Dickinson, Edward B., Stenographer; National Democratic Committee. Official Proceedings of the National Democratic Convention, Held in Chicago, ILL., July 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th, 1884 . New York: Douglas Taylor's Democratic Printing House, 1884. [format: book], [genre: proceedings]. Permission: Northern Illinois University
Persistent link to this document: http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/file.php?file=democrat1884.html

GENTLEMEN OF THE CONVENTION: You will remember that a little while ago, in a Convention held within these walls, amid the most unbounded enthusiasm outside the floor of the Convention, with waving plumes and shouts of joy, recorded as lasting for seventeen minutes continuously, the Republicans named their candidate; but within a few hours all the enthusiasm had subsided, and he has been the tamest kind of a candidate ever since.

I have no dancing plume to wave. I have no hope that the plain story I propose to address to you will awaken unbounded enthusiasm among those whose only concern is that some local advantage may be gained under the name of "Cleveland and Reform" in this, that, or the other State, at the sacrifice of the Presidency of the United States. I should be glad to second Mr. Cleveland's nomination except that I know and believe I can show you that he cannot carry the State of New York. I do not ask you to take my word for it. I don't ask you to decide a question of veracity as between the gentlemen who favor him and myself. I do not ask you

to weigh my opinion against that of any other man. But I point to you a test as unerring, as certain as the light of day itself, — if Grover Cleveland was the choice of the New York Democracy the last State Convention of that organization and the Delegates-at-large chosen by it, would not be equally divided between his friends and his opponents.

GEN. BRAGG, of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of order.

THE CHAIR: The gentleman will state his point of order and it will be heard.

GEN. BRAGG: I cannot state my point of order when a mob controls the Convention. When order prevails I will state my point of order. My point of order is that the order of business which this — [The confusion was so great the speaker's voice was drowned again.]

THE CHAIR: The Sergeant-at-Arms will preserve order. The gentleman is entitled to state his point of order, and shall do it.

GEN. BRAGG: My point of order is that the order of business which this Convention is executing is the nomination of candidates and not the attacking of candidates. Upon that point I call the gentleman to order and ask the ruling of the Chair.

THE CHAIR: The Chair remembers that a similar point of order was made at the St. Louis Convention; and, as the Chair remembers, it was sustained. But the Chair has been disposed to be exceedingly lenient in allowing the course of remarks, anticipating that the gentleman would come to his nomination. Unless he is about to proceed to his nomination the Chair would feel obliged to sustain the point of order.

MR. DANIEL MANNING, Chairman of the New York Delegation: On behalf of the New York State Delegation I ask unanimous consent of this Convention that Mr. Grady be allowed to proceed, without regard to the point of order.

THE CHAIR: The Chair did not hear the gentleman from New York. [The official stenographer repeated to the Chairman what Mr. Manning had said.] The Chairman of the New York Delegation asks the consent of the Convention that the gentleman (Mr. Grady) be allowed to proceed irrespective of the point of order.

GEN. R. C. WICLIFFE, of Louisiana: I will agree to that proposition,

provided a New York Delegate shall be heard in reply to him.

THE CHAIR: The Chair hears no objection, and presumes that to be the unanimous consent of the Convention. The Sergeant-at-Arms will ask the gentlemen to take their seats. The Convention will please be in order, and give Mr. Grady the entire, patient hearing that his ability entitles him to.

MR. GRADY: Mr. Chairman, it has been stated that the purpose for which you are assembled is to make a nomination that will be ratified by the people at the next election, and it has been urged in support of the nomination presented from New York that that is the one that would receive such treatment at the hands of the people. I am here to say to you that we do not claim, a suggested by the distinguished Delegate from Illinois, that the Catholics or the Irish are against Mr. Cleveland. We are here to say that the Anti-Monopoly element of the State, and the laboring interest of the State, Catholic and Protestant, Irish, German and American, every man who belongs to either of these two great interests, is opposed to Grover Cleveland's nomination, and will be opposed to Grover Cleveland's election, and with good reason for their course. I am speaking to you from the records of our State. I am not sneaking into the rooms of your Delegations, taking my chance as to whether what I say will be known to those of when it is said. I am here before this Convention backed by the public records of my State. Mr. Cleveland was elected Governor of the State of New York in 1882 by a majority of 192,000. He owed that majority, first, to the most loyal, enthusiastic, devoted Democratic support that ever a candidate received. Next, he owed it to those identified with the Anti-Monopoly organization in every one of the sixty counties of our State, because at the preceding Legislative session a Railroad Commission bill had been passed; and third, he owed it to the Republican disaffection brought about by the same interference in local concerns of which Mr. Cleveland himself has been guilty since.

