The Louisiana populist., 1897-05-21
Why He Opposes a Conference.

Why He Opposes a Conference.
Hon. j. L. Sibley, of Marietta,
national committeeman for Geor-
gia, has this to say concerning an
early convention Of the Peoples
party:
I am opposed to such a conven-
tion, and do not think it wise or
necessary.
For the first place do not be-
lieve body representing the SEN
timent Of our people could be OBJ
tanned by the time named. The
unusually late spring making it
impossible for our people to at
tend meetings and put in operation
the methods necessary to OBJ
tain representative delegations, of
course u convention of self-appoint-
ell delegates is not to be thought
of for a moment. But if the con-
vention was possible | should still
oppose it this year, as | do not be-
lieve it could accomplish the ends
for which it would be called.
1t is simply impossible, at this
time, for such a convention to al
lay the confusion and discomfort
resulting from the recent cam
paign, if the body be national and
representative. 1t would be Just
AS unreasonable TO assume that a
family row could be satisfactorily
settled by announcing a public
hearing Of the case, while both
sides we're still mad and abusive.
A convention in the near future
would result in general indifer-
ence to it.by one side or the other,
as an effort to pack it, a fight to
control 1t, kicking out Of one
half by the other, or a refusal of
the minority to accept the dictates
orcensure of the majority, a with
drawal which would prove a per-
manent loss 10 US, and gain to the
old parties.
1t is folly to assume that the
purging of one-half Of the Popu-
list party, by the casting out of
the other, will result in a great in
flux of votes from both old parties.
"A house divided against itself
must fall" Nothing can illustrate
this better, to assume that just
such a convention as the one con-
templated, should be called for the
Democratic party at this time.
| Would we not be delighted? 1t
would mean fight. The gold men
would kick out the Bryan men or
vice versa. The minority would
60 to the Populists or Republicans,
and would mean the end Of Democ-
racy as a great national party.
Suppose the Bryan Democrats
should control the convention,
drive out the gold element, adopt
the st. Louis platform in toto, and
then ask us to join them, because
they were rid Of traitors and Re-
publicans, would we do it2 Would
We not hold our own, knowing that
their house was divided, that they
must come to us, as they were only
a disturbing faction while ours was
a national party. Make the ap-
plication to our party, the result
would be the same.
The Populist who voted for
Bryan and Sewall and who honest
" thought that by casting his vote
he was praeticing what we had been
preaching, s'putting principle
above party" and adopting the
means that would quickest bring
relief to himself and family, is not
going to take much sass" from
the Populist, who though just as
honest, aided McKinley's election
by not voting at all, or by voting
the Republican ticket, because he
saw that Democracy was not ''new
born," btt the same old wolf in
sleeps clothing, that only partial
ly adopted Populist principles in
order thatit might wholly destroy
the Populist party. Both Of these
men are good PopuIists at heart,
they will come together in time,
but not now. They do not need