Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-10-12
MORE ABOUT NEBRASKA
Nj. Ham Answers Secretary Edgerton's As
sertions.
Presents Statistics That Tend to
Show That Bryan's State is
Doubtful Territory.

The Star is In receipt Of the following
communication from Mr.. E. Ham. who Is
well acquainted with the condition or
things in Nebraska, In answer to asser-
tions made by Secretary Edgerton of the
populists' national executive committee, in
a recent interview in The Star:
II note in The Star of October 10 po-
litical predictions of Mr. Edgerton Of Ne
braska on the November elections. and
while I dislike very much to disturb his
figures, which accord Mr.. Bryan $4,000
| votes. and Mckinley only 5000. the claim
has a sort of charm about it that influences
| me to say word. While not claiming to
| know SO much Of the ms and outs of Ne
| braska politics as Mr.. Edgerton is credited
with, 1t has been my good fortune while
with ex-senator Henderson to note the
changes in the political tides and the eddy
ing of the currents in Nebraska since 1884,
when the late Congressman Laird was
wont to battle with the anti-monopoly
hosts, better known now as populists Men
have been made and unmade during that
time In Nebraska with more or less ra-
pfdity. Weak nominations at times by the
| republicans. internal dissensions. and other
| causes have contributed to the rise of the
| populist organization until it contains
| many good men and about all the elements
| OF danger to the state; the dissatisfied. dis
affected and the ambitious. Loan and trust
companies demanding high rates Of inter
|
| rates. have been potent factors in this agri-
! cultural state to produce discomfort, while
| the republicans. who should have been
| leaders of public sentiment, have too often
| been dominated.
| Causes of POpulism.
| '"These things and present low prices for
agricultural products have had their eff
| feet and they, and not free silver form
the present basis Of populism in Nebraska.
| her ha in IN
| present conditions, TIE defeat of ex-senator
| Paddock and the election of Senator Allen
| through democratic influence. Mr.. Pad
| docks retirement from politics. the death
Of Mr.; Lard, both being very influential
! republican advisers and factors hav.
| weakened the republicans. while the defeat
| of Richards and Majors for governor left
ugly scars on republican prestige, just as
| the elevation of Gov. Holcomb (populisD
| has added its weight to pcpulsn.
But in spite of all these things, the state
| has always been true to the cause Of pro-
lection when that vas made the issue, and
Mr.. Bryan was fortunate perhaps, so far
as Nebraska is concerned, in being able.
apparently. to create a new issue. ard es-
pecially SO in the face of the fact that
his old congressional district elected re-
publican as his successor by over 5,4oO plu-
rality.
And when We come to fig Ire On the
liabilities of the result in Nebraska in
| November. what has been stated mrst be
given due weight. and 1t has made for
populistic success in the past.
Another thing has materially added TO
popuhsdc success in Nebraska So de
termined were the democratic leaders in
the east in 1892 for the success of Mr.
| Cleveland that word was passed along The
line that democrats in Nebraska should
| vote for Weaver and not Mr.. Cleveland in
order to take the state out of the Harrison
| column. and while 1t failed, it made it cas- y
for such alleged democrats Mr.. Bryan
and many others to step over into the
l y1{Gf trr,tt rf
| they awaited themselves, the vote in the
Il state after 1888 clearly proves. In 1883 the
vote was: For Cleveland, 5000; for Har-
| rison, los, 400. While in 1892 il stood: For
Cleveland. 24.3OO: for Harrison. $40 and
for Weaver, S3,1oo. The republican loss tc
| populism was 21.OU. and the democratic
over 5000. The knife went so deep into
the vitals of the democracy that it ha.
never been able to poll more than 1s.7I
votes since, which 1t did in 1898. while
free silver polled 200 the republicans
hibitionists. 1890. Here. then. we find a
total vote Of 1920, against a total il
| 1892 of 195,2O0
No Gains to the Vote.
Nebraska has not gained many votes
since 1892 because of the conditions which
, have existed Mr.. Edgerton, however gives
the state 1900 gain. 1t is safer to figure
on the basis Of, say. 100000 votes. Popu
lism having absorbed all of the democratic
| votes except 49, 100, l fail to see where Mr.
| Edgerton gets his 5000 as a basis or
which to accord Mr.. Bryan 123,OOO votes II
| November On the other hand, he mus
| reduce that figure to 10000. Mr.. Edgertor
| comedies the republicans $4,000 and i
J seems now safe to say, judging from re
ports from all over the country, that 81
per cent or more of the hard money demo
i. Gratis will vote straight for Mckinley. L
SO, we have 10OOGU votes in Nebraska fol
the republican ticket. Mr.. Edgerton state
the populist vote at 10000 adding 40,0W
. democrats and 5000 prohibitioniStS, bu
there ale no longer 10000 democrats in Ne
| braska; all but 5000 to 2O,OpO are popul!sts
The high water mark for the combined
l opposition to the republicans in Nebraska
2 came in 1892. when 1t reached los. Ot9 blu
I | that included 1880 Cleveland votes re
1 duced now to. say. 10000 at least half O.
. I which will vote for Mckinley and tn,
| other 10000 may vote for the Indianapolis
| ticket. They certainly will not vote fo
Mr.. Bryan. If Mr.. Bryan should get tn,
I / vote cas-, for Mr. Holcomb in 1894, which
e was 81 800. and 10000 silver republicans h.
| would have only 101, 800. and If we ado
t | Mr.. Edgerton's 1000 prohibition votes w,
r would have but 1l0.s0O, or about On
short of the majority which Mr.. EdgertoI
e seems to fiatter himself will be the re
t suit. The fact Is this. that If 10000 re
e publicans In Nebraska vote for Bryan
| they will be Offset by more than that mum
Der Of democrats. which makes Nebraska
e a good state for gamblers to wager on
| either way"
BONDHOLDERS' COMMITTEES.