The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-10-10
soMEISrERrsrING DEVELOPMENT .l'

cnnrE INTERESTING bc'I .
90 esteemed contemporary INV
,~achhrrg News. accuses The Times Oh
.str-s,,,tting. and says that we nave
'aaoered away from the main subject OF
discussion. has
We confess that the discussion mas
,oter a turn which We did not orlsihaiiy
exnect. but n we have been splitting n''l9
- a,~resslpg. we have in so doing GER
.a,,,v brought out some interesting iae's
win reference to the attitude OF our con-
temporary toward the Chicago convention
and later toward the Roanoke convention
We have developed the fact that our
.o,ternnorary was not in favor of having
the Roanoke convention reafhrm IN TOTO
the Chicago platform. We have developed
the fact that the Roanoke convention
took that action against all precedent
fearing that II 1t failed to do so 1t would
ooena a large number of Silver Demo-
Gratis. and possibly cause them to bolt
ps did the silver Democrats in New YORK
ana that It was done merely as matter
Of tactical advantage
We think that we have also developed
tho fact. though our contemporary passes
that over as a matter mot worth bother,
that II the gold Democrats in virginia
had been sufficiently numerous to make
Them an important factor in the cam
paign, as a matter Of tactical advan-
tage." the Chicago platform would not
have been reafiirmed In short we think
that a is perfectly fair TO conclude from
what the News has said on this line that
tho Roanoke convention reafiirmed the
Chicago platform, not so much as a mat
ter Of principle as a matter Of party
policy. because It was believed that more
votes would be lost than gained by
ignoring national issues upon which Dem
ocrats in Virginia are divided.
We have also developed the interest
ing fact that the editor Of the News. who
was a delegate TO the Chicago convention
and a delegate to the Roanoke convention
and now a member OF the State Executive
Committee, was opposed TO two planks
in the Chicago platform, and. therefore.
refused to vote for that platform when
the virginia delegation was polled on that
question.
Our contemporary is now good enough
70 tell us in reply TO a direct question
which two planks they were that he op-
posed. We quote;
The writer opposed the plank attacking
national bank issues. as inopportune and
uselessly calculated 10 provoke active
hostility upon a question that was not
up for immediate settlement. He opposed
the plank condemning government by
Injunction" because he believed IL
would be associatd with the then re-
cent arrest and imprisonment Of Eu-
gene Debs by order OF a Federal pldge
for defiance OF the injunction of a Fed
eral court; and he was unwilling 10 have
the Democratic party identified with
Debssm and falsely subjected to the
charge OF Aanarchistic tendencies. even
though the doctrine expressed was
sound 10 the core in the abstract
The process has been little tedious.
but the result is highly satisfactory.
These Developments are certainly most
interesting to us. and we believe that
they are also interesting 10 many readers
OF The Times as well as OF the News. In
deed. we do not think that we 20 too far
when we say that they are valuable con-
tributions TO current political history, and
we thank our friend for his candor and
frankness In answering our questions. and
congratulate him on his good sense and
forothought IN the course he has pursued
towards the Chicago platform before and
since IT'S adoption.