LI B R. A FLY OF THE U N IVERSITY Of ILLINOIS A Bequest from Marion D. Pratt Bis* Cop. S ILLINOIS HISTORICAL SURVEY UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS IN ILLINOIS, 1952 by Clarence A. Berdahl with Robert S. Friedman Robert E. Scott W. Carl Wimberly THE INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC AFFAIRS trO& y^t&M DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS IN ILLINOIS, 1952 Report on THE ILLINOIS DELEGATION to the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION, 1952 by Clarence A. Berdahl Professor of Political Science University of Illinois assisted by Robert S. Friedman Fellow in Political Science University of Illinois Robert E. Scott Assistant Professor of Political Science University of Illinois W. Carl Wimberly Assistant in Political Science University of Illinois Prepared for COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROJECT ON CONVENTION DELEGATES AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION University of Illinois INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS Urbana, Illinois 1954 " I N OTE This study is one of manv included in the Cooperative Research Project on Convention Delegations, directed by the Committee on PoJitical Parties of the American Political Science Association. The study is published by the Institute of Government and Public Affairs for the purpose of making available information on the role of the Illinois delegation in the presidential nominating procedure. The views expressed are those of the authors and not those of the Institute. Professor Berdahl's study deals only with the Illinois delegation to the Democratic National Convention. Others worked on the study of the delegation to the Republican National Convention. For this reason the present publication is limited to the one delegation. »J Summaries of the studies made on the delegations of all states appear in Presidential Nominating Politics in 1952 (5 volumes), pub- '"} lished for the American Political Science Association by The Johns ^Jppkins Press. Royden Dangerfield, Director Institute of Government and Public Affairs TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Background Factors Predecessor Delegations 1 Leadership 2 Voting Record and Significant Action 3 Partisan Pattern 6 Machine Politics 7 Basic Procedures for Constituting the Delegation 8 II. Delegate Selection and Commitment in 1952 10 Pre-Primary Selection of Delegate Candidates 10 Organisation Slates 12 Delegate Pledges or Commitments 14. Results of Presidential Primary 15 State Convention and Delegates at Large 17 III. Nature and Composition of the Delegation 22 Descriptive Data 22 Delegation Powers and Procedure 25 IV. Delegation Activities and Behavior 27 Organization 27 Headquarters 32 Attitude on Convention Problems 34 Attitude and Strategy on Nominations 36 Footnotes 43 Tables 48 I. Candidates for District Delegates and Alternates, 1952 48 II. Presidential Primary Results, 1940-1952 50 III. Comparison of Democratic Vote for President and Delegates, 1952 51 IV. Alphabetical List of Delegates and Alternates, 1952 52 V. Convention Experience of 1952 Delegation 53 VI. Delegation Officers, 1940-1952 56 Report on Illinois Democratic Delegation, 1952 I. Background Factors Predecessor Delegations . The Illinois delegations to the three previous Democratic Conventions were not particularly unusual in any re- spect, but conformed, on the whole, to the common pattern. In view of the size of Illinois and its electoral vote, these delegations were neces- sarily large and occasionally larger than necessary. Thus, the 194-0 del- egation, with 58 votes, consisted of a total of I64., 82 delegates and 82 alternates, these being broken down into 32 delegates at large with 1/4- vote each, 50 district delegates with one vote each, and an equal number of alternates in each case. Since the Convention call expressly permitted doubling the number of delegates at large but also expressly forbade any additional number, the Illinois delegation in 194-0 exceeded the authorized quota of delegates by 16 and the total authorized quota by 32. In 1944, the delegation, again with 58 votes, consisted of 16 delegates at large (12 regular and 4- as a bonus for voting Democratic in I94.O) with l/2 vote each, 50 district delegates with one vote each, and an equal number of alternates in eacb case. The total delegation of 132 (66 delegates and 66 alternates) conformed exactly to the number allotted and authorized. In 194-8, the delegation, with 60 votes, consisted of 20 delegates at large with 19 alternates (each presumably having 2/5 vote), and 51 district delegates (only one from the 4th district) with 52 alter- nates, with one vote each; there was thus a total delegation of 142, 71 delegates and 71 alternates, which in that year was an excess of three over the authorized number of delegates and an overall excess of six. -2- It may also be pointed out that the expressed purpose of the Democratic National Convention, in authorizing the doubling of the dele- gates at large, was to provide equal representation for women. This prin- ciple was not adhered to by the Illinois Democrats, in that the 194-0 del- egates at large included only two women delegates and four women alternates out of 32 of each, and a total of three women delegates and seven women alternates in the entire delegation; the 1944 delegation included only one woman delegate at large and two alternates at large out of 16, respec- tively, and a total of two women delegates and seven women alternates in the entire delegation; the 194-8 delegation included only one woman dele- gate at large and three women alternates out of 20 and 19, respectively, and only three women delegates and nine women alternates in the entire delegation. The large number of places seems rather to have been dis- tributed among lesser politicians of various racial groups than among the women. Leadership : The Illinois delegation selected as its Chairman in 194.0, Pat Nash, then retiring as National Committeeman after many years of service, and long a dominant figure in Cook County and state politics;' 1 in 1944., Mayor Edward J. Kelly of Chicago, who was a close political as- sociate of Mr. Nash, and succeeded him as National Committeeman; and in 194.8, Jacob (Jake) M. Arvey, then chairmen of the Cook County Democratic Committee and shortly afterwards Mayor Kelly's successor as National Com- mitteeman and as the dominant party leader in Chicago and the state. Although in each case the Chairman was the outstanding leader of the party and easily controlled the delegation, he also in each case advised with and was assisted by a group of able leaders, some of whom were seasoned pol- -3- iticians, such as John S. Clark, Albert J. Horan, and Joseph L* Gill of Chicago, some experienced public officials, such as Governor Henry Horner and Senator Scott Lucas, and some newly recognized amateurs, such as the 19^8 nominees for Governor and Senator, Adlai Stevenson and Paul Douglas. Although the leadership in Illinois has always been firm and even dominant, it appears also to have been exercised with understanding of the political situation and of the sensitivities of individual dele- gates, and without restriction on the right of the delegates to vote as 3 they please. Voting Record and Significant Actions : During each of the three preceding Conventions the Illinois delegation operated on the floor of the Convention as a solid and harmonious group on most questions, and even when not completely solid in its voting it was nevertheless without rancor, bitterness, or any factional differences. In respect to the platform, the delegations in each case selected its representatives on the Platform Com- mittee from its most outstanding members — Mayor Edward J. Kelly of Chicago in 1940; Bruce A. Campbell, prominent downstate leader, and Mrs. Elizabeth A. Conkey in 1944; Senator Lucas and Mrs. Conkey in 194-8 (Senator Lucas having also been in that year a member of the Preliminary Committee on Platform). In 1940 and 1944> the platform was adopted without a rollcall, and with only minor debate in 1944 in which the Illinois delegation did not participate; but in 1948 the delegation, without taking any part in the vigorous debate, voted solidly to defeat the Mcody proposal for a states' rights plank and to support the Biemiller-Humphrey proposal for a strong civil rights plank. In 1948, Adlai Stevenson, as the Illinois member of the Creden- tials Committee, signed the minority report to refuse seats to the Miss- ' -4- issippi delegates who had been instructed to bolt the Convention in case of a civil rights plank or the nomination of Harry Truman, and this posi- tion was solidly supported by the Illinois delegation. In fact, although there was no roll call on this question, the Illinois delegation asked that its support of the ainarity report be recorded, an action that was thereupon followed by tw© other delegations (New York and California). In respect to presidential nominations, the delegation had only limited guidance from the party voters, since in 1944- and 1948 no presi- dential candidates filtd in the Illinois presidential primary. In 1940, President Roosevelt aad Vice President Garner both allowed their names to appear on the Illinois primary ballot, the result being an overwhelming victory for President Roosevelt (1,176,531 to 190,801); this also clearly represented the views of the Illinois delegation, which unanimously agreed in caucus to cast all 58 votes for Roosevelt and did so vote on the one ballot taken in the Convention. In 1944* without any names on the primary ballot for President, Roosevelt received a write-in vote of 47,561, against a scattering vote for others of 343; and again the Illinois delegation voted solidly for a fourth Roosevelt nomination. In 1948, there was for some time more un- certainty and less unanimity. Without any names on the ballot, President Truman received 16,299 write-in votes, General Eisenhower 1,709, Senator Lucas 427, and others a total of 1,513. Several Democratic leaders in Illinois, including particularly Jake Arvey and Paul Douglas, were origin- ally opposed to the rencmination of President Truman and strongly preferred General Eisenhower. Mr. Arvey attempted to start an Eisenhower boom, but on the failure of that boom declared for Truman and led his followers and " : -5- the delegation to support the President. In its caucus on the eve of the Convention, the delegation agreed to vote for Truman, the President's nomination was seconded by Benjamin S. Adamowski, then Corporation Counsel of Chicago, and even Paul Douglas, who was reported to have held out against Truman in the caucus, went along in the Convention, so that the delegation's vote was cast solidly for the President. 4- The Vice Presidential nomination was somewhat less assured be- fore the Convention met in each of those years, and the position of the Illinois delegation was therefore less clear and certain. In 194-0, the delegation endorsed and was prepared to support Senator Lucas for Vice President, but probably in view of President Roosevelt's known preference for Secretary Wallace, did not formally present Lucas' name to the Con- vention. Lucas was, however, nominated by a Wisconsin delegate, (Paul Hemmy, Jr.), but promptly withdrew his name in view of President Roose- velt's desire and the fact, as Lucaa said, that the Convention was, under these circumstances, "not a free and open convention." The Illinois dele- gation voted overwhelmingly for Wallace (55), three delegates voting for Speaker Bankhead. In 194-4-* the delegation again endorsed Senator Lucas for the Vice Presidency, he was nominated by Mayor Kelly, the chairman of the del- egation, and the delegation voted solidly for him on two ballots; in view of the trend towards Truman on the second ballot, however, the Illinois delegation caucused before the result was announced and the overwhelming majority switched to Truman, with a few still strongly supporting Wallace, and Mayer Kelly holding out for Lucas; in the end the delegation voted 55 for Truman and 3 for Wallace. In 194-8, the nomination of Senator Barkley -6- to the Vice Presidency was seconded in a brief ringing speech by Ailai Stevenson, then the nominee for Governor, and the Illinois delegation joined in making Barkley's nomination by acclamation. Partisan Pattern . Illinois had become, since the Civil War, a fairly dependable Republican state; from I860 until 1932 it was carried for the Democratic Presidential ticket only twice — in 1892, when Cleveland's running mate was Adlai E. Stevenson, a favorite son of Illinois and the grandfather of the present Governor j and in 1912, when the split in the Republican Party ensured a Democratic victory in the state as well as in the nation. Similarly, it was only in those same years that the Democrats were able to elect a Governor or other state officer. With the advent of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, this