The herald., 1896-08-31
Gator 70 THE POPUL|STS
Reply to the Statement of DOre
of Fresno
AN EFFORT TO MISLEAD
The Populist Leader Of Fusion Says
Facts Were Suppressed
The Document Characterized as . Campaign
Publication for the Use Of the
Republican Press
AN EFFORT TO MIsLEAD

T. v. Gator. the Populist leader, has
written the following open letter to the
voters of his party by way of reply to the
I misleading and unauthorized statement
OF John S. Dore of Fresno, published in
the Republican press as a campaign
document:
To the Populists of California::-Mr.
John S. Dore, a member of the state ex
ecutive committee of our party has fur
nished to the Chronicle and Call. Republic
can newspapers of San Francisco. for pub
lcation. a paper which he calls minority
report, read by him before our committee
on August "a, 1896. This document is in the
nature of an appeal to the Populists to re-
| fuse to support the union presidential
electors agreed upon by the committees
of the Populist. Democratic and Silver par
ties. 1t is being printed by Republican
papers generally as a campaign document.
and is so prepared as to be well designed to
incite Populists to aid Mckinley by refus-
ing to support the union electors agreed
| upon.
| The agreement for union on electors was
| ratified with three dissenting votes only.
| and the question was Immediately brought
up that this document signed by Mr..
| Dore ought not to go to the newspapers,
| as 1t was Of character to operate against
our candidate for president. and the COM
| mittee tried to prevent 1t from being made
public and to treat it as matter of an ex-
| ecutive session. but Mr.. Dore had given
it out to the reporters before 1t was voted
| on. and 1t was then voted that the execu-
| tive committee and those signing the
| agreement for union might answer said
| paper of Mr.. Dore.
| l am one OF the persons who signed the
| agreement. The executive committee has
| separated and 1 deem it just to our party
to point out wherein the paper so prepared
by Mr.. Dore is misleading by emitting to
| state facts and quotations from documents
and persons he refers to- which in fairness
| should have been included in his statement
| and which would place his conclusions IN
a very different light. The state silver
| campaign committee has also requested
me to answer the document by Mr.. Dore.
| Mr.. Bryan was nominated by our national
convention by 1912 votes against 321. Mr..
| Norton, who was placed in nomination.
| loyalty supports Mr.. Bryan, and states
! that If our convention had met first it
| would have nominated Mr.. Bryan. 1t may
| not be known to all of our party that Mr..
| Bryan not only stands for free coinage.
abolition of bank notes. the direct issue of
| all money by government only, the income
| tax-and a supreme court which will up
| hold such ax-tcgether with the other
| planks of the Democratic platform, but
he favors dir ect legislation, and himself
placed a demand for 1t in the Nebraska
state platform this year. and he tried to
insert it in the Chicago platform. lie has
been twice a nominee of our party in Ne
braska. once for congress and once for
| United States senator. and he helped to
| elect the present Popullst governor of
Nebraska; M These facts seem to be conceded co nc
fers to in the following language in his
report. where, in speaking of the noinna.
tion of Mr.. Bryan by the Populists he
';The Honorable William Bryan of Ne
braska was subsequently nominated by the
same convention as its candidate for the
| exalted position of standard bearer of that
party, even to wider extent than he was
platform of the Democratic party as de-
clared at Chicago in 1856"
On the 5th day of August, 1896, Mr. Dore
| signed with our executive committee an ad-
dress. ratifying the action of our national
convention. He thereby accepted Mr. Bryan
as our candidate for, president. Mr. Dore
| quotes portions of that address in which
| Mr.. Sewall IS criticised as Il national
banker: and , mistit Isiit, upon the Chicago
abandoned by the union on electors. We
said in that address that our committee
refused to accept Mr. Sewall as ol.r nomi-
| him our nominee at ST. Louis. and that we
point out our objections to him in that ad-
dress of August s. 1896 in no way implies
| that We intended to refuse to unite on cleo
| tors in this state. In fact, that very address
shows that we did then expect to do that
| very thing and this Is one of the places
where Mr.. Dore by quoting from one part
OF that document, and omitting part
from the matter. directly mlsleads aud
does injustice to those signing the union
| agreement. The Address of August 5. 1896
signed by Mr.. Dore. contains the following
words
'In view of,the conditions our convention
| faced, we deem it our duty to. and we do
ratify and approve the action of our. ma
convention it is evident that It's purpose
| was to favor united action between the
Peoples party and other reform forces
in the several states to secure all the
electors of such states for Mr. Bryan
upon such terms as may be honorable ana
| just to such reform forces
Mr. Dore should have used these words
in his report. The same day and in pIr-
suance of that address, Mr.. Dore voted for
| a resolution appointing a conference COM
to confer with the Democratic party and
silver organization upon the subject OF
co-operation-upon the election of. presi-
| dental electors, congressman and legisla-
ture in this state.' Mr.. Dore now insists
that our party ought to. refuse to divide
a straight ticket for Bryan and Watson.
| This would not be to support Mr.. Bryan
| or Mr.. Watson. Such a course would only
defeat Mr.. Bryan and elect gold electors
This position assumes that we owe no
duty or fidelity to Mr.. Bryan; that we are
to be wholly Indifferent to his success
in fact. that we should help to beat him
in this state. We have arranged to secure
nine votes for our PRESIDENT. four for our
vice-president The Democrats get five
for their vice-president. Personally have
received but two letters objecting to this
agreement. Some have been received at
headquarters, but very few, compared to
our 55,0 600 votes. Judge Buck stated that
it suited his section Humboldt Mr.. Dit
mar, from the north, said the same. Mr..
Moore said the same for Alameda.
| The whole Sixth congressional district
convention unanimously passed the fol-
lowing resolution on August 18TH reported
| by j. V. Webster: Resolved That we
insist upon an equitable division of the
electoral ticket so as to secure for our
| vice-presdental candidate votes equal to
our numerical strength"
This day the Populist congressional con-
| vention of the Third district unanimously
| ratified our agreement.
| Santa Clara sent resolutions indorsing the
| agreement. From many came requests
| urging speedy action We obtained more
than our vote of 1894 figured for us. The
| average Democratic vote Qcaving Cover
nor Budd ouD was S3353; the average
|