BOOK I. HISTORY OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES OF THE UNITED STATES. (continued 19)

“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 It will be observed that I have notified the Chilean government that unless this note is at once withdrawn and an apology as public as the offence made, I will terminate diplomatic relations.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 346wantonness 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.

347

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.

348Major 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.

349[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.

2003