situation has changed to the extent that Illinois has since 1932 been consistently Democratic in national politics and rather evenly divided in state politics, the Republicans having won the Governorship and most state offices twice during this period (194-0, 194/.) and the Democrats three times (1932, 1936, 1948). The Democratic strength has been principally in Chicago and Cook County while Dnwnstate has ordinarily been strongly Republican, and this means that the Republicans have generally controlled the legislature and a considerable majority of the county and local governments, and have usually held a majority of the seats in Congress, even in the New Deal years. The Senate seats, held by the Republicans until 1930, have since that year been won by the Republicans three times (1940, 1942, 1950) and by the Democrats six times (1930, 1932, 1936, 1938, 1944, 19^8). Both parties are, in other words, strongly entrenched in the Congres- sional delegations from Illinois, and in state and local government, and their -7- participation in Presidential selection is likely to be heavily influenced by its effect upon their interests in state and local politics. Ma chine Politics . The Democratic Party, as well as the Repub- lican, has long been dominated by a thoroughly established machine. In the case of the Democrats, this machine is primarily centered in Chicago and Cook County, but its influence and control have extended to the state as a whole. The leader or "boss" of this machine was for many years George Brennan, the National Committeeman. He was succeeded in both positions by Pat Nash, who was, however, closely associated with Mayor Cermak of Chicago and later with Mayor Kelly (who also became National Committeeman) in what was commonly referred to as the Kelly-Nash Machine. Upon the death of Pat Nash and the retirement and later death of Mayor Kelly, the leadership went to Jake Arvey, the Chairman of the Democratic Cook County Committee and later National Committeeman. These men built up a powerful organization in Cook County through the ward and precinct leaders in Chicago, and through the skillful use of patronage, which frequently was in the nature of bipartisan deals with the Republicans. They were, however, always closely associated with prominent and highly respectable Downstate party leaders, such as Bruce A. Campbell and Harry B. Hershey; and, on the whole, these machine leaders showed good judgment and a considerable sense of public service in the selection of party candidates, especially for state and national office. The lack of factional differences in the Democratic Party has been notable, although there have been some sectional feelings and jealousies between the Chicago and the Downstate leaders which have been tdc en into account in making up the party slates. On the whole, the Chicago machine has been dominant, -a- and its endorsement has been, with rare exceptions, necessary to win a n Democratic nomination and an election in Illinois. This dominance has also meant very few contests for office in a Democratic primary, so few that on occasion special devices have been used to attract attention to the party and its candidates.^ Basic Procedures for Constituting the Delegation . Illinois has been operating under some form of presidential primary since 1912. The law enacted in that year provided for a presidential preference vote only; in 1913 the legislature provided also for the direct election of all the delegates at the primary; in 1927, this was changed to the election of district delegates only at the primary and the election of the delegates at large by the state convention;' and this combination of presidential preference, direct election of district delegates, and convention election of delegates at large has been the required system in Illinois since that time. The presidential preference expressed by the party voters is, according to the law, not legally binding upon the delegates, but is ad- visory only, the vote of the state as a whole being advisory to the del- egates at large and t' e vote of each district being advisory to the res- pective district delegates. Until 1927, delegate candidates were required to state on the ballot their preference for President, or to state that they had no preference, but this requirement was removed in 1927. Other changes in the law have been made from time to time, but have been of a routine nature. The primary is closed, filing for the ballot is by peti- tion (for President, by 3000-5000 party voters; for district delegate or alternate, by 1/2 per cent of the party voters in the respective district); -9- nomination or election is by plurality, the state conventions are composed of delegates chosen from each county by the county convention (county committee), on the basis of one delegate for each 500 party voters or frac- tion thereof, and are required to meet for the purpose of choosing delegates. at large and performing other duties, 10 on the first Friday after the second Monday following the primary (in 1952, this was April 25). There do not appear to be any formal party regulations for either party in Illinois dealing with the selection and instruction of delegates, and, in general, such customary procedures as have developed are to make a loose statutory system even more loose in practice, and to deny any ef- fective participation to the party voter. These procedures may be summed up about as follows: (l) Delegates are generally slated by the party or- ganization or machine, and opposition is discouraged. (2) The slated delegates seldom commit themselves in advance to any particular presiden- tial candidate, a free and unpledged delegation being preferred. Thus, in 1924, with strong sentiment among Illinois Democrats for Mr. McAdoo and a slate of delegates running pledged to him under the system of pref- erence then permitted under the law, the organization slate, which won, ran without any expressed preference although known to be against McAdoo. This practice is made much easier by the repeal in 1927 of the provision for pledged delegates. (3) Presidential candidates are not encouraged to run in the primary, although occasionally favorite son candidacies are developed for trading purposes; a genuine choice for the party voter is rare in Illinois. (4) The advisory instructions provided for by the Illinois law are commonly ignored, unless they happen to be in accord with the preference of the party leaders in the state. For example, in -10- 1924- Mr. McAdoo, as the only presidential candidate to file in the Illinois Democratic primary, received an unusually large vote and, of course, carried the primary, but at no time during the 103 ballots in the Convention did he receive more than 15 votes from the Illinois delegation; in 1932, Senator James Hamilton Lewis won the advisory instructions, as a favorite son can- didate without any opposition, but his name was not even presented to the Convention and a majority of the Illinois delegation preferred and voted for a Chicago banker, Melvin Traylor, until it joined in the final nomina- tion of Franklin D. Roosevelt. There has, in fact, been little controversy over or discussion of the presidential primary in Illinois since its adoption in 1912, and apparently little disposition to change its principal features and almost none to abandon it altogether. The system allows the party voters some formal participation in the process of presidential selection and a con- siderable measure of potential influence, but, in practice, this has not interfered with the operations of the party organizations, and both ele- ments, the voters and the party leaders, seem reasonably content. II. Delegate Selection and Commitment in 1952 Pre-Primary Selection of Delegate Candidates . Within the Re- publican Party in Illinois, the process of selecting delegates to the Na- tional Convention began early, was clearly associated with the Taft-Eisen- hower fight, and attracted a good deal of attention. By contrast, the situation within the Democratic Party was unusually quiet. As long as President Truman's intentions with rospect to a third term were uncertain, the party leaders were unwilling to take any initiative. Even after the President's withdrawal, the unwillingness of Governor Stevenson to declare -11- Miraself a candidate for the Presidential nomination, but the continued hope of numerous party leaders in the state and in the nation that he might be persuaded, kept the situation fluid. The exclusive entry of Senator Kefauver in the Illinois presidential primary was not taken seri- ously by the party leaders in the state, except by Senator Douglas, who had formally announced his support of Kefauver immediately after Governor Stevenson publicly took himself out of the Presidential race. In fact, a certain coolness had developed between Senator Douglas and Governor Stevenson that now affected the problem of delegate selections. Apparently Douglas originally intended to run a full slate of delegates in the 13 Downstate districts, presumably friendly to himself and ready to support his choice for President, but he was persuaded instead to seek an agreement with Stevenson on a divided or agreed slate, each to name a group which the other would support. According to published accounts, the two men, meeting on October 13 at the Chicago home of Clifton Utley, prom- inent radio and television commentator, with Mr. Utley and Alderman Robert Merriam present, worked out a plan for "10 or 12 Stevenson delegates agreed, along with 10 or 12 Douglas delegates, leaving room for four or a half dozen delegates from the faction of the Democratic party headed by former Governor John Stelle and Secretary of State Edward J. Barrett." There was no intention that such a Douglas-Stevenson slate should be the exclu- sive one, it being understood that other delegate candidates might, of course, file for the primary; and it is probable that the purpose of the plan was to secure a better type of delegate. Whatever the exact nature of the agreement, the plan for such an agreed slate fell through, perhaps in part because of the lack of enthusiasm for it on the part of Governor -12- Stevenson, but principally because of the insistence of the local party leaders upon making their own selections as they had done in the past. The situation served, however, to increase the rift between Douglas and Stevenson and to make Douglas the readier to throw his support to Kefauver. The result was that the delegate selections were apparently made without reference to any particular Presidential candidate. In some cases the preliminary process of selection began in late November or early Decem- ber, and by the middle of December it was well under way, since under the primary law, filings for district delegates and alternates must be entered between the dates of January \U and January 21. In some cases, the candi- dates for Democratic delegate seats were undoubtedly expressing their per- sonal desires and were acting on their own initiative in entering their names. In other cases , the candidate was entered as the personal choice of one of the party leaders. In the 12th District in Chicago, for example, the Ward Committeeman of the 49th and 50th wards, Frank Keenan and James F. Ashenden, respectively, had been slated by the District Caucus (pre- sumably the Congressional Committee, which in Chicago consists of the Ward Committeemen for the Congressional District) to be the delegates, but Mayor Kennelly very much wanted a close friend and neighbor, Attorney John J. Kelly, and through his own 4.8th Ward Committeeman, Frank Lyman, Jr., persuaded Ashenden to withdraw in favor of Kelly, Lyman himself becom- ing an alternate. In at least one other case, in the 22nd District (Champaign), the selection resulted from a combination of personal desire and the promotion of harmony in a peculiar local situation with factional 13 implications running back for several years. Organization Slates. In most cases, however, the district del- -13- egates and alternates were slated by the regular party organization of their districts, or by some other group of party leaders within the appro- priate area. As a typical illustration, the following account may be quoted: "Democratic organization wheel-horses were slated yesterday /December 14., 1951/ ? or delegates and alternate delegates to the national convention from the 6th and 8th congressional districts. In the 6th, Municipal Court Bailif Albert J. Horan, 29th ward committeeman, and Superior Court Clerk Henry Sonnenschein, 22d ward committeeman, were picked for delegates. For alternates, the caucus chose Arthur X. Elrod, county commissioner and 2/th ward leader and William Milota, 25th ward committeeman. Delegate from the 6th district will be Thomas E. Keane, 31st ward committeeman. Alternates will be Sidney Olson, Criminal court clerk and Municipal Judge Victor A. Kula."H As a matter of fact, the Kefauver supporters