But let us go back to 1882. The gentleman who placed his name in nomination said the world is moving — moving rapidly. The world is moving much too rapidly, if Thurman, McDonald, Bayad and Randall must stand aside while Cleveland takes the lead. We had an election in 1883. We had a candidate representing all that Mr. Cleveland represents. He was Mr. Cleveland's beau ideal; he represented his party policy, his political methods, and everything

with which Mr. Cleveland has seen fit to identify himself; and instead of riding at the head of the majority column, 192,000 strong, he was buried under an adverse majority of 18,597, making a change in the Democratic vote of 211,431. They will tell you that a local issue brought about that change. They will tell you that it was the candidate's identification with Prohibition; but the whole State, from one end to the other, where the liquor element was great and where the liquor element was weak, showed the same dissatisfaction with Mr. Cleveland's administration; and right in Mr. Cleveland's own home of Erie County the Democratic loss was 11,787. Let me try to show you the cause for this. I said that much of Mr. Cleveland's success was due to the fact that the Democratic Legislature in 1882 had passed a Railroad Commission bill. Much of the dissatisfaction with Mr. Cleveland to-day is because he has deprived the people of the fruits and benefits of that Railroad Commission bill. He has appointed men identified with the interests to which the people are opposed. He has made it not a court before which they can go with confidence, but a packed jury, in which they have no voice, and from which they can gain no relief. (Confusion and noise.)

HON. M. J. MCCAFFERTY, of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, I call attention to the fact that all disturbances are outside the line of the Delegates. If the President would enforce the rule that those outside of Delegates should remain quiet or the house would be cleared of them we would get through with this business much more rapidly.

THE CHAIR: The Chair will certainly enforce that rule unless the disturbances be discontinued. The gentleman from New York has the floor and is entitled to patient hearing.

MR. GRADY: It was because of this action that the Anti-Monopoly vote, which is not the Tammany vote, which is not a vote controlled by political organization, which is not a vote confined to the City of New York, but which extends throughout the entire State — that vote was alienated from the Democratic party, and if there be any dispute as to the standing of that organization in reference to the nomination of Mr. Cleveland for the Presidency I am willing that the Executive Committee of the Anti-Monopoly League should speak, and they have spoken, in condemnation of his candidacy, and of unalterable opposition in the event of his name being placed upon our ticket.

The distinguished gentleman from Illinois, who doubted whether there was any one who would charge the veto of the Elevated Railroad bill as being influenced by corrupt motives, can do as all of us have done — take the facts and make up his opinion for himself. In 1882 the Democratic Senate passed the Five-Cent-Fare bill. In 1882, as was supposed, by the corrupt use of money, the Five-Cent bill was defeated in the Assembly. In 1883 the bill passed the Assembly without any attempt to stop it. The bill came to a Senate already committed to its support and the people thought there was something wrong — people feared there might be something wrong — and people have placed the entire responsibility for the injustice under which they suffer in this regard upon the shoulders of the present Governor of our State. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the Convention, they have told you that this Five-Cent-Fare bill was an unimportant local issue. I will tell you what it meant. It meant that when the clerk left his business at 3 o'clock Saturday he should not stand for an hour and a half under the broiling sun to keep five cents in his own pocket and out of the pocket of the grasping monopoly whose services he had to employ. It meant that on Sunday, when the mechanic —

A VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: Why don't you speak for Blaine?

THE CHAIR: The Sergeant-at-Arms will give attention to that man in the gallery.

MR. CASSIDY, of Iowa: I move that the galleries be cleared.

THE CHAIR: The galleries must keep order or they will be cleared. The gentleman shall have the floor and a fair opportunity to say every word he is entitled to say.

MR. GRADY: It meant that on Sunday, when the mechanic took his wife and his two or three children to get a breath of fresh air from out the tenement districts that he should not have to pay — (Renewed confusion.)

THE CHAIR: The Convention will be in order. Delegates will take their seats. Every man must contribute his efforts to preserve order by maintaining it himself. The gentleman from New York will proceed. Let there be perfect order and you will enjoy his argument and sooner reach a conclusion.

