People's party paper. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1891-1898, 1896-10-30


them further frem the consideration
OF the great necessity that presses on
every patriot, the complete massing
of the friends Of silver on honorable
ground for common battle.
II, as the Constitution asserts, the
proposition of the Populists wa7
made for the purpose of preventing
fusion, and that its language was iu-
sulting, then why did the editor of
thai paper seek Mr.. Watson at the
latter's home?
If, as that paper says, the rank
and file of the Populists are patriots
who have been betrayed by selfish
leaders in this state, what, pray, has
the Constitution to say of the little
gang of political leeohes that fatten
at the expense of the rank and file
of the Democracy?
If these men are controlled by
principle, and place measures above
men, and the Constitution can en-
dorse such position, what has it to
say of its condemnation of those
Democrats who are disposed to do
the same thing?
lift was wrong in the Populists to
demand that Watson be compliment
ed by the full electoral vote Of Geor-
gia, a Democratic state, how can it
be right in the Democrats of Ne
braska, a Populist state, to receive
the full electoral vote of that sta o
for Sewall?
If Watson, out of delicacy, refuses
to interfere in Nebraska on account
of it being Mr.. Bryan's hOma, should
Sewall stand in the way of Watson
in the latter's home state-especially
when Democratic magnanimlty in
Georgia would help Bryan through
out the country?
Should all tho sacrifices be made
by Watson, and none by the man
from Maine?
Is it fair to charge the Populiats
with the responsibility Of patriotic
submission, so long as the Democrats
are in greedy possession of the pie
counter?
Is it reasonable to expec. timid
noninterference on the p.rt of the
Populist party, while Democratic
politicians sand bag their leader?
1.-THE fusion proposition was wrong
and insinoere, why did not the Dem.
oGratic committee make a ocuptor
proposition on the lines of right and
sincerity?
The Constitution says the Demo
Gratis we're insulted by tho demand.
What becomes Of all this prating
about patrlo. ism, when these politi-
cal censors allow personal pique to
interfere with plain patriotic duty?
Hadn't the Populists been ms llted
time and again? Hasn't their leader
been ecorned and saadbagged? Yet
they waived aside these things when
they would fuse. Couldn't the Dem
ocra.ic committee rise to the plane
of unseiish patriotism and at less.
enter upon negOti atoms, after the de-
s2ised Popullst had blazed the way?
Is more patriotism to be expected
Of the Populists than the Democrats?
If the proposition to fuse was
couohed in insulting language, isn't
it tr.tls singular that the Constltu-
ton was six days in detecting the
indignity?
If the proposition of the Populists
was so insulting and UNI easonable,
why did the editor of the Consti.u,
ton favor treating with them in his
speech before the committee, wherein
he is reported to have said, "that
Bryan could not be elected without
tae support Of the Populists?" Why
did he, after making this statement,
introduce the resolution that put an
end to all further negotiations Can
ne, in view of this strange double
dealing, be considered a friend of
Bryan?
Ia the light of this incident, how
can the Constitution show the gall to
write two column appeals to patriots?
What weight will these heavy edi-
torials have with the people who are
forced to doubt the sincerity of their
author?
If the Constitution had placed pa