in Illinois, who at one time declared their intention of filing a full slate of 50 Kefauver delegate candidates, did not do so, recognizing that such a slate would have no chance without the support of the regular party organization. One of the astute observers of Illinois politics put it this way; "No one experienced in politics would say that an anti-organization slate of Democratic del- 15 egate candidates would have a chance of success in Illinois." ' As a result of this organization slating before the primary, there were in the Democratic Party contests for district delegates in only five out of the 25 districts, and a total of only 60 candidates for 50 seats; for alternates, there were 53 candidates for 50 seats, with con- tests in only three districts and only one candidate in one district (the 24th). By contrast, there were in the Republican primary 91 candidates for the 50 delegate seats, and 58 for alternates, with contests in 19 and 6 districts, respectively. Even before the delegates themselves were -H- named, the party organization often decided their geographical distribution, this being more important, under these conditions, than the personnel. For example, in the Downstate 22nd District, consisting of eight counties (Champaign, Coles, De Witt, Douglas, Logan, Macon, Moultrie, Piatt), the Congressional Committee of that district (consisting of the County Chairmen) decided, on December 17, that the two delegates should come from Champaign 17 and Coles counties, and the alternates from Logan and Piatt counties. Accordingly, the actual slate arranged later consisted of Donald D. Rich- mond (Champaign County) and W. A. (Jack) Reeds (Coles County) for dele- gates, and Herbert Finke (Logan County) and E. k. Stout (Piatt County) for alternates. There is little doubt that some such procedure was fol- lowed in most of the Downstate districts, where rotation among the several counties in a district has become the standard practice in both parties. Deleg at e Ple dg es or Co mmitments. The slating procedure, the desire of the party organization to guide its conduct by the course of the developments rather than by advance commitments, the uncertainty about the position of President Truman and Governor Stevenson with respect to the Presidential nomination, the coldness of the Illinois party leaders to- wards Senator Kefauver this entire situation meant that very few del- egate candidates gave the party voters any clear indication as to their preference for President. In response to a poll taken in late February, 26 of the 60 delegate candidates replied, and of these, 11 favored Presi- dent Truman, seven favored Governor Stevenson, one favored Senator Douglas, and seven were undecided; it was assumed by the poll-takers that the fail- ure of the majority to respond at all was due to their unwillingness to commit themselves until President Truman's intentions were clarified. -15- A later survey of the general sentiment in four districts (21st, 22nd, 24th, 25th) in Central and Southern Illinois showed that, by the middle of March, five of the eight delegate candidates expressed themselves as preferring Governor Stevenson and three President Truman; four of the seven alternate candidates were for Stevenson and two for Truman, while one said he had not made up his mind. One of the alternate candidates, a farmer, was particularly outspoken against Truman, saying: "I shall be for Stevenson as long as he has a chance. We don't want the clique we have in there now;" while only one of all these candidates (also an alternate) spoke vigorously for Trumr.n. "I like Stevenson," he said, "but Truman is the only logical choice to head the national ticket. I think he will run, and he will beat either Taft or Eisenhower. Eisenhower has waited too long to come back to the states. I think Taft will be the 18 Republican nominee, and labor will never vote for him." One of the delegate candidates in this survey, preferring Steven- son, later expressed interest in Kefauver as a second choice, but seemed to be the' only one willing to make even such a cautious commitment to him. In one other district (the L4-th), the delegate candidates, although for- mally unpledged, indicated their preferences, one for Truman, and one for Governor Stevenson, Senator Douglas, or former Senator Lucas, in that 19 order. ' It seems altogether probable that these samples, although small, are fairly representative of the delegate preferences, could they have been freely expressed; and with the withdrawal of President Truman, which probably relieved a considerable majority of the delegates, the sentiment for Governor Stevenson became almost unanimous. Results of Presidential Primary . Two Presidential candidates -a*. entered their names in the Democratic presidential primary in Illinois (Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee, and Senator Brien McMahon of Connec- ticut), but Senator McMahon later withdrew his name, leaving the field exclusively to Senator Kefauver. In view of this, Kefauver easily won the primary, receiving more than 500,000 votes in the state and probably carrying every congressional district, with the possible exception of the 1st, in Chicago, a heavily negro district (where on the basis of incom- plete returns he ran neck and neck with President Truman), the negroes 20 being dissatisfied with Kefauver' s record on civil rights. In spite of Governor Stevenson's unwillingness to submit his name or to have a write-in campaign conducted on his behalf, he received over 50,000 votes, and others, including President Truman, Senator Douglas, and Senator Rus- sell, received approximately 20,000. The total Democratic primary vote for President was 600,114., 580,000 more than the similar vote in 1948 (19,948); while the Republican presidential vote was 1,272,321, about 670,000 more than the Democratic, and over 900,000 more than the similar Republican vote in 1948 (333, 701). 21 These results seem to indicate a substantial improvement in Republican prospects and a decline in Democratic, but may well reflect the interest aroused by the bitter Taft-Eisenhower conflict in the one party, and the apathy produced by the lack of any major contest (excepting only the office of Attorney General) in the other. The Democratic results meant, at any rate, that most or all of the delegates to the Democratic Convention were "advised" by the oarty voters to support Kefauver for the Presidential nomination, but were not legally bound to do so. The fact that the party leaders in Illinois wero opposed to Kefauver, that Governor -17- Stevenson was still the favorite son who would certainly have carried the primary overwhelmingly had he permitted his name to go on the ballot, that Kefauver therefore won by default these considerations militated against taking the primary results seriously, and, as already noted, few of the delegates showed any disposition to support Kefauver in the Convention. It is of some importance to note in this connection that, al- though the presidential office usually attracts the voter's attention more than any other office and that the office of delegate was an incon- spicuous office without substantial contest and somewhat hidden on the ballot, the total vote for President in the Democratic primary exceeded that for delegates by less than 5,000, and that in Cook County the del- egate vote actually exceeded the presidential vote by more than 30,000. This seems to indicate that the party organization leaders may well have persuaded the voters, in the area where these leaders were the most in- fluential, to cut the presidential office and especially to cut Senator Kefauver. 22 State Convention and Delegates at Large . As already noted, the selection of delegates and alternates at large has since 1927 been a func- tion of the party state convention, which consists of delegates apportioned among the different counties on the basis of one delegate for each 500 votes cast at the preceding party primary. These county delegations are chosen by the respective county committees (called for this purpose county conventions), which are in turn composed of the precinct committeemen for the downstate counties, and of the ward and township committeemen for Cook County (Chicago). This means that in 1952, the Republican State Convention consisted of approximately 2800 delegates, of whom 1271 or about ' -18- A5 per cent were from Cook County, while the Democratic State Convention consisted of about 1800 delegates, more than 1100, or about 63 per cent, 23 from Cook County. This also reflects the changing party situation, since in 1948 the Republican and Democratic State Conventions consisted of about 1800 aid 1500, respectively. The general feeling that these state conventions are completely controlled by the party organizations and that it matters little who attends is indicated by the lack of contest for delegate seats, to such an extent that there is often difficulty in getting the required number of delegates, by the fact that the members of the county committee are almost automatically included, and that otherwise the delegations may be made up of those attend- ing the county convention, whether as authorized members or as visitors. The lack of interest in the state convention proceedings is further indi- cated by the fact that many of those who are elected as delegates or al- 2.L ternates often do not attend at all. The Illinois law provides that these state conventions shall meet on the first Friday after the second Monday following the primary, which required the meeting in 1952 to be on April 25. In both parties, however, the practice has developed for the meeting on the statutory date to be merely a technical compliance with the law and the actual meeting to be adjourned to a later date fixed by the State Committee. In 1952, the Democratic State Convention actually met on May 8, two weeks after the statutory date, while the Republican Convention met on June 23, more than two months after the statutory date and more than two weeks later than required by the Republican National Committee for the final election of delegates to the party's National Convention. This postponement is due -19- to the desire of the party leaders to be somewhat more certain of the na- tional and state developments before determining their own line of con- duct, and in the case of the Illinois Republicans in 1952, they preferred to run the risk that the delegation might not be seated since elected in violation of the rules, rather than to decide their own line prematurely and perhaps wrongly. -* The state conventions are organized and conducted in almost exactly the same way as are the national conventions. James A. Farley, former Democratic National Chairman, indicated that this is generally 26 so, and it certainly was so in Illinois in 1952. The Democratic State Convention, which convened at 1:30 p.m. and adjourned at 2:20 p.m., less than an hour later, went through all the procedures of a temporary and permanent organization (with Richard J. Daley, former State Director of Revenue and now County Clerk of Cook County) as both Temproary and Per- manent Chairman); with committees on Credentials, Permanent Organization, Resolutions (Platform), Presidential Electors, and Delegates at Large. The cut-and -dried atmosphere and the complete dominance of the party or- ganization are indicated by the dispatch with which the convention busi- ness was conducted, by the fact that no person who had not been previously scheduled even sought the floor, and particularly by the fact that the various committees reported immediately after their appointment was ap- proved. It was also evident to any observer that Jake Arvey, the National Committeeman, actually directed the proceedings from his seat on the plat- form. 27 The 20 delegates and 20 alternates at large, each with one-half vote, were chosen without discussion and by unanimous consent, as recom- . ■ ■ -20- mended to the convention by the committee of which the chairman was albert J. Horan, Chief Bailiff of the Chicago Municipal Court, formerly an Alder- man, and a veteran Democratic leader in Chicago and Cook County. In fact, the list had been agreed upon some time before the convention, with per- haps only a few exceptions, most of the names having already been published in the press. It was announced, shortly after the primary on April 8, that the delegates at large would be distributed on the basis of 12 for Cook County and eight for Downstate, and this was carried out; it was also announced at the same time that the slate would include Senator Douglas, Mayor Kennelly, the National Committeeman, Jake M. Arvey, the National Comraitteewoman, Mrs. Elizabeth Conkey, representatives of both great labor organizations, the AFL and the CIO, and of civic and nationality groups, but that the entire slate would have to await the return of Mr. Arvey from his vacation in Florida. ° Senator Douglas, who endorsed Senator Kefauver