MR. GRADY: It meant that when the workingman on Sunday takes his wife and his two or three children to the Elevated Railroad depot to go from out the tenement district into the suburbs, there to have the only holiday vouchsafed him during the week, he should

pay twenty cents instead of forty cents fare, and in going and coming save what represents to him the toil of five hours during the day. And I say to you the State of New York cannot be carried for Mr. Cleveland; not because of any Irish question, not because of any Catholic question, but because of this Anti-Monopoly question in which the people have a deep-seated feeling that no man could be worse to them than Mr. Cleveland has been in that regard. Joined with this is the large labor interest in the State of New York. They seek to speak for the laboring interest. They have had here one or two men whose connection with the laboring interest has resulted in placing them in comfortable berths. They have asked you to accept their whispers as the feelings of that great body of men who cannot be delivered over on election-day by any political organization under the sun.

Now, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the Convention, it is easy to indulge in glittering generalities. Democracy is a great, big word, and has often been employed to cover a multitude of sins. I only know of one single instance in which Grover Cleveland was brought face to face with Democratic doctrine and made to show his hand either as a Democrat or something else, and he proved at that time to be something else. The Democracy are opposed to the centralization of power. The Democracy believe in the lodging of power in the hands of the people. The Democracy believe in the distribution of power so that it shall never become stronger in an official than is consistent with the absolute liberty of the people. One great question was offered to Mr. Cleveland during the eighteen months of his Administration to prove himself either the friend of absolutism, of centralized autocratic government, or to prove himself attached to the true principles of Democracy, and he failed us then.

Now, gentlemen of the Convention, let me remind you of a consideration that has been used every day since the canvass opened in this city, and that is that the fight against Cleveland was the same fight that had been made eight years ago against Samuel J. Tilden. But you men who know those who at that time were as close in Mr. Tilden's support as any man now upon this floor, find them to-day arrayed against this attempt to sacrifice the opportunity of the Democratic party to take a gambler's chance of winning the State of New York with a doubtful man.

HON. W. A. WALLACE, of Pennsylvania: Will the Chair permit me to make a motion?

THE CHAIR: The gentleman from New York has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: Will the gentleman yield so that I may introduce a motion?

MR. GRADY: Certainly.

THE CHAIR: The gentleman yields. Senator Wallace has the floor.

SENATOR WALLACE: I move to suspend the order of business now pending in order that I may introduce a motion to take a recess until 7.30 this evening. We have been in session six hours; human endurance can stand it no longer, and I hope we may be permitted to take a recess.

THE CHAIR: The gentleman from Pennsylvania moves to suspend the order of business with the view of making a motion, he says, to take a recess until 7.30.

MR. SMALLEY, of Vermont: I rise to a point of order.

THE CHAIR: The gentleman will state his point of order.

MR. SMALLEY: My point of order is that during the call of the roll of the States the motion to take a recess is not in order.

THE CHAIR: The Chair is obliged to overrule the point of order. The Convention may at any time suspend its order of business. The motion is not debatable.

The motion to suspend the order of business was lost.

THE CHAIR: Gentlemen will now come to order. If we remain here until midnight we will do it like gentlemen. The Convention will come to order, and order will be maintained on the part of the audience. The gentleman from New York has the floor.

MR. GRADY: I have only asked this Convention to accept as authorized the statements which have been made by those in authority to speak for the opposition against the nomination which has been urged; and I want to contrast with the treatment of that nomination the position taken with regard to other nominations that have been made. It has been urged that Thurman is not available because he comes from an October State. It is placing a low estimate upon the intelligence of the Democracy of the Nation to say that as against a life-long public service, such as the distinguished son of Ohio has given to this Nation and to the Democratic party, the State from which he comes or the time of its election shall count against him.

