, are not disposed to accept its
conclusion as an authoritative utterance of the party."[1795]
[Footnote 1791: September 23.]
[Footnote 1792: The _Nation_, October 5.]
[Footnote 1793: New York _Tribune_, October 4.
"By one of those curious blunders to which editorial offices are
liable in the absence of the responsible head, an article by Mr.
Curtis was modified to commit the paper to the support of the
candidate. Curtis resigned the editorship. It was promptly and in the
most manly manner disavowed by the house of Harper & Bros."--Edward
Cary, _Life of Curtis_, p. 275.]
[Footnote 1794: September 22.]
[Footnote 1795: New York daily papers, October 4.]
Folger was not suspected of any personal complicity with unfair
dealing, but the deep and general Republican dissatisfaction greatly
disturbed him. His friends urged him to withdraw. Stewart L. Woodford,
then United States attorney, insisted that fraud and forgery vitiated
all the convention did, and that the "short, direct, and honourable
way out of it was to refuse the nomination."[1796] The Kings County
executive committee assured him that many influential Republicans
considered this the wisest course. From prominent men in all parts of
the State came similar advice. This view appealed to his own better
judgment, and he had decided so to act until persuaded otherwise by
the pleadings of the Stalwarts.[1797] His acceptance, recalling the
Tilden letter of 1880, was a touching appeal to the voters. Referring
to the fraudulent practices, he said: "No one claims, no one believes,
that I had lot or part therein, or previous hint or suspicion thereof.
I scorn an end to be got by such means. I will not undertake to
measure the truth of all these reports; that of one is beyond
dispute."[1798] Nevertheless, Folger could not deny that he was a
willing recipient of that "one," through the influence of which, by
creating the impression that Robertson and other anti-Administration
leaders favoured the Stalwart's choice of a temporary chairman, he
gained a much greater power in the convention than his eight majority
represented.[1799]
[Footnote 1796: New York _Times_, September 29.]
[Footnote 1797: Albany _Evening Journal_, October 16.]
[Footnote 1798: Folger's letter is found in the daily papers of
October 4.]
[Footnote 1799: It was generally known that this influence changed the
votes of two acting State committeemen, who had agreed to act with the
Cornell
|