for President immediately after Governor Stevenson's withdrawal, asked for the right to name four of the delegates at large, presumably to be for Kefauver or under Douglas' control, and three (including one alternate) were in the end conceded by the party organization leaders, although reluctantly and with emphasis on the legalistic point that the results of the presidential primary were not binding upon the delegation. Those so named by Douglas and included at his request were, in addition to himself, Attorney Michael Greenebaura, member of the state Civil Service Commission, as delegate at large, and Attorney Frank J. McAdams, Douglas' running mate as candidate for Congress in the 1942 primary and close political associate, as alter- nate at large. At any rate, the slate of delegates and alternates at large ■ . I -21- was actually selected by a group of leaders, including particularly Mr. Arvey, the National Committeeman, Joseph L. Gill, Chairman of the Cook County Committee, Senator Douglas, Governor Stevenson, and Edward J. Bar- rett, the Secretary of State. Excellent and well balanced a slate as it 29 was, 7 it could hardly be said to have been selected by the state conven- tion, and the procedure seemed to belie an earlier statement by Mr. Arvey, when he said, on April 20: "The delegates at large will be picked by the state convention. I don't know who all of them will be, and I haven't asked who they will favor when the convention meets. That will be up to them." 30 Mr. Arvey tried very hard, in fact, to persuade Governor Steven- son to announce his availability for the Presidential nomination, and in that case Arvey would also have led the state convention into a formal instruction for the Governor. Stevenson was firm, however, and the convention therefore adopted a resolution which viewed with pride the growing recognition of his stature, noted his "unique qualifications" for the Presidency, expressed "the hope and desire that he make himself available" for the Presidential nomination, and indicated that in that event "we are resolved to leave nothing undone" in working for his elec- tion. Senator Douglas, although ready to support Stevenson if he would run, had endorsed Kefavver after Stevenson's withdrawal, and sought to prevent the adoption by the convention of any instruction or unit rule; under the circumstances there was no attempt to adopt such a rule, this being also thoroughly in line with the customary procedures in Illinois and the desire of the party leaders to have an uncommitted delegation. In other words, the primary vote in favor of Senator Kefauver was com- -22- pletely disregarded by the organization leaders, opposed to Kefauver, and was noticed but not pressed by the friends and supporters of Kefauver. III. Nature and Composition of the Delegation Senator Thomas H. Benton, writing about the Democratic Conven- tion of 18^4, described it in these words: "The Convention met a motley assemblage, called democratic many self-appointed, or appointed upon management or solicitation many alternative substitutes many members of Congress, in violation of the principle which condemned the Congress presidential caucuses in 1824 — some nullifiers; and an immense outside 32 concourse."-^ In many respects this is still a good description, not only of the National Convention itself but also of the Illinois delegation. Descriptive Data . An analysis of the Illinois delegation (ex- cluding the alternates) shows the group to be rather mature in years, the largest number being in the 50-59 age group, only one in the 30-year old group, and about a dozen who are 60 or over. There are only five women, three district delegates and two delegates at large (six additional among the alternates), but these are a somewhat outstanding and representative group, including the National Committeewoman (Mrs. Elizabeth A. Conkey), the State Vice Chairwoman (Mrs. Blanche Fritz), an experienced lawyer and Assistant Corporation Counsel of Chicago (Mrs. Georgia Jones Ellis), a veteran of 25 years as township pa rty committeewoman in a heavily indus- trialized area (Mrs. Pauline Vyzral), and an active member of the League of Women Voters (Mrs. Grace E. Knight). Only two Negroes are included (Congressman William Dawscn and Mrs. Ellis), but Congressman Dawson may be considered representative of his racial group and as reflecting generally their views on questions before the Convention. 33 Very few Jews are members -23- of the delegation, and this is surprising in view of the strength and ac- tivity of that group in Chicago; the Protestants and Catholics are, on the other hand, represented almost equally. In occupation or profession, the lawyers are the predominant group, as might be expected, but there are also some businessmen, doctors, bankers, realtors, engineers, farmers, educators, and at least one who professes to being a housewife. The education, or at any rate the formal education of the delegation is, on the whole, someivhat limited; aside from the professional training of the lawyers and doctors, only about a dozen have had any college education at all, a half dozen have completed college, one has a Master's degree, and one (Senator Douglas) a Ph.D.; a number have had only grammar school, high school, or business college training. Business, labor, and veterans' organizations are represented almost equally, and a few are associated with agricultural and other or- ganizations. It is in the field of party and public service that the dele- gation is particularly rich in experience. Of the 26 district delegates from Cook County, 23 are ward committeemen or elected officials; the pro- portion is smaller among the downstate group, but a large number of them are or have been in party and public service in some capacity. Among the district delegates are the Governor and ex-Governor, the Secretary of State, a former U. S. Senator, one Congressman and one ex-Congressman, several state senators and representatives, the State's Attorney of Cook County, and several other city and county officials, a former party State Chairman (Bruce A. Campbell) and the then Cook County Chairman (Joseph L. Gill). -24- Among the delegates at large are a United States Senator, The lieutenant Governor, the State Auditor, the State Attorney General , a member of the state Civil Service Commission, the deputy Director of Pub- lic Welfare, the Administrative Assistant to the Governor, a former Speaker, the Mayor of Chicago, the President of the Chicago School Board, the Cook County Assessor, the party candidate for State Treasurer, and the candi- date for State's attorney of Cook County. This group also includes the National Committeeman (Jake Arvey), the National Committeewoman (Mrs. Conkey), the State Vice Chairwoman (Mrs. Fritz), and the retiring State Chairman (Fred A. Cain). Altogether, the Democratic delegation includes most of the conspicuous party leaders, past and present, and the most prom- inent among the public officials of the state and of Chicago. There are surprisingly few Congressmen, but this may be explained by the necessity of representing other groups, such as labor, various racial groups, and the petty politicians. In respect to the business of the National Convention, the del- egation is also well experienced, in that 41 of the delegates and 21 of the alternates have attended previous conventions; at least three having attended five or more. A total of 35 of the present delegates (26 district delegates and 9 delegates at large) and 16 of the alternates (10 district, 6 at large) were delegates or alternates at the 194-8 convention, and 18 delegates (10 district, 8 at large) and 6 alternates (all district) were at the 1940 Convention. Thirteen of the delegates (4 at large, , district) and one district alternate have attended the three previous Conventions (and in three cases more than that), ten delegates (4 at large, 6 district) and six alternates (1 at large, 5 district) have attended two, and 18 -25- ielegates U at large, U+ district) and 14. alternates (6 at large, 8 dis- trict) have attended one.-*'* There are thus a number ir. the Illinois Democratic delegation who are virtually professional Convention delegates, and whose experience should strengthen the delegation in the ways of Convention procedure and strategy. This delegation seems to fit particularly well into the charac- terization of Democratic delegations in general, made recently by former National Chairman James A. Farley, in an interview, as follows: "Q. When you look over the personnel of the delegations and the various conventions with which you had experience, would you say that they are composed for the most part of people active in politics? "A. I would say that 95 per cent of the men who go there many of them go there as delegates — are men and women who are actively engaged in politics either as office- holders or contributors. Most of the men who go there on the Democratic side are men who are recognized for their services to the party in some form or other. "Q. Are the women delegates any harder to handle in the conventions than the men? "A. No, I think the women go along pretty well as the men do. As a rule, they are women who are part and parcel of the local organization in the State or in the city from which they come and they more or less go with the party organization or the leader of the delegations." Delegation Powers and Procedure . As already pointed out, the Illinois primary law provides for advisory, not binding, instructions to the delegates, the delegates at large being "advised" to vote in the Con- vention for the person who wins the presidential preference in the state as a whole, and the district delegates being similarly "advised" to vote for the person who carries their particular districts. Such advisory in- structions might well be considered as morally, if not legally, binding upon the delegates, and this has been occasionally argued by the friends of particular candidates. However, Illinois delegations, whether to Dem- -26- ocratic or Republican Conventions, have generally acted as though they were completely free to make t'eir own choice in the Convention, as though the primary results carried no moral implications whatever. This is par- ticularly the case when only one Presidential candidate enters the primary and therefore wins by default, as did Kefauver in 1952. This instructions feature of the Illinois primary also means that there may be a divided result in the advisory vote and therefore the Illinois law clearly presumes no unit rule, except upon the delegates at large, who are all advised to vote en bloc for the same person. This fea- ture of the law, as well as the method of choosing the delegates, seems also to support the view that the state convention has no power to instruct or apply a unit rule to the entire delegation, but probably may instruct the delegates at large, elected by the convention. The general disposition of the Democratic delegates to ignore the primary preference for Kefauver in 1952, and the fear that the party leaders might force through the state convention an instruction for Gov- ernor Stevenson, were undoubtedly the factors that led Senator Douglas to announce in advance his opposition to the adoption of a unit rule by that convention. He was clearly trying to preserve his own right, and that of any other delegates so disposed, to vote for Kefauver; it is worth noting that Douglas did not at any time argue, as he might have done, that all the delegates were morally obligated by the primary results to vote for Kefauver, and that a unit rule on behalf of Kefauver might have been pre- sumed to be in accordance with the intent of the law. At any rate, no unit rule or instruction of any sort was adopted by the state convention, and the delegation was at least formally free to determine its own con- -27- duct at the National Convention. IV. Delegation Activities and Behavior Organization . The Illinois delegation did not organize or op- erate as a group until the very eve of the Convention; in fact, until that time there does not seem to have been any effort on the part of party leaders to communicate in any way with the delegates or to influence them to any particular line of conduct. Senator Kefauver came into the state shortly before the Convention and invited groups of delegates to meet with him at various places, but this apparently did not disturb even those who were definitely against Kefauver or those interested in promoting the candidacy of Governor Stevenson. A newspaper story published on June 20,^-' a month before the Democratic Convention, stated that the delegation would caucus on Sunday afternoon, July 20, and although this proved to be cor- rect, delegates received no notice of this caucus until a few days before- hand. In other words, the delegates, or most of them, were left completely free to think about the Convention problems in their own way and to make up their own minds as to tieir