Chapter XXXIX: Section 1: All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain (6)

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detectives were, after his arrival, withdrawn during his stay.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.