It is urged against McDonald that he belongs to the West and that the candidate must come from New York. If the candidate is to come from New York let it be some man in New York who will not be antagonized by those elements that are outside of political control. But, sir, New York cannot afford to take that position. The Democracy of New York takes no such position, and the men who represent her as greedily demanding that if the President is to be elected he must come from that State do a great injustice to the constituencies by whom they were sent here. New York can be carried for Bayard, McDonald, Thurman, Randall, or any man who may be named outside of the State. New York is a safe State if we have the Democratic party solidly united. New York is not a safe State, even if we have a few Independent Republican votes, if most of the Democrats are enrolled in some other camp. Let the first concern of this Convention be to keep united the members of our own party. First let us take care of our household, and then let us go on this mission of charity to the political heathen who is willing to be converted outside of the Republican camp and administer to him such consolation as may be within our power. I am only anxious that the outcome of this Convention shall be the nomination of a ticket which shall bring to its support every honest, loyal Democrat throughout the United States. I am only anxious that the cowardice condemned by us when exhibited by our enemies, and yet imitated by us when faced with the practical question, shall not deprive us of the advantage of the present political situation. The Chairman of this Convention said that it was time that the war issues were buried, that he believed they were buried, that he believed it would be fruitless to attempt to revive them throughout the Union; and yet here in a Democratic Convention it is urged against one of the candidates that, because some twenty-three years ago his voice went up for peace rather than for war, he cannot be presented after twenty-five years of patriotic service as a safe candidate before the very men who say that the war and its memories, its unpleasant memories, must be a thing of the past. I say to you, if you show that cowardice here now, you may expect the rebuke which cowardice deserves. I tell you that if you look with confidence to the men who have suffered most because of their undying and unflinching Democracy, you must show here to-day a Democracy that is satisfied first in satisfying Democrats, and whose second concern is in satisfying those dissatisfied with their own party.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the Convention, for

the patient hearing you have given me. I only hope that the result of the vote upon the question will make us a united party marching solidly to victory under the leadership of some statesman who is known throughout the length and breadth of the land.

THE CHAIR: The gentleman from New York, Mr. Cockran.

MR. COCKRAN: I have a motion to make. Mr. Chairman, my motion is a very innocent one. It is simply to renew that which had been previously made by Senator Wallace except in a sufficiently modified form to bring it within the rules. I move that the order of business be now suspended, and that we take a recess until eight o'clock this evening. And on that motion I call for the roll of States, and I will submit to have it voted down by the Delegates, but I decline to have it smothered by the galleries.

THE CHAIR: The gentleman from New York moves to suspend the order of business with a view to make a motion to take a recess to eight o'clock this evening. He calls for a call of the roll of the States. I wish to state that I have disregarded individual calls early in the Convention and that I believed that I was right in doing so, and having since conferred with distinguished parliamentarians knowing the rules of the House of Representatives, which govern this body, I find I am right, and that a call of the States can only be made when one State — not an individual Delegate, but through its Chairman — calls for the roll and five States second it. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from New York to suspend the order of business, which is not debatable.

The motion was lost.

MR. JOHN F. HOUSE, of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. Is a motion to adjourn now in order?

THE CHAIR: No, sir. The house is still in the execution of its order of business, and the only motion that the Chair can entertain is to suspend that order of business.

MR. HOUSE: A motion to adjourn, Mr. Chairman, is always in order.

THE CHAIR: No, sir; not when the order of business is proceeding.

MR. COCKRAN, of New York: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of privilege. A demand was made for a call of the roll of States by the State of California which the Chairman overlooked.

THE CHAIR: The Chair did overlook it, he regrets to say, if it was made; but the motion has been lost, and the Chair so decided.

MR. COCKRAN: Mr. Chairman, I then renew my motion to adjourn until half-past eight.

THE CHAIR: Let us have order, gentlemen. We make no progress whatever in disorder. The gentleman from New York renews the motion to suspend the order of business with a view to a motion for a recess until half-past eight.

MR. COCKRAN: Until eleven o'clock in the morning — I desire to change that.

MR. BRAGG, of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. There has been no intervening business for this motion to suspend.

THE CHAIR: The point of order of the gentleman from Wisconsin is that it is a motion to suspend the order of business which has just been overruled without intervening business. It is well taken, and the motion is out of order.

MR. COCKRAN: I then ask for the floor in the name of the State of New York.

MR. MCGILVRAY, of Colorado: Mr. President, I propose to renew that motion, sir, but in a different manner.

THE CHAIR: One moment. The gentleman from New York asks the floor.

Mr. Cockran, of New York, then took the speaker's platform.

A DELEGTE: Does he want to make a nomination?

MR. COCKRAN: Mr. Chairman, I am here to second a nomination.

A DELEGATE: I object.

THE CHAIR: He rises to second a nomination. I trust there will be no further objection or disorder. Let us hear the gentleman from New York. The gentleman from New York has the floor.

MR. O. W. POWERS, of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. Unless the gentleman takes the floor to nominate or present a candidate he is out of order.

Previous section

Next section