actions with respect to those problems, without any attempt at prior influence or control. When the caucus was called, the delegates came to the designated place individually and appar- ently actually met one anothei for the first time on that occasion, except as they may already have been personal acquaintances. So far as the Il- linois delegation was concerned, there was every indication up to this point that the Democratic Convention would actually be a "free and open" Convention. The first delegation caucus was held on Sunday afternoon, July 20, at U'30 o'clock, in the Morrison Hotel, which was also the delegation's -28- headquarters. The caucus was immediately preceded by a pre-caucus gather- ing of less than a dozen party leaders, reportedly including National Committeeman Jacob M. Arvey, Secretary of State Edward J. Barrett, Cook County Chairman Joseph L. Gill, Cook County Vice Chairman Richard J. Daley, Congressman William L. Dawson, Joseph T. Baran, Albert J. Horan, and Gov- ernor Stevenson.: this pre-caucus was held presumably to discuss plans for organizing the delegation and particularly to persuade Governor Stevenson to permit his name to be presented for the Presidential nomination. The caucus was followed by a cocktail party to which many, in addition to the delegates and alternates, were invited, and to which anyone who came was apparently welcomed. This provided an opportunity for acquaintance, in- formation about the caucus actions, and exchange of view that was both pleasant and useful. The caucus was called by Jake Arvey, in his capacity as National Committeeman; Mr. Arvey also presided until a chairman had been elected and clearly was the dominant personality. The caucus was secret, to the great distress of a considerable audience that had assembled and hoped to witness the proceedings. It was strictly limited to the duly elected delegates and alternates, not only the reporters and the general public being excluded, but also important political personages, such as Douglas Anderson, secretary to Senator Douglas, Congressman Melvin Price, and others. However, the caucus room was separated from one of the adjoining rooms merely by an accordion-like sliding partition, and the newspapermen, by pinning their ears to this partition or by lying on the floor, were able to hear most of the proceedings, although they could not always at- tribute remarks to any particular person. No later caucuses were held in ■ -29- this room. Apparently al 1 or virtually all the 140 delegates and alternates attended this first caucus. A slate of officers had been previously arranged presumably by Mr. Arvey in consultation with other party leaders, and most of the slate had, in fact, been published in advance; the caucus approved this slate without objection.-'' Joseph L. Gill, Chairman of the Cook Coun- ty Committee and an astute and highly respected party le ader in the Chicago area, became the Chairman of the delegation, with Lieutenant Governor Sherwood Dixon as Vice Chairman. Richard J. Dalfy, formerly Director of Revenue under Governor Stevenson and now County Clerk of Cook County, was elected Secretary and as such not only kept the caucus records but served next to Arvey and Gill as a principal directing official of the delegation. Seasoned veterans in party politics and Convention operation were also, in almost every case, chosen as the Illinois members of the Convention committees. Albert J. Horan, who had served in the two pre- ceding Conventions as a member of the Rules Committee, now was put on the Credentials Committee, where he became an important influence in the "loy- alty oath" controversy; while Barnet Hodes succeeded Horan this year on the Rules Committee. Former Senator Scott Lucas and Mrs. Grace E. Knight were chosen as the members of the Resolutions or Platform Committee, for which each was particularly well qualified Lucas because of his long service in both houses of Congress, as the party Floor Leader in the Senate, as a member of the preliminary drafting committee and of the Platform Committee in the previous Convention, and again this year, of the prelim- inary platform drafting committee; Mrs. Knight as a well-educated and public-spirited woman, for many years active in the League of Women Voters, -30- and a good representative of the general public. As a matter of fact, Mrs. Elizabeth Conkey, the National Committeewoman, was first nominated for the Platform Committee, on which she had served in the two previous Conventions, but withdrew in favor of Mrs, Knight in order "to spread the honor around," as she put it. Joseph T. Baran, secretary of the Cook County Committee, was assigned to the Committee on Permanent Organization, ■ whose duties were largely nominal, since the permanent officers had al- ready been agreed upon; and apparently none was assigned to either of the traditional committees to notify the Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominees, those committees being completely useless in view of the on-the- spot acceptance of those nominees. At this initial caucus, the delegation also reelected Jake Arvey as National Committeeman and Mrs. Elizabeth Conkey as National Committee- woman, or, strictly speaking, recommended these persons to the National Convention, which automatically confirmed the selections. Mrs. Conkey was first elected as National Committeewoman in 1928 to succeed Mrs. Kel- log Fairbank, and has served continuously since; in 1934- she was also elec- ted to the Board of Cook County Commissioners and is now serving her fifth term on that Board; for two years before that (1932-1934) she served as Chicago's Commissioner of Public Welfare; she has had, in other words, a considerable experience in party and public service, which few Illinois women can equal and not a great many outside of Illinois. Mrs. Conkey herself has explained that she stays in politics because "I wish to make my contribution to society, and am free to do so." Mr. Arvey is a success- ful lawyer, interested himself in politics, became Chairman of the Demo- cratic Cook County Committee in 1946, and in that capacity was quickly , • ' -31 recognized as the dominant personality in the Democratic Party, not only in Cook County but also in the state. As a party "boss" he showed a keen interest in good public service and an unusual appreciation of the vote- getting attraction of high-minded and well-educated persons; he was prima- rily responsible for the party organization's acceptance and endorsement of Adlai Stevenson and Paul Douglas for Governor and Senator in 1948, al- though he then overrode the desire of each of them to run for the other office. Following the defeat of most of the Democratic ticket in Cook County in 1950, for which Mr. Arvey assumed full reponsibility because of his unfortunate slating of Daniel (Tubby) Gilbert for Sheriff, he resigned as Cook County Chairman, but was thereupon elected National Committeeman to succeed the late Mayor Kelly; he seems to have recovered completely his political prestige and appears to be trusted by politicians, public of- ficials, and citizens alike, as a "benevolent and public-spirited boss." It may be said that in the selection of of its officers the Illinois delegation not only chose persons well qualified for the particular posts, but also persons who by virtue of their selection to these positions be- came recognized as the outstanding group in the delegation, authorized to lead the delegation in the Convention. They would probably have been the leaders, even without the positions officially conferred upon them, and their selection by the delegation was in a sense a recognition of their natural leadership. Other natural leaders would, of course, include Gov- ernor Stevenson and Senator Douglas, the activity of the former, however, being this year almost eliminated because of his anomalous situation in respect to the Presidential nomination, and the influence of the latter being very considerably limited because of his strident support of Senator ■ ■ -32- Kefauver in opposition to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the delegation. Secretary of State Barrett was also influential and apparently exercised real leadership over a small bloc of delegates. Headquarters . The Illinois delegation maintained Convention headquarters at the Morrison Hotel, where it had a suite of three rooms on the twelfth floor. One large room, equipped with a few chairs and a somewhat ancient television set, was used as a reception center and general lounge. Two secretaries were in charge here, welcomed all visitors, and tried to keep a card file of all who appeared, so that the names and ad- dresses of Illinois delegates, officials, and citizens attending the Con- vention would be available to anyone seeking this information; most of their time, however, was taken in handling requests for Convention tickets, this being a major problem in view of the limited space in the Convention 38 Hall. Two small adjoining rooms were used for offices, one by James A. Ronan, Chairman of the State Central Committee, and the other by Paul Powell, Downstate party leader and former Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives, who was in general charge of the headquarters and of ticket distribution. The State Chairman, Mr. Ronan, could be seen only by permission of his secretary, but occasionally came out of his office to talk with visitors, although usually one at a time and in somewhat secretive manner. Mr. Powell was frequently absent from his office, but could generally be found on the nineteenth floor. Both Mr. Powell, who was a delegate at large, and Mr. Ronan, who was neither a delegate nor an alternate, appar- ently attended Convention sessions regularly, and this entailed frequent and extended absence from their headquarters offices. Nevertheless, the -33- headquarters was run in a businesslike way, although very informally. People wandered in and out, often without saying a word to anyone, but someone was always ready to greet visitors and fairly accurate informa- tion was readily available. There was, however, much less gathering of the Illinois dele- gates at their own headquarters than had been expected, and very much less than at other delegation headquarters. Most of the downstate members of the delegation were stopping at the Morrison, but could be as commonly found between Convention sessions in their rooms or in the hotel lobby as in the headquarters. At least one of the alternates, and possibly others, stayed at the Stockyard Inn, adjacent to the Convention Hall, and scarcely came down town at all during the Convention days. The Chicago delegates, who provided most of the leadership, were seldom at the Morrison, most of them apparently living at their own homes in the Chicago area. Governor Stevenson stayed at the so-called "Blair House", the home of Mr. William McCormick Blair, one of his executive assistants, on the North Side, and was thus far removed from the rest of the delega- tion) Senator Douglas and the other leaders were also conspicuously mis- sing from the Illinois headquarters. There is no provision in Illinois, either by state law or by party regulation or custom, for the payment of the expenses of delegates. Unlike the delegates from North Dakota and Oregon, who receive up to !g>200 apiece from the state treasury towards their Convention expenses, the Illinois delegates and alternates paid their own way. On the other hand, they were not required or asked to contribute to the party fund, nor even to the cost of the Convention headquarters, as were many other delegations. -34- Ihe nenrers :: the California ieleg?tiett, :~:r t:;~:1t. not :.-_" pale :beiz own traveling and living excens 5 s , bat vera a s s e 3 5 e - . ; I ear. t card s headquarters exrer.se; vhile the leva delegate; = re eahr. assesse. 15C and the alternates '_";. : :r delegatitn headquarters in Siicago, entertain- ing, and c'her phases of can-reigning. In fact, the practice of assessing delegations is said to be a prire factor in sending the :~ersioe delega- tiens fr:n leva and ctner state;, the leva surplus delegates alone gr:.i- ding an assessed fund of $2,775.39. By contrast, the Illinois headquarter! e:cre.use was presumably ~ai: rut of general part/ funds, and the relegates tr.enselres got ;ff vitr.rut anp special contribution, although it is ouite probable, as intimated 07 one ielegate, boat persons known to be irntric- ators to the par"" chest ere Is general selected by the party organiza- tion for the delegate and alternate positions. .-■ttif jie on 7 rr.rer.tirn rrcclers . It the first caucus of tne Illinois delegation :n Sundap. ":lp IT, there .'as sine discussion concern- in£ the role of the delegation durirn the Icr.ver.tior. 7;mer I-CTerrer John Stella .'as reported as urging the Illinois delegation to line ut solidly behind the National lononittee's ruling t: seat the anti-Truman delegations fr:n lepras and }u.ssissipti, rat no decision -as taken on tr.is natter: it nap da noted, in tr.is connection ever, tnat hr. Ax " = ; . in the National remittee hearings rove-d that the reads 0: these ant i-rnanan ielegations re required to reargear before the Irreutdttee and g_Tige t.ter- sel-es to abide by the ~a;'ority decision af the I invention, a metier uhicfa the National Committee a 1 by a vote :: 65-22. Ibis position prob- ably reflected also the vievs :f the majorit; legation, and Ifr. Horan, as the Illinois nearer of tne Ireientials rcrctit-ee, seened to be -35- in accord with this general sentiment. When the question arose whether to carry the "loyalty" fight to the floor of the Convention, the sentiment in the Illinois delegation was more confused and mixed, many of those in favor of a loyalty pledge fearing a Convention fracas and a possible bolt that might seriously re- duce the chances for victory in November. When the matter actually came to the Convention floor, the Illinois delegation was apparently caught by surprise and there were a number of absentees, including Jake Arvey and the Chairman of the delegation, Joseph L. Gill; however, the Secretary, Richard J. Daley, cast a vote of 4.5-15 against seating the Virginia dele- gation, this position being reportedly pressed by Senator Douglas. Later, with a full delegation present, and presumably on the insistence of Mr. Arvey and Mr. Gill, the delegation reversed its position, voted by 52-8 to seat the Virginia delegation without a loyalty pledge, and started the Convention switch to that position. The eight votes to sustain the loyalty pledge were apparently cast by those in the delegation most favorable to Douglas and Kefauver, and probably reflected the real views of many others, especially those from Chicago, who would have been extremely reluctant to take a pro-Southern position on a clear-cut issue of civil rights or of loyalty but who were persuaded of the importance of furthering Governor Stevenson's chances by a compromise with the South. The risk in this compromise on the part of the Illinois delegation was that for a time it led many in the Northern "liberal coalition" to suspect the genuine lib- eralism of Governor Stevenson, although Stevenson himself apparently had nothing whatever to do with the decision of the other leaders. Three members of the Illinois delegation were on the preliminary -36- platform drafting committee and were occupied with the hearings held by that committee for several days before the Convention met. These were former Senator Scott Lucas, Congressman William L. Dawson, and William A. Lee, as the representative Of organized labor. Lucas, together with Mrs. Grace Knight, was also on the regular Platform Committee of the Con- vention, and there was therefore good opportunity for the expression of an Illinois viewpoint on the issues before the party. As a matter of fact, there seems to have been little active interest in the platform on the part of most Illinois delegates, and a definite willingness to go along with the delegation leaders, except on the matter of civil rights. One delegate said that he "didn't go along with some of these civil rights," but the overwhelming majority evidently wanted a strong civil rights plank, and was well pleased with the plank as written, especially when it was known to have satisfied Congressman Dawson, generally considered a rep- resentative of the minority groups. Similarly, a labor plank that sat- isfied William A. Lee would be acceptable to the labor elements in the delegation, and a platform pronounced good by Scott Lucas would be accep- table as a party document. On the whole, the Illinois delegation should certainly be characterized as a "liberal" delegation that would probably have fought any repudiation of the New Deal and Fair Deal administrations or policies. Attitude and Strategy on Nominations . The Illinois delegation was in a difficult position with respect to the Presidential nomination, in view of Governor Stevenson's insistence that he was not a candidate. The delegation could not easily press his candidacy against his wishes but could not afford to be caught failing to support the natural favorite -37- son of Illinois if he should in the end be nominated. Jake Arvey and others had tried hard tc persuade Stevenson to allow his name to be pre- sented, or at any rate to make it clear that he would not refuse a draft. The pre-caucus held on Sunday, July 20, was the final attempt on the part of the delegation leaders to get a favorable conmitment from Stevenson, but their efforts were without success. Although all this was generally known when the caucus convened on Sunday afternoon, there were continued efforts in the caucus to commit the delegation formally to Stevenson. 4-° After the delegation officers had been selected, speeches Here made by several delegates, including some of the less conspicuous ones from the downstate area, strongly urging Steven- son to change his mind and strongly urging his nomination by the delegation in any case. Governor Stevenson replied in a moving address, in which he repeated that he did not want to run for President, that he felt keenly his obligation to continue as the party's candidate for Governor, and that he could not in honor do both. "My obligation to run for Governor being what I regard it to be, I cannot turn a hand to win the nomination for President. In addition to everything else, I have no ambition for the nomination. I do not consider myself temperamentally, mentally, or physi- cally fitted for the job. I just don't want to be nominated for the Pres- idency." He then requested the delegation not to present his name to the Convention and not to vote for him if his name were presented by someone else. In spite of the obvious sincerity of Stevenson's request, many of the delegates still urged other action. As one of the alternates (Her- bert Finke, 22nd district) put it, "We just listened to the Governor po- -38- litely, then told him we are going to vote for him anyway." A downstate delegate (Schaefer O'Neil, 24-th district), generally considered a close adherent of former Governor John Stelle, urged that the delegation commit itself to vote for Stevenson in spite of himself, and said: "I think the chairman of the delegation should be directed by us to notify the chairman of the convention that Illinois, on the roll call of states, will yield to Indiana and allow a delegate from that state to place the Governor in nomination." Jake Arvey, while respecting the Governor's desire not to be nominated, predicted a draft of Stevenson by the Convention, intimated that he would do what he could to bring this about, and suggested that the delegation would have to decide its position in case of such an even- tuality. "Knowing him as I do," said Arvey, " — his family, training, and background, I have said that if the Democrats nominate Governor Stevenson, I am sure he couldn't say 'no.' I. say to him now, there's one thing he can't take away from me — my right to cast my own vote in the interests of the Democratic party. I shall vote that way, and I know the Governor will be very displeased with me, but he can't take away from me the right to cast my vote any way I see fit." Whil? these views clearly represented the overwhelming majority of the delegation, there was not complete unanimity on Stevenson. Senator Douglas, who had committed himself to Kefauver immediately after Stevenson's original withdrawal from the Presidential race, now restated this position in the caucus. In a speech frankly acknowledging that he and the Governor had had some differences but also with the most friendly tone toward Steven- son, Douglas carefully explained that he was convinced that Stevenson' s withdrawal was completely genuine and should be respected, that he himself -39- caine out for Kefauver after that withdrawal, and that he was now in honor hound to maintain his commitment. "I am for Kefauver to the finish," he said. John S. Boyle, State's Attorney of Cook County and a close friend of Senator Douglas, was resentful of Stevenson's part in the party organ- ization's refusal to reslate him for that office, and indicated that he would stand with Douglas and Kefauver. John Doherty, CIO leader, and Charles H. Weber, 45th Ward Committeeman and member of the legislature, were reported to favor the renomination of President Truman; Mayor Kennelly thought that a "favorite son" should be put up for strategic reasons, and suggested John S. Clark, Cook County Assessor, who promptly declined; John Stelle was reported to have suggested Senator Douglas, who also dis- avowed his own candidacy and reiterated his support of Kefauver. It was clear at this time, however, and was confirmed by later tallies, that at least 50 of the 60 votes in the Illinois delegation were enthusiastically and determinedly for Stevenson. In the end, the delegation agreed in the caucus to respect Gov- ernor Stevenson's wishes in neither presenting his name to the Convention nor making arrangements for his name to be presented by some other state; the delegates declined, however, to agree not to vote for him in case he should somehow be put in nomination. It was also agreed that there should be no unit rule, and all this meant that the delegates were to be completely free to vote as they pleased on the first ballot. Joseph L. Gill, chair- man of the delegation, summed up the situation after this first caucus as follows: "Illinois will not nominate Stevenson, bowing to his request. If some other state does, Illinois will caucus." The extraordinary demonstration for Governor Stevenson upon his -40- appearance at the opening session of the Convention to give the welcome address, the reaction to that address, and the general swing towards him by various party leaders and delegations, evidently made the Illinois lead- ers feel the need for more decisive action, and a second caucus was called to meet in Convention Hall immediately after the afternoon session on Tuesday, July 22. This call came as such a surprise that some delegates were notified in their hotel and rushed to the Convention Hall, and 1/+ delegates representing 11 votes were absent, or did not vote, the few present but not voting being apparently members of Secretary of State 3arrett's bloc. A poll on Presidential preference was taken, which showed that of the 4-9 votes represented by the delegates participating in the caucus, 4-6 were for Stevenson, two for Kefauver (Senator Douglas, l/2 vote; Michael Greenebaum, 1/2 vote; Henry F. McCarthy, 15th district, 1 vote), and one for Douglas (Dr. Nelson A. VJright, 18th district). The caucus also gave Chairman Gill authority either to pass on the first ballot, in order to take note of .my significant developments before committing the Illinois delegation, or to cast the delegation's vote.^ Later tallies indicated that this vote, if cast, would be at least 53 for Stevenson. When the time came for the first ballot, Stevenson had been nominated jointly by Governor Schricker of Indiana and Governor Carvel of Delaware, and had also now finally indicated that if nominated, he would accept. Under these circumstances, Chairman Gill decided to cast the delegation's vote, which was 53 for Stevenson, three for Kefauver (Doug- las, l/2 vote; Greenebaum, l/2 vote; McCarthy, 1 vote; and former Congress- man Kent E. Keller, 25th district, 1 vote), three for Douglas (State's attorney John S. Boyle, 10th district, Dr. Nelson A. VJright, 18th district, -a- and Howard S. Beeney, 18th district, each with 1 vote), and one for Har- riman. The Harriman vote was cast by Herbert Paschen, Governor Stevenson's alternate, who explained that he knew this was Stevenson's desire, although no direction had been given; on the later ballots, Paschen voted for Ste- venson.^" Cn the second and third ballots, the addition of this one Har- riman vote gave Stevenson 5U, while the other votes went precisely as before and were never formally switched to Stevenson on the roll call, although all the Illinois delegates went along to approve the nomination by acclamation. Although there was thus an impression of a very reluctant accep- tance of Stevenson on the part of a half dozen Illinois delegates, this may be due to the fact that the rapid turn toward Stevenson on the third ballot caught the Kefauver forces napping or unprepared for a graceful yielding to the inevitable or intent upon a dramatic gesture that might further the political ambitions of their favorite. There was some feeling that, in the course of the caucusing, Convention maneuvering, and ballot- ing, Senator Douglas, as an Illinois delegate, somewhat overplayed his commitment to Kefauver, even though he had declined to second Kefauver' s nomination. His move to adjourn the Convention following the second ballot was generally looked upon as an attempt to gain time for reorganizing the "stop-Stevenson" forces, although he himself explained that all he was trying to do was to give the delegates time for rest and reflection; the motion to table the Douglas motion, which tabling motion prevailed, also came out of the Illinois delegation, attributed to John Stelle, and further revealed the lack of complete harmony in that group. The entry of Kefauver and Douglas into the Convention Hall after the third ballot had begun, and -42- their attempt to gain the floor in order to announce the withdrawal of Kefauver in favor of Douglas and the withdrawal of Douglas in favor of Stevenson, seemed to many to be badly timed and an unnecessarily compli- cated and dramatic way of extricating both from the political dilemma they were now in.^ The suppression of this move by Chairman Rayburn may have been much too rough, but it punctured whatever significant effect the move might have had. It should be said, however, that in spite of the impression left by those maneuvers, the Illinois delegation as a whole and the Illinois party leaders received the nomination of Governor Stevenson with genuine enthusiasm, especially after his brilliant and moving acceptance speech. They similarly accepted the Vice Presidential nomination of Senator Spark- man as an excellent one, since Stevenson desired it. In all this Senator Douglas joined whole heartedly, and he even published a letter explaining his previous position as in no sense unfriendly to Stevenson. 44- The dif- ferences between him and Governor Stevenson were evidently and probably easily patched up, they met in a most amiable conference in the Governor's mansion at Springfield, and Douglas announced his intention,' following a previously planned European trip, not only to support but also to campaign actively for Stevenson. In fact, Stevenson's dominance over the party in Illinois was now so complete that, without appearing to dictate, he was able to persuade the party organization, that is, the State Committee, to name his preference (Lieutenant Governor Sherwood Dixon) as his own suc- cessor on the state ticket. ^ As the Presidential nominee, he also nat- urally dominated the national party organization. The activities of the delegation ended, however, with the adjournment of the Convention. -43- Footnotes 1. It should be noted that the express recommendation for an equal number of women delegates at large, which was included in the 1940 call, was omitted from the later calls. 2. There was one dissenting vote against Pat Nash in 1940, by Edward Campbell of Granite City (22nd district), said to be because of dissatis- faction with the distribution of Convention tickets. ChJcago Herald - American . July 16, 1940. 3. This is parti cularly the testimony of Donald D. Richmond, a down- state delegate in 1944 and 1952. 4- Report of Caucus actions, in Chicago Tribune . July 12, 1943, p. 1; July 13, 1943, p. 3. 5. Those who are known or reported to have supported Wallace in the caucus were Congressmen William L. Dawson and Adolph J. Sabath; Harry Hershey, prominent downstate leader, nominee for Governor in 1940, and now on the state Supreme Court; Walter W. Williams, Lucas 1 alternate and formerly a Trustee of the University of Illinois; and Donald D. Richmond, of the 19th, now the 22nd district. Chicago Tribune . July 21, 1944, p. 3; and confirmed by interview with Richmond, May 7, 1952. 6. In 1932, the Republicans carried 18 out of the 102 counties for President and elected 3 out of 27 Congressmen; in 1936, 31 counties and 6 out of 27 Congressmen; in 1940, 73 counties and l6 out of 27 Congressmen; in 1944, 85 counties and 15 out of 26 Congressmen; in 1948, 77 counties and 14 out of 26 Congressmen. The Republicans usually win more in off-years. 7. Notable exceptions were the cases of Edward J. Barrett, now Secretary of State, who was nominated for State Treasurer (and elected) in 1930 against the organization slate; and of Governor Horner, repudiated by the machine in 1936, who nevertheless ran for and won renomination against the slated candidate, Dr. Herman Bundesen, and also won reelection. Hoi/ever, Paul Douglas was badly beaten in 1942, when he sought the Senatorial nomination against the machine candidate, Congressman Raymond S. McKeough, but won it without opposition in 1948 with Mr. Arvey's endorsenent. 8. For example, in 1924 an elaborate pre-primary state convention was organized and held, to "nominate" the slate already picked by the machine, although such a convention was without legal authority, there was no opposition whatever to the slate, and petitions had still to be circulated in order to get these names on the primary ballot; the slates for state and national office have generally been approved by the State Committee, or some special group acting on its behalf, but this is also without legal authority. • -44- 9. This was also provided by a law enacted in 1919, under which dele- gates at large were accordingly elected by state convention in 1920; but that law was held unconstitutional in 1920, after the delegates had been elected. 10. The State Convention in Illinois also nominates Presidential Electors and University Trustees, and adopts the party platform. 11. Account by Johnson Kanady, in Chicago Tribune . July 18, 1952, p. 1, c. 7, p. 4, cc. 6-8. For later developments, see esp. note 44- 12. See account of this incident by John Dreiske, in Chicago Sun - Times . Jan. 12, 1952, p. 15. 13. Interview with Donald D. Richmond, member of the Senatorial Com- mittee for the 24.th Senatorial District, and district delegate from the 22nd Congressional District, May 7, 1952. H. Chicago Tribune . Dec. 15, 1951, p. 5, c. 7. Jerry Brousil was later substituted for William Milota, but the others were slated as indicated and without opposition. 15. George Tagge, in Chicago Tribune . Jan. 12, 1952, p. 1, c. 1. 16. See Table I. 17. Account in Chamoaign-Urbana Courier , Dec. 18, 1951, p. 16, c. 7. 18. Associated Press poll announced Feb. 29, and survey by 0. T. Banton, announced Mar. 16, in Champaign-Urbana Courier . Feb. 29, 1952, p. 1, c. 1, and Mar. 16, 1952, p. 3, c. 1, p. 7, c. 5. 19. This was indicated in their replies to the Schedule of Information. 20. The official primary returns on President are not broken down by congressional districts, and it is therefore very difficult to determine the district results. 21. See Table II. 22. See Table III. 23. Under the law, the Republican convention may have consisted of 3150 delegates, 356 of them with 1/500 of a vote each; and the Democratic convention of 2280 delegates, 491 of them with 1/500 of a vote each. No exact figures have been found. 24. One of the persons already elected as a district delegate to the Democratic National Convention from a downstate district, and elected as an alternate to the State Convention, informed the writer that he had no in- tention of attending the State Convention even had he been elected a delegate, -45- feeling it to be a waste of time; newspaper reports indicate that this is by no means an isolated case. 25. It seems probable that there were assurances that the rules would not be strictly applied, particularly since the Illinois Republican dele- gation was pro-Taft and the Taft forces controlled the National Committee and the temporary organization of the Convention; at any rate, no question, was raised as to the right of the Illinois delegates at large to sit; the state problems in the Republican Party involved the chairmanship cf the State Committee, the chairmanship of the Cook County Committee, and other matters of leadership and control. 26. Interview in U. S. News & World Report . June 27, 1952, p. 46. 27. Accounts of State Convention in Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun - Times . May 9, 1952. These accounts are very meager, and are supplemented by the accounts of observers. 28. Robert Howard and George Tagge, in Chicago Tribune , Apr. 17, 1952, p. 6, cc. 5-6, and Apr. 22, 1952, p. 1, c. 5; Hub Logan and John Dreiske, in Chicago Sun-Times . Apr. 23, 1952, p. 6, c. 5, and May 6, 1952, p. 26. 29. See Table IV. 30. Chicago Tribune . Apr. 21, 1952, p. 8, c. -4. On this occasion Mr. Arvey was also reported as saying that Sen. Douglas would be included because of his position as Senator and not because of his support of Kefauver. 31. His position was explained to a reporter in this couplet: "The more I see of this awful mess, "The more I want to be President less." Quoted by George Tagge, in Chicago Tribune . May 13, 1952, p. 7, c. 1. 32. Benton, Thirty Years' View , vol. II, p. 591. 33. It is significant that when the platform came out of the drafting committee of which Congressman Dawson was a member, other members of the committee informed the press and radio-TV correspondents that "Bill Dawson has accepted the platform," clearly implying that the civil rights plank could be considered acceptable to the Negro leaders and voters. 34. See Table V. 35. Interview in U. S. News & world Report . June 27, 1952, p. 45. 36. Chicago Tribune , June 20, 1952, p. 8, ce. 5-6. 37. See Table VI. - ' -4D- 38. According to Joseph L. Gill, Cook County Chairman and Chairman of the Delegation, only 700 tickets were allocated to Illinois, including those allotted to Mayor Kennelly, Governor Stevenson, Senator Douglas, and certain other "party workers, labor leaders, and dignitaries"; but excluding those distributed to delegates, Congressmen, and persons who contributed to the fund that brought the Convention to Chicago. About 230 were distributed, four each, to the 50 ward committeemen in Chicago and one each to the 30 district leaders in Cook County, while another 150 were distributed down- state. Chicago Sun-Times . July 19, 1952, p. 5, c. 4. 39. See account by Gladwin Hill, in N. Y. Times . July 20, 1952, Sec. 1, p. 29, c. 3 J information about California assessment was fiven by California delegates. 40. Accounts of Caucus by George Tagge, in Chicago Tribune . July 21, 1952, p. 1, c. 7, p. 2, cc. 5-6; ^erry Robichaud and John Dreiske, in Chi - cago Sun-Times , July 21, 1952, p. 2,. cc. .1-3, p. 4 : cc. 3-5, p. 5, cc. 1-4; Charles B. Cleveland, in Chicago Daily News . July 21, 1952, p. 4, c. 1. The remarks attributed to Stevenson are a composite from the above accounts. 41. John Dreiske, in Chicago Sun-Times , July 23, 1952, p. 6, cc. 1-2; 0. T. Banton, in Champaign-Urbana Courier , July 23, 1952, p. I, c. 5, p. 11, c. 5. 42. It was reported that Governor Stevenson had wanted earlier to make the nominating speech for Harriman, but had been talked cut of it by Mr. Arvey. George Tagge, in Chicago Tribune , July 26, 1952, p. 1, c. 4. It may also be noted that Pascl en was later nominated by the Democratic State Committee for Lieutenant Governor, to replace Sherwood Dixon, nomina- ted for Governor to replace Stevenson. 43. See brief but excellent account by Edward Lindsay, "Douglas Misses Bandwagon," in Champaign-Urbana Courier . July 26, 1952, p. 1, cc. 6-7. Mr. Lindsay is the publisher of a small chain, including the Decatur Herald , and presumably this account as well as the accounts by 0. T. Banton, pre- viously noted, appear in those papers as well. 44. In this letter Douglas reviewed the circumstances of his commitment to Kefauver, stated that "when the governor's candidacy was revived, I found myself in a predicament which left me out of step with the Illinois dele- gation and unable to support the governor," and went on as follows: "With the nomination decided, I am released from my pledge to Kefauver and, like all good Democrats, stand behind our candidate. I do so with particular pleasure because I know the man and his record. At his request I shall campaign five or more weeks for him in the fall, and these are some of the points I shall stress. "1. Like a new broom, he swept Springfield clean, and he will do the same in Washington. He will tolerate neither graft nor waste, and we will not have to risk Republican reaction for an efficiency job. -47- "2. In foreign affairs he will continue to seek peace through strength, not appeasement, and he will co-operate in all constructive international policies. "3. In domestic matters he will unify the country with a sound program of conservative liberalism. "While both parties have nominated fine men, I am a convinced Democrat, and I shall take off my coat for the job of electing our candidates." Full text of letter in Chicago Sun-Times , Aug. 7, 1952, p. 27. It may be noted, however, that Douglas did not actively support Steven- son in the choice of Stevenson's successor as the gubernatorial candidate, refusing to express a preference between Dixon and Barrett and saying: "Let it go to the state committee. This is a matter for the state committee to decide, and I am sure it will be properl; decided." George Tagge, in Chi - cago Tribun e, Aug. 2, 1952, p. 3, c. 4.. 