The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1896-09-26


| the beginning, No: the Observer
does not bolt. It is standing by
the candidates of the National ana
State Democratic conventions. is
a person or a paper when docs
that a bolter? 1t denies the au-
| thoritv of a body subordinate 10
n convention of the people to IN
str1ct II otherwise than that con-
vention instructed, and on that
ground it stands"
That sounds well as far as the mo
[ is concerned. The boy that STOOD on the
burning deck could not have said mo
in a more manly fashion. If now the
"pround it stands" ON be that 1T denies
the authority of body subordinate
to a convention of the people to i'm
struct it otherwise than that conven-
ton instructed. we will without bag
Cling about the fact that the con-
vention did not put up all the electors,
ask the Observer does it or does it
not believe that the convention, il as
sembled now, would sustain the COM
mittee?
How could the convention have dealt
with a situation that had not arisen,
and is not committee appointed ON
behalf of the convention to deal with
just such situations? If not what rs the
reason for its existence?
If the Observer could be persuaded
that a majority of the convention en-
dorsed the committees action, 1T also,
would, by its own statement and its
own logic, be compelled to endorse
| the committee. We challenge it to
name ten per cent of the convention
| that will disapprove of the commit
tees action.
| Is not the Observer setting up code
of political morals that is extra-subli-
mated when it finds foul deeds in the
| action of committees appointed for no
| other purpose than to take such ac-
| ton? Does it not see a case in point
| in the Jurisdiction of the New York
/ committee, that, after the convention,
| is dealing with a side of the Thacher
| case that could not be foreseen? If
| the Convention is the only thorn in
| the Observers side, we will let it wait
two or thre DAYS until the State press
| shall have had its full expression
/ through our columns.
And when it is satisfied that the con-
lvention would not have been against
/ the action, it viii, of course, acquiesce
because there is nothing like being
with the convention, and SO say we all.
/ What we have been standing
out for is a policy by which the
/ necessity for any scratching could
be avoided. The National Demo
cratic convention having nominal
/ ed its ticket, the straightforward
thing, and the thing which would
/ have commanded public respect
4 Ex.,~ f. u
| as he will receive otherwise, was to
put up an electoral ticket pledged
| to his support and that of his run
ming mate. and invite all men to
/ enlist under that banner. As to
the implied statement that such
straightout ticket would have
made possible the election of the
/ Mckinley electors, the answer is
that this policy of straight-for-
wardness may make possible the
| election OF Judge Russell as Gov
ernor; it may make possible the
election of White, Settle, Linney
/ and Pearson, gold bug Republi-
cans, to Congress"
| Now do examine this statement. The
| Bryan and Sewall ticket would have
commanded ''as many votes for Mr..
| Bryan as he will receive otherwise"
Then put this statement by the side of
| it: if "such straightout ticket would
have made possible the election of Nc
| Kinley electors, the answer is that
| this policy of straightforwardnesS
| may make possible the election of
| Judge Russell as Governor, &C."
First the Observer says that
| straightout ticket will not elect Nc
| Kinley but may elect Russell and gold
bugs to Congress-" This statement
| won't do. 1t is to guard against this
| ''may" of the Observer, that the COM
mittee has taken it's action, and if the
may" applies to Russell, it should to
the Observer by it's own statement
apply also to Mckinley. Therefore, how
can it run the risk of having McKin-
ley?
| But it says, just as well avoid Rus
sell as Mckinley. But had we not bet
ter avoid one than neither. The OBJ
server should know that though the
State convention would endorse cleo
| aoral fusion on one man represent
| ing the same thing nominated inde-
pendently by three parties, it would
be a different thing to propose a fu-
| sion on two men, representing distinct
| ~ two different things.
| Il he ODSSFkST asks why we
/ do not pull down our Con-
gressional nominees and endorse the
Populisb Congressional nominees.
Take this district. There are Pou and
Strowd; these are two men, one a
Democrat and the other a Populist.
If we could unite on six-elevenths of
| Pou and five-elevenths of Strowd, the
case might be different, as we would pre-
| fer a majority of Pou to Republican.
There is only one man, however,
Democrat, concerned in the matter of
| Bryan. But it is the Populist Vice
| President, the Observer shudders at.
| IF we have six electors, certainly Bryan
and Sewall are elected so far as this
| State is concerned.
But to take a somewhat wider view.
Does not the Observer realize that the
eNigency is unprecedented in American
| politics, and that, therefore, if all it