the unanimous request of the New York delegation, Hon. Whitelaw Reid was nominated for Vice-President by acclamation.
[See Book II. for Platform and Comparison of Platforms; Book III. for speech of Hon. Chauncey M. Depew.]
DEMOCRATIC.
The Democratic National Convention assembled at Chicago, June 21st, and its deliberations excited great interest because of the opposition of the New York delegation to the nomination of Cleveland. Under the leadership of Governor Hill, the New York Democracy, in the canvass of 1891, carried the State, electing Flower as Governor, and Hill as U. S. Senator, the latter only after a severe contest and depriving three Republican State Senators of their seats by contests settled before partisan courts. The New York opposition to Cleveland, with the active aid of Tammany, united upon Hill as a Presidential candidate. A “snap” or mid-winter State Convention was called to elect delegates to the National Convention, and 72 Hill men were chosen and instructed. This system of forestalling public sentiment angered the Cleveland Democrats, who signed a protest to the number of 200,000 and three months later elected a contesting delegation, with instructions for Cleveland. Mr. Croker, Tammany’s Chief, and State Chairman Murphy were the Hill leaders at Chicago, and they gave early and public notice, in very bitter language, that if nominated Cleveland could not carry New York. Ex-Secretary of the Navy Whitney was the Cleveland leader, and he readily mustered more than two-thirds of the Convention, and felt so assured of victory that he advised the withdrawal of the contest against Hill’s delegation. Singularly enough the minority desired the repeal of the unit rule, for they had ascertained, after a careful canvass, that Cleveland would lose enough votes to check and possibly prevent his nomination if all of the delegates were permitted to vote separately. The unit rule, however, was carefully re-enacted in the report of the Committee on Rules.
Governor Wm. L. Wilson, of West Virginia, was elected President. Governor Leon Abbett, of New Jersey, presented the name of Grover Cleveland; William C. DeWitt, of New York, that of Senator David B. Hill, and John M. Duncombe, of Iowa, that of Governor Boies. A ballot was reached at 4 o’clock on the morning of the 23d, the Cleveland leaders doing this to prevent combinations by the opposition.
THE BALLOT IN DETAIL.
─────────────────┬──────────┬─────┬──────┬───────┬─────────── STATES. │Cleveland.│Hill.│Boies.│Gorman.│Scattering. ─────────────────┼──────────┼─────┼──────┼───────┼─────────── Alabama │ 14│ 2│ 1│ 1│ 4 Arkansas │ 16│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 California │ 18│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Colorado │ 0│ 3│ 5│ 0│ 0 Connecticut │ 12│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Delaware │ 6│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Florida │ 5│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 3 Georgia │ 17│ 5│ 0│ 4│ 0 Idaho │ 0│ 0│ 6│ 0│ 0 Illinois │ 48│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Indiana │ 30│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Iowa │ 0│ 0│ 26│ 0│ 0 Kansas │ 20│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Kentucky │ 18│ 0│ 2│ 0│ 6 Louisiana │ 3│ 1│ 11│ 1│ 0 Maine │ 9│ 1│ 0│ 1│ 1 Maryland │ 6│ 0│ 0│ 9½│ 0 Massachusetts │ 24│ 4│ 1│ 0│ 1 Michigan │ 28│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Minnesota │ 18│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Mississippi │ 8│ 3│ 3│ 4│ 0 Missouri │ 34│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Montana │ 0│ 0│ 6│ 0│ 0 Nebraska │ 15│ 0│ 0│ 1│ 0 Nevada │ 0│ 0│ 4│ 2│ 0 New Hampshire │ 8│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 New Jersey │ 20│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 New York │ 0│ 72│ 0│ 0│ 0 North Carolina │ 3⅓│ 1│ 0│ 0│ 17⅔ North Dakota │ 6│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Ohio │ 14│ 6│ 16│ 5│ 5 Oregon │ 8│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Pennsylvania │ 64│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Rhode Island │ 8│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 South Carolina │ 2│ 3│ 13│ 0│ 0 South Dakota │ 7│ 0│ 1│ 0│ 0 Tennessee │ 24│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Texas │ 23│ 1│ 6│ 0│ 0 Vermont │ 8│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Virginia │ 12│ 11│ 0│ 1│ 0 Washington │ 8│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 West Virginia │ 7│ 1│ 0│ 3│ 1 Wisconsin │ 24│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Wyoming │ 3│ 0│ 0│ 3│ 0 │ │ │ │ │ TERRITORIES │ │ │ │ │ Alaska │ 2│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Arizona │ 5│ 0│ 0│ 1│ 0 Dist. of Columbia│ 2│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 New Mexico │ 4│ 1│ 1│ 0│ 0 Oklahoma │ 2│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Utah │ 2│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Indian Territory │ 2│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 ─────────────────┼──────────┼─────┼──────┼───────┼─────────── Total │ 617⅓│ 115│ 103│ 36½│ 38⅔ ─────────────────┴──────────┴─────┴──────┴───────┴───────────
Number of votes cast, 909½. Necessary to a choice, 607.
Of the scattering votes Campbell got two from Alabama.
Carlisle got 3 from Florida, 6 from Kentucky, 5 from Ohio. Total 14.
Stephenson got 16⅔ from North Carolina.
Pattison got 1 from West Virginia.
Russell got 1 from Massachusetts.
Whitney got 1 from Maine.
Adlai E. Stevenson, of Illinois, former Assistant Postmaster-General, was nominated Vice-President on the first ballot, his chief competitor being Senator Gray, of Indiana.
[See Book II. for Democratic National Platform and Comparison; Book III. for Governor Abbett’s speech nominating Cleveland.]
A notable scene in the Convention was created by Mr. Neal, of Ohio, who moved to substitute a radical free trade plank as a substitute for the somewhat moderate utterances reported by ex-Secretary of the Interior Vilas, who read the report of the Committee on Platform. The substitute denounced the protective tariff as a fraud.
Mr. Neal made an earnest speech in support of his substitute and was ably seconded by Mr. Watterson.
Mr. Vilas replied defending the majority report in a vigorous speech, which was as generously applauded as that which preceded. The debate was animated and made specially interesting by the suggestions and calls from the galleries. The substitute was finally accepted by Chairman Jones on behalf of the committee, but this did not satisfy the friends of the substitute, who persisted in having a roll call upon its adoption.
A synopsis of the platform was submitted to and received the approval of Mr. Cleveland, and it was reported that the Neal substitute was prepared by the anti-Cleveland leaders, and the fact that the roll call was persisted in by the anti-Cleveland men gave color to this report.
There was a great deal of confusion and excitement preceding the roll call, and its progress was watched with as much interest as though its result was to decide the nomination. The States at the head of the roll generally cast their votes according to what was believed to be the feeling of their delegations on the Presidency, but later on the order was more varied, States known to be for Cleveland casting their solid vote for the substitute. New York was loudly cheered when the 72 votes of the State were given for the substitute. It was a most inconsistent vote, as Tammany is not regarded as a free trade organization—rather as one favoring moderate tariffs. A ripple of excitement was occasioned when Chairman Hensel cast the 64 votes of Pennsylvania against the substitute. Mr. Wallace protested that 15 of the delegates favored the substitute, and he demanded that the delegation be polled. A colloquy followed between Hensel and Wallace on the rules of the Convention, and the point raised by the former that Wallace’s motion was not in order under the unit rules was sustained by the Chair.
The result of the vote was 564 for the substitute and 342 against it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMERICAN POLITICS.