The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-10-08
BLAKE'S ANSWER.
He Comes n Little Late Answering the
Pops Proposition.

Pops proposition.
| The following was given to the press to.
day:
| Messrs. Harry Tracy and Marion VIII
| liams: conference.-the democratic CON
| vention at Fort Worth. to whom was ad-
| dressed your proposition for fusion" of
the electoral ticket of the democratic and
populist parties on the basis of seven pop
ullst and eight democrats. referred said
proposition to the state democratic exec
| tive committee with instructions to de.
cline same. We desire to assure the pop
ulist party of Texas that the democratic
| convention intended no discourtesy or in
suit TO said party by its action in de-
Ginning to accept said proposition. Sew
| era good reasons existed why such II
| course was pursued, some of which we
| First-A committee with so important
mission, should present, from the body
| which created it, specific authority to act
| for and in its stead No resolution from
| the popuist convention or other evidence
accompanied your communication show
ing that you possessed such authority.
Second-The state convention of the
populist party, which you claim to be rep
resenting, elected only two presidential
electors representing the state at large.
| The selection of the thirteen district cleo
tors was left to the representatives of
| their respective congressional districts,
and when il was proposed to confirm the
nomination of the district electors thus
chosen, by formal vote of the state con
| vention, objection was made thereto by
| Harry Tracy, one of the signers of your
communication, on the ground that under
| the rules and regulations governing the
selection of electors, only electors ut large
could be chosen by the state convention,
| the remainder being left to the choice of
| their respective districts which were
sovereign and independent.
| The objection was sustained, and you
| were clearly without authority to act for
| the several districts, that authority, by
| action of your state convention, residing
| in the districts.
Third-Prior to the submission of your
communication, ii was charged publicly
| through the press, and was Il matter of
common rumor and current belief that
| you and other populist leaders had enter
ed into fusion" with the leaders of the
republican party, and the so-calledd
the e"d defeat money Of the pa democratic e state
ticket and the election of Nc
kinley electors in this state. No denial
of this charge had been made at the time
| your communication was submitted to
our convention, and it was the opinion of
! that mody that you did not sincerely de-
! Sire its acceptance.
| Fourth-We doubt not the sincere de-
| sire of the masses of the populst voters
! of Texas to make n common cause with
the democratic party in the election of the
democratic candidate for president, Will
liam j. Bryan, who is also the nominee Of
| the populist party, and the democratic
party not only invites, but is anxious 10
| have their cooperation and support in the
effort which We, are making. to have the
entire vote of Texas cast for that pure
and noble champion of Jelfersonan demo-
cracy, and is willing to make any just
and Reasonable concession to secure such
cooperation. We, however, can but
doubt the sincerity of the men whose
names were signed to the so-called
''fusion" proposition, for the reason that
one of its sgners towit: Marion Will
liams has repeatedly stated that the prop
osition was made with a view of getting
! the democratic party in a hole and
both of them have said they would vote
| for Mckinley if the democratic national
committee did not withdraw from the ma
! tional democratic ticket the name of
| Sewal for vice president and substitute
, therefor the name Of Watson the pOpulst
nominee for that Office thereby indicating
! their preference for the republican candi-
date and their intention TO bolt the nom-
nation of their own party in such contin-
| gency.
| Circumstances as strong as Holy
| Writ" also warrant us in stating land the
action of the democratic state convention
was largely prcdicated upon that fact,
that we believe that before the meeting of
the democratic state convention, the lead
! ers Of the populist party had opened nego-
tiations with the chairman of the republi-
can party of this state and his advisors,
looking to fusion with that party,
based upon delivering the populist vote
of Texas TO Mckinley in exchange for
republican support for Jerome kearby for
governor. and that such arrangement was
privatelv made but for prudential reas-
ons was publicly denied. The patriotic
purpose of the masses of the peoples
party to forego the differences ON minor
questions and unite with the democrats
on the silver question, which found ex-
preston in the nomination of William J.
Bryan. the democratic nominee for presi-
dent by the pOpulst national convention,
over the protest of the Texas populist
leaders, can not be thwarted in Texas 10y
an alliance made by these leaders with
the republican party, nor will the masses
of Texas populists be deceived by prop
ositon for "fusion' with the democrats,
made by men without full authority to
act and which proposition was intended
az disguise of their purpose to unite
with the republicans as soon ms the de-
tails can be arranged. l believe that the
masses of the populsts in Texas, who
are not interested in ''spois'' of office nor
the distribution of the republican cam
paign money, contributed by eastern cor
porations and trusts for the purpose OF
securing the vote OF Texas for Mckinley
and to defeat William J. Bryan, their
nominee for president, will by their votes
in November rebuke the action of the men
who are attempting to commit them to
the support of the very candidates and
measures which their party was organiz-
ed to defeat. Very respectfully.
]. W. BLAKE.
Chairman State Democratic Executive
Committee of Texas.