The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1898-05-25

against that portion Of the call, a. ever
emanated from a man even so VIGOROUSLY
unfair as himself. Co., The invitation thus
extended, nor does It materially differ from
the wording of the one issued by Thomas
]. Meighen to the voters of Fillmore county,
In calling Peoples Party convention in
June, 1896, in which he says: "Al voters
without regard to past political association.
who today believe in American system
OF finance, Independent of any foreign ma
tion and in the destruction Of the political
power of corporate monopoly, are invited to
participate"
3D. We have never pretended to be
a political boss" When have we ever
entered any country, or congressional
district, to say who they should nomin-
nate? We challenge those slanderers to
put their finger on one such instance.
But we had as much to do with found
ing the Peoples party as any man in the
U. S.; and we have a right to say that
the life shall not be trampled out of it
by a lot of brainless nincompoops. The
party has right to live; and we have
a right to say it shall live.
Co. MIR. Meighen's invitation referred
W IAlA6O III III COcull, III lllOSC WIZ U0-
lieyed' in Peoples party principles at
the time, matter susceptible of proof
by their acts. 1t did not include those
who did not believe, but who intended"
to vote the Peoples party ticket, at some
time subsequently 10 the primary at
which they sought to vote. And more
over, when Mr.. Meighen issued that call
in 1896 we had, in the First District, no
large element seeking to fuse with De-
mocracy, and ready to fuse the conven
ton with Democrats, to accomplish that
end.
Q0) Mr.. Dopnelly takes great exception
to that sentence Of the call which says:
THE Peoples party has ever been found
firmly at its post without a single thought
of sacrificing one Of it's sacred principles,
but with a broadness of mind, accepting
conditions not of it's own choosing" How
dare he comment on or deny that state
ment, when he was himself the Minnesota
delegate of st. Louis two years ago. that
in a lengthy speech seconded the nominal
ton of w. J. Bryan? Does any one who
knows that he was himself candidate for
the presidency, doubt that in SO doing he
accepted conditions not of his own choos-
ing?
QO) The answer is plain. Mr. Dom
nelly in the st. Louis convention was
but an individual. 1t was no disgrace to
him to yield to the judgment of his as
sociates. But convention is not an in
dividual. It is a representative, indie
pendant body; and there is no power on
earth that can coerce it, if it does its
duty.
We were not a candidate for the pres
ideIcy. We never sought the vote Of
any man. But Owen and Dobbyn put us
forth as candidate, advocated us and
pretended to be our friends, at the very
time they were plotting to disgrace us,
by taking from us little committee
ship and giving it to Owen; IN ORDER
THAT HE NIGHT FIGHT THE INITIA-
TIVE AND REFERENDUM.! A more
dastardly piece of treachery has not &C.
Cured on this earth since Judas be-
trayed the Savior of mankind with a
kiss. But Judas never boosted of his
rascallity-Dobbyn did. And Judas hung
himself. Dobbyn, we are sorry to say,
has not yet taken that step.
I'D What man but Donnelly would now
raise his voice in pretended holy horror at
the mere thought of fusion or cooperation,
who, only last January in his paper,
advocated the nomination by the Peoples
party of a Silver Republican for governor
and a Democrat for lieutenant governor?'
Q1) How vile is this man, or these
men, to thus misrepresent US? We said
that fusion" was destructive of the
party, but that we were disposed to be
very liberal as to the personnel" of The
ticket, and cared little who the candi
dates were or what party they came
from, provided they believed in Populist
principles, and would stand on the Pop
ulist platform. This was very different
thing from merging with another party.
losing our party identity and being
known thereafter as the Peoples-Demo-
cratic party"
Q2) For several years Mr.. Donnelly has
played the part of the Old Man of the Sea
upon the Peoples Party, while we, like
Slnbad the Sailor, have struggled on with
MIN astride our necks, kicking his heels into
our ribs, directing us to move forward or
backward to suit his pleasure until the fact
Is FULLY apparent that if he is permitted to
f1de us longer the party will be strangIed
to death. I declare for one that the gentle
man Will have to get down and walk, or he
is liable to get flung not merely into
the middle Of the road. but clear into the
ditch at one side. OBJ We will tolerate no
dlctation; the whole party alone shall decide
its course.
Q2) Were we ''the Old Man of the
Sea- when we advocated Peoples party
principles twenty-five years ago, before
some OF our assailants were out of the
womb, and others were obscure adven-
turers peddling patent medicines? Were
We the O. M. Of the Sea" when we de-
Tended the greenbacks and S. M. Owen
was denouncing them? Were we the O.
M. of the S. when we stood up for free
silver while Owen said it must not be
a part of our platform, because the party
was not agreed upon it? Were we the
0. M of the S. when we denounced Owen
for making a speech against the refer
endum, before the platform committee
at st. Louis, in 1896, and then trying to
lie out of it? Were we the o. M of the
S. when we established and maintained,
in this state for five years, twenty years
age, "the anti-monopolist newspaper"
-