The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1897-09-01
A LETTER OF INQUIRY
And An Answer,

And An Answer
We have received the following let
ter:
Little Falls, Mimi, Aug. 21st 1897.
Hon. Ignatius Donnelly,
Minneapolis, Mimi
Dear Sir:-I have always looked to
you as the leader and defender of our
party, and l whtsay have always ad-
mired the way you have done it; but Of
late 1 am opel to admit that there have
been many things done that l cannot
understand, being as you know some
what out to one side I could not I'M
derstand why our state committee would
not send delegates to Nashville and why
you appointed new committee.
And why Is there so much quarreling
and jealousy among our leaders? Now,
while do not and will not express my
opinion why this fuss, yet l am sorry.
Respectfully
COLLINS.
We would Say in answer to the in
quiries made in the foregoing letter from
Mr. Collins, that we have tried to do
what we thought was best for the
Peoples Party. We have no personal
ambition to serve nor any expectation
of any office. We have not put ourself
forward for any nomination for many
years past. We could have been renom-
i,,ot ~,
from this, the Third district, at any
time during the last twelve years by
the opposition element We have not
only not asked for the nomination, but
we have continually declined to permit
our name to be used: and have cheer
fully supported Mr.. Bowler Mr.. Gamble
and other candidates. We have not op-
posed Mr.. S. M. Owen simply because
we wanted any Office that he was after;
but simply because he preached doc
trines which would have absolutely and
! at once ended the Peoples Party.
In 1890 he objected to having Capt.
Nelson and others make speeches for
him, because they were in favor Of
greenbacks. In 1894 he wanted free sill
yer dropped, because he said the Peoples
Party were not all agreed upon it, In
1896 he made speech against the in
itiative and referendum. in the national
committee on platform, at St. Louis. In
1897 he advocated dropping the name
and "prejudices" of the Peoples Party,
| and going in with the Democrats or
with any new party And he and his
whole clique opposed holding the Nash
vile conference, to try to place the
Peoples Party upon it's feet once more,
while thousands were trying to destroy
it,
Our friend can see that we could not
have stood by and permitted these doc
trines to be preached by Mr.. Owen and
others, without opposing them, for they
went to the very existence of the Peo-
pies party. If they were to win, the
Peoples Party had got to die Our
quarrel, therefore, with Mr. Owen was
not as to ami thing that he had done
against us. but tfat which he had done
and was con3 nuhg to do against our
organization IlTtis is the explanation
of the so-callA 'huarrels" to which our
friend alludess and they are not quar-
rels, but simd BY ; necessary defense OF
the life of tht party.
AS to cur friends second question, as
to why the state committee would not
| send delegates to Nashville, we would
say that it was primarily due to the OPP
position made by the Owen crowd to
! the Nashville conference. In the Penny
Press, which was,then in existence, they
denounced the whole thing. They saw
that it might put stop to the FUSION =
which was fusing away the life of the
party: and hence they raised the ques-
ton that the state central committee had
no right to appoint delegates This per
hai.5 was true, because it had net been
so empowered by the state convention;
and it would have been very expensive
thing to the party to have held state
convention last spring simply to have
elected delegates to Nashville Under
these circumstances we concluded to ac-
quiesce in the view taken by the cpposi-
ton. But if it had not been for their