The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-07-08
STATES ON RATIO PLANK.


Inc criticism offered by opponents of
democracy that the money plank of the
Kansas City platform was thrust upon
me party by the territories. and even by
= siIigIe HaWaliah vote, