Kansas agitator. [volume] (Garnett, Kan.) 1890-1905, 1896-10-16

Recently Mr.. Watson held q confer
ence, at st. Louis, with three members
of the National Executive Committee.
The result Of that conference has been
published to the country. 1t Is proper
to say that the conference was timely
and tho result was satisfactory to Mr..
Watson and should be accepted by bis
friends The time has arrived when
the people demanded some action by
the men whom they had made man
ayers of the campaign. Discomfort In
the ranks was growing and revolt was
rife in several states. The cause OF
most Of this dissension grew out OF the
double-tailed presidential ticket. While
there was much opposition manifested
at st. Louis to the nomination OF Ear
Bryan. all or nearly all were willing to
accept the result provided the Demo-
Gratis would do so in good faith. This
was the feeling when the delegates ieie
st. Louis. Having accepted the action
of the national convention, 1t was not
expected that the Democrats would re-
ject the overtures there made and de-
mand a further division OF electors on
the vice-presidential ticket, or tnat
any state would bolt or reject the acton
of the national convention. Mr.. sew
alps name was fairly put before the
convention and rejected by an over
wbe,ming majority. Then the different
states began to hold the conventions
and demands were made 1or lursner
concessions. In Kansas and Colorado
the whole of the electoral ticket was
given to Bryan and sewall' Inc fopu-
lists in those states had no opportunity
to vote for Mr.. Watson, the candidate
NJ their own national convention. 1his
action of course, gave rise to much dis
satisfaction which terminated IN open
revolt in those two states. ms reVoi.
was also spreading in other STATES
wbere fusion on Sewall electors was IN
nrogress or had been made. hence
Tho conference between three OF the ma
tional executive committee came III 'he
nick of time.
The committee declares its purpose
n remain loyal to Mr.. Bryan. 1t also
announces it's purpose to keep iish.
in line with the action OF our ha''onai
convention" AS to Mr.. Sewalfs WITH
drawal the report given out by the coin-
n,ittee saws. 1--WE have formally made
orr request for that. The Democrats
do not see their way clear to grant IT,
The responsibility Of the result rests
WITH them Had Mr.. Watson been sub
,tituted for Mr.. Sewall and the silver
forces thus united upon one set Oh can
didates representing both sides, fusion
in every state would have been need
Ioss and we could have concentrated
our efforts upon electing the union
ticket This would have brought out
tho entire silver vote and would nave
made Bryan's election sure. AS 10 the
n;tuo+,on in Kansas and Colorado the
oon,mittee SAYS: 1.-THE situation in
.So.o two states is unsatisfactory to our
neonle A proper division OF electors
must be made in them or our 1uii party
vote cannot be secured for Bryan. Our
committee cannot recognize the action
of the Populist state authorities in any
state where the national convention
has been bolted and national nominee
has been ignored.
This is very plain declaration, yet
Il is in line with the action of the con-
yention. 1t is source of regret that
the committee did not take this stand
sooner. 1t is somewhat doubtful now
if the matter can be patched up in
time FOR the Populists to unite their
vote in such manner as to carry the
states named for Bryan. The action of
those states has provoked much criti-
cism outside and helped no little to
complicate matters. 1t Is questioned
by many middle-of-the-road Popu-
lists whether any kind of fusion is in
line with the action Of the national
convention. 1t is true that no speech