4-5. At the meeting of the State Committee in Springfield on August 12, 12 committeemen voted for Lieutenant Governor Dixon and 13 for Secretary of State Barrett; however, under the system of unit representation required by the Illinois law, these committeemen cast a vote of 4.69,616 for Dixon and 425,375 for Barrett, this vote being the vote cast at the Democratic prir.ary on April 8. The nomination of Herbert Paschen for Lieutenant Gov- ernor was unanimous. ' -us- Table I. CANDIDATES FOR DISTRICT DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES, 1952 /Those elected are starred/ DEMOCRATIC Delegate s 3 ^William L. Dawson "Georgia Jones Ellis Christopher C. Wimbish 2 *Bamet Hodes *Ernest C. Marohn 2 *Uilliam T. Murphy ^Daniel J. McNamara 2 *Leslie V. Beck % Pauline Vyzral 2 *Richard J. Daley ^Clarence P. Wagner 2 *Albert J. Horan -Henry Sonnenschein-'- 2 * Joseph T. Baran *John D'Arco 2 *"Thomas E. Keane *Neal T. Kelley 2 * Joseph L. Gill ^William J. Connors 2 -John S. Boyle ^Alfred J. Cilella 2 *P. J. Cullerton "•Casimir Griglik 2 *Frank Keenan *John J. Kelly 2 *Edward J. Barrett •*Adlai E. Stevenson 2 *Martin R. O'Brien *John W. Guild Alternates 2 *Kenneth E. Campbell *Robert E. Romano 2 * James J. Sullivan *Elmer J. Whitty 2 *Michael H. McDermott *Hugh Keable 2 *John A. Johnson *Leo F. Kennedy 2 *Frank V. Zintak *John F. 0' Toole 2 *Arthur X. Elrod *Jerry Brousil 2 *Frank Chearow ^Joseph F. Ropa 2 ^Sidney R. Olson *Victor A. Kula 2 *Mathias Bauler *John J. Grealis 2 *John R. Cermak ^Nellie A. Coleman 2 *John Schmidt *Clara A. McNamara 2 *George M. Wells *Frank Lyman, Jr. 2 "Martin Krier "Herbert Paschen 2 "Gladys Bower "Clarence J. Ruddy REPUBLICAN Delegates Alternate; A 5 A 8 3 A 3 2 3 5 2 1. Sonne nschein died March 30, 1952, before the primary, but was never- theless elected; Arthur X. Elrod was later elected by the appropriate party committee to fill Sonnenschein's place as delegate, and Gun. A. F. Lorenzen was elected to fill Elrod' s place as alternate. ' Dist. 15 16 Delegates -49- Table I. (contd.) /Those elected are starred/ DEMOCRATIC Alternates 7 Dr. G. L. Weindorf *F. Donald Delaney Joseph B. Wagner Daniel Harrington John (Jack) Rigazio *Henry P. McCarthy 4 *Walter F. Gilligan *Grace E. Knight Patrick L. Saunders Joseph Barbagallo 4 *John L. Fraser Louis J. Piano *John N. Nelson Albert L. Weitz 3 *Alvin H. Bimm Sam J. Corpora "Albert H. Manus, Jr. REPUBLICAN Delegates Alternates 4 2 17 2 "William v icars *Joe W. Russell 2 "Henry S. Wise "Edward La Rocque 2 2 18 2 *Dr. Nelson A. Wright, "Howard S. Beeney Jr. 2 "George L. Saal "Laura McClugage 2 2 19 3 "Francis J. Coyle "Arthur D. Young Chester Bell 3 "C. A. (George) Oberle "Ralph Hawthorne Ernest L. Benson 3 3 20 2 "Scott E. Lucas "Montgomery B. Carrott 2 "Elmer N. Bradley "Frank J. Powers 5 3 21 2 *L. A. Krabbe "Mark A. Peterman 2 "Laurence F. Arnold "Herman "Duke" Lisse 6 2 22 2 "Donald D. Richmond *W. A. (Jack) Reeds 2 *E. A. Stout "Herbert Finke 3 2 23 2 "John Stelle "Hugh V. Murray, Jr. 2 "Donald A. Levine "Lizzie Barnes 3 2 24 2 '"'Bruce A. Campbell "Schaefer O'Neill 1 " James 0. Monroe "Frank Summers* 3 2 25 3 "Darce F. Rumsey Walter W. Williams "Kent E. Keller 2 "Lloyd Austin "Robert L. Lansden 3 3 60 53 91 53 2. Summers not included in Official List of Candidates j elected by write-in votes. • - ' -50- -4- in CM — 1 to -< rH o to irs, c- ooo VfrH CM to as c\ m rH ir\ rH .-i o H --v «\ •\ •* •* o t> o CO r\ £3 U"\ c^v o o ITS u> £> T to 9 u C *—■ 3 •H P-r XI q ^ q u s +> u CD j CD U CD >» w f ^ w -P < 13 CD A! CJ CO ■P o q S U ■H cO cd a rH tO H -~t rH O s£> -* rH CM O -4- CM ta o iAff\iri«) oi •t •* vt *t VI »t •> m ir\ C- CM £> CM rH ors. ITS - IP> a >* O n rH Eh A a -4 o to as o -p q rH ^u rH -H w CD £h •v o > 0) CO Q) P E-> 03 -P J c aJ 8 o o a: co o ** •X ■st ir\ sQ cm ml O o O H (H Eh H 3 £ O O O O s C£J w Q Q rH s£) vfr lf\ CO O C^\ CM U~\ O c^\ c P CD !3 CD P cd j> H CD -P o rr> \0 o tr\ r> c r \ o>owh CM P- -st U~\ sOH H .to 1 in sO O o - If CD « > »hS CD 0) "P o E cd « a W * * <. •H rH Crt 03 Cd B CD -H •H £^ U a. CD rH TJ rH «J cd +3 ■P o o e-> EH cd | t-l CD o •H £h CD -P -P cd o H fd u 1 CO 1 U •H rH id CO cd 6 CD -H •rl Jh -p h Ch C S, n CM T\ •w [> & K 3 o tH nJ to p3 C t) •H E tn H CD « >S-P CD p 5 cd CD O Q CO as rH sO 3 Os CM CM C-, ITS CM t> t> vr\C" O sD lAOsf r, »s »» -J-P TJ -=C 01 CD P> C cj cd 3 cd CD Cd +3 CD O m JB co Q to * rH O O rH c- O •s «\ c^\ •^ CA O c^ a r^ cd q o V3 CD e cd o -51- Table III. COMPARISON OF DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTE FOR PRESI- DENT AND DELEGATES, 1952 Total Highest District Presidential Vote Delegate Vote 1 30,783 2 26,975 3 34,633 4 23,949 5 COOK 41,384 6 48,430 7 56,742 8 COUNTY 33,418 9 25,555 10 19,762 11 24,869 12 28,633 13 6,213 (Lake Co. Only) 14,099 14 8,879 7,505 15 14,082 6,455 16 12,033 6,148 17 13,245 13,256 IS 13,857 12,031 19 11,684 7,507 20 22,091 24,254 21 29,956 27,852 22 15,530 13,782 23 22,759 18,999 24 34,768 29,237 25 So. 24,065 19,061 Total Cook C 370, 952 1 403, 766 2 Total Downstate 229,162 191,553 Grand Total 600, 1H 595,319 1. The presidential vote is not broken down by districts in the official reports, but only by counties. 2. District 13 includes Lake County (5,466 votes) and a part of Cook County (8,633 votes); these votes are distributed accordingly between Cook County and Down- state in the totals. -52- Table IV. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES, 1952 Delegates at Large *C m .*D. District Delegates Dist . District Alternates Dist . J. M. Arvey X Fred A. Cain X John S. Clark X Elizabeth A. Conkey X Benjamin 0. Cooper X Sherwood Dixon X John Doherty X Paul H. Douglas X Ivan A, Elliott X Blanche Fritz X Michael Greenbaum X John Gutknecht X Martin H. Kennelly X Joseph E. Knight X William A. Lee X James B. McCahey X Richard J. Nelson X James L. O'Keefe X James C. Petrillo X Paul Powell X Alternates at Large Will F. Costigan, Jr. X Dorsey R. Crowe X J. Edward Day X Leo J. Dougherty X Don Forsyth X Joseph Germano X Edith Joyce X Joseph D. Keenan X Louis A. Kohn X Ludwig Lesnicki X Earl Merritt X Frank J. Mc Adams X Carl R. Miller X Stuyvesant Peabody X John H. Sengstacke X Michael F. Seyfrit X Michael A. Shore X James C. Thompson X Charles M. Webber X Charles H. Weber X Joseph T. Baran 7 Edward J. Barrett 13 Leslie V. Beck 4 Howard S. Beeney 18 John S. Boyle 10 Bruce A. Campbell 24. M. B. Carrott 20 Alfred J. Cilella 10 William J. Connors 9 Francis J. Coyle 19 P. J. Cullerton 11 Richard J. Daley 5 John D'Arco 7 William L. Dawson 1 F. Donald Delaney 15 Georgia Jones Ellis 1 Arthur X. Elrod 1 6 Joseph L. Gill 9 Walter F. Gilligan 16 Casimir Griglik 11 John W. Guild 14 Barnet Hodes 2 Albert J. Horan 6 Thomas E. Keane 8 Frank Keenan 12 Kent E. Keller 25 Neal T. Kelley 8 John J. Kelly 12 Grace E. Knight 16 L. A. Krabbe 21 Scott W. Lucas 20 Henry F. McCarthy 15 Daniel J. McNamara 3 Ernest C. Marohn 2 William T. Murphy 3 Hugh V. Murray, Jr. 23 Martin R. O'Brien 14 Schaefer 0'Neil 24 Mark A. Peterman 21 W. A. (Jack) Reeds 22 Donald D. Richmond 22 Darce F. Rumsey 25 Joe W. Russell 17 John Stelle 23 Adlai Stevenson 13 William Vicars 17 Pauline Vyzral 4 Clarence P. Wagner 5 Dr. N. A. Wright 18 Arthur D. Young 19 Laurence F. Arnold 21 Lloyd Austin 25 Lizzie Barnes 23 Mathias Bauler 9 Alvin H. Bimm 16 Gladys Bower 14 Elmer N. Bradley 20 Jerry Brousil 6 Kenneth E. Campbell 1 John R. Cermak 10 Frank Chearow 7 Nellie A. Coleman 10 Herbert Finke 22 John L. Fraser 15 John J. Greali3 9 Ralph Hawthorne 19 John A. Johnson 4 Hugh Keable 3 Leo F. Kennedy 4 Martin Krier 13 Victor A. Kula 8 Robert L. Lansden 25 Edward La Rocque 17 Donald A. Levine 23 Herman "Duke" Lisse 21 A. F. Lorenzen^ 6 Frank Lyman, Jr. 12 Laura McClugage 18 M. H. McDermott 3 Clara A. McNamara 11 Albert H. Manus, Jr. 16 James 0. Monroe 24 John N. Nelson 15 C. A. (George) Oberle 19 Sidney R. Olson 8 John F. 0' Toole 5 Herbert Paschen 13 Frank J. Powers 20 Robert E. Romano 1 Joseph F. Ropa 7 Clarence J. Ruddy 14 George L. Saal 18 John Schmidt 11 E. A. Stout 22 James J. Sullivan 2 Frank Summers 24 George M. Wells 12 Elmer J. Whitty 2 Henry S. Wise 17 Frank V. Zintak 5 * Cook County; Downstate 1. Replaced Henry Sonnenschein, who died before the primary but was nevertheless elected a delegate. 2. Replaced Arthur X.- Elrod, rriginally elected an alternate. . Table V, -53- CONVENTION EXPERIENCE OF 1952 DELEGATION DELEGATES AT LARGE, 1952 Name J. M. Arvey Fred A. Cain John S. Clark Elizabeth A. Conkey Benjamin 0. Cooper Sherwood Dixon John Doherty Paul H. Douglas Ivan A. Elliott Blanche Fritz Michael Greenebaum John Gutknecht Martin H. Kennelly Joseph E. Knight William A. Lee James B. McCahey Richard J. Nelson James L. O'Keefe James C. Petrillo Paul Powell Will F. Costigan, Jr. Dorsey R. Crowe J. Edward Day Leo J. Dougherty Don Forsyth Joseph Germano Edith Joyce Joseph D. Keenan Louis A. Kohn Ludwig Lesnicki Frank J. McAdams Earl Merritt Carl R. Miller Stuyvesant Peabody John H. Sengstacke Michael F. Seyfrit Michael A. Shore James C. Thompson Charles M. Webber Charles II. Weber 19A8 19^ 19£0 del. at 1. dist. del del. at 1. del. at 1. del. at 1 del. at 1. del. at 1. del. at 1 dist. alt del. at 1. del. at 1. alt. at 1. del. at 1 del. at 1. dist. del. alt. at 1 alt. at 1. del. at 1 alt. at 1. del. at 1. del. at 1. del. at 1 del. at 1. del. at 1. ALTERNATES AT LARGE, 1952 dist . del. del. at 1. alt. at 1. alt. at 1. alt. at 1. dist. del. alt. at 1. del. at 1, -54- Name Table V. (contd.) DISTRICT DELEGATES, 1952 Dist. 1948 124£ i2£2 Joseph T. Baran Edward J. Barrett Leslie V. Beck Howard S. Beeney John S. Boyle Bruce A. Campbell Montgomery B. Carrott Alfred J. Cilella Willaim J. Connors Francis J. Coyle F. J. Cullerton Richard J. Daley John D'Arco William L. Dawson F. Donald Delaney Georgia Jones Ellis Arthur X. Elrod Joseph L. Gill Walter F. Gilligan Casimir Griglik John W. Guild Earnet Hodes Albert J. Horan Thomas E. Keane Frank Keenan Kent E. Keller Nsal T. Kelley John J. Kelly Grace E. Knight L. A. Krabbe Scott U. Lucas Henry F. McCarthy Daniel J. McNamara Ernest C. Marohn William T. Murphy Hugh V. Murray, Jr. Martin R. O'Brien Schaefer O'Neil Mark A. Peterman W. A. (Jack) Reeds Donald D. Richmond Darce F. Rumsey Joe W. Russell John Stelle Adlai E. Stevenson '■Tilliam Vicars Pauline Vyzral Clarence P. Wagner Dr. i T elson A. Wright, Jr. Arthur D. Young 7 dist. del. 13 dist. del. alt. at 1. 4 18 10 24 del. at 1. del. at 1. del. at 1. 20 dist. del. 10 9 dist. del. alt. at 1. alt. at 1. 19 dist. del. dist. del. 11 dist. del. 5 dist. del. 7 1 dist. del. dist. del. alt. at 1. 15 1 6 dist. alt. dist. alt. 9 del. at 1. dist. del. del. at 1. 16 dist. del. 11 14 2 dist. del. dist. alt. dist . al 4 -. 6 dist. del. dist. del. alt. at 1. 8 12 dist. del. dist. del. 25 8 dist. del. 12 del. at 1. 16 dist. alt. 21 dist. del. dist. del. 20 del. at 1. del. at 1. del. at 1. 15 3 dist. del. dist. del. 2 3 dist. del. dist. del. 23 H dist. del. 24 21 22 22 dist. del. 25 17 23 dist. del. del. at 1. del. at 1. 13 dist. del. 17 alt. at 1. 4 *• ? 18 dist. del. 19 -55- Table V. (contd.) DISTRICT ALTERNATES, 1952 Nape Dist, 1948 12M IMl Laurence F. Arnold 21 Lloyd Austin 25 Lizzie Barnes 23 Mathias Bauler 9 Alvin H. Bimm 16 Gladys Bower 14 Elmer N. Bradley 20 Jerry Brousil 6 Kenneth E. Campbell 1 John R. Cermak 10 Frank Chearow 7 Nellie A. Coleman 10 Herbert Finke 22 John L. Fraser 15 John J. Grealis 9 Ralph Hawthorne 19 John A. Johnson 4 Hugh Keable 3 Leo F. Kennedy 4 Martin Krier 13 Victor A. Kula 8 Robert L. Lansden 25 Edward La Rocque 17 Donald A. Levine 23 Herman "Duke" Lisse 21 A. F. Lorenzen 6 Frank Lyman, Jr. 12 Laura McClugage 18 Michael H. McDermott 3 Clara A. McNamara 11 Albert H. Manus, Jr. 16 James 0. Monroe 24 John N. Nelson 15 Clarence A. (George) Oberle 19 Sidney R. Olson 8 John F. 0' Toole 5 Herbert Paschen 13 Frank J. Powers 20 Robert E. Romano 1 Joseph F. Ropa 7 Clarence J. Ruddy 14 George L. Saal 18 John Schmidt 11 E. A. Stout 22 James J. Sullivan 2 Frank Summers 24 George M. Wells 12 Elmer J. Whitty 2 Henry 3. Wise 17 Frank V. Zintak 5 dist. alt. dist. del. dist. alt. alt. at 1. dist. alt. dist. alt. dist. alt. dist. alt. dist. del. alt. at 1. dist. alt. dist. alt. dist. alt. dist. alt. dist. alt, dist. alt. dist. alt. alt. at 1. alt. at 1, TTr»oril/- T Armc n in IQ/fl onrl Q/. *Pt>s» nlr fAmvon .Tt» . ^ rt 1Q^5 -56- £1 •H O >-4 a, CO o t-3 c o O O X! 0) rH CO 03 X! o •H e u o 33 -P f. cd X rH << CO CD O W P CD a Cd cq a Cd a -a CO o ►■3 ■P x: HO o -P CD •P O O cd O P-i CO o CO > < X> o o 3 CD O O X! -P 01 x» 0) N •H rH W CV ITS o rH rH CO § cq >» ■3 CD o> f> rH U < >> o &q >q hJ w CD X! rH CO X) cfl 00 E-< 51 S5 Ol • rHl A) o •H Sh -P CL, c c! o cd CO U C o CD S3 > CD • P *-3 CO P •H Fh cd 0) rH XI T3 rH <=< < c o CO rH •H CO U c •H CD ■P CO c CD x o CD CO o ffi CO CD rH U CO x o a cd u o 33 P CD XI Xi p CO fit 4 CD X CO Sh CD PC CO >» u u CO ad •s p CD CO •H rH rH -H 1 O O CO cO o -p -p o o CO-W XS p CD od IS H CD rH ,* H C CD O X) O £3 • co CD cO O N 2 -H U rH PQ W CD rH rH O X P. CD CO O CD H CO c X o •"3 § ■a o u 73 g O CD c •H cO CO 73 W 3 CO CD •P CO o Oh -a CD CO O i-a •H Ai CO g c CD P Kl O Ph ■g. CD CO O 1-3 CD ("3 T3 CO rH CD cd > rH CD T3 cd W CD O o X! -p CD X> cd N •H rH w CD o X p CD X cd N •H rH W CD C o o X p CD X cd CO •H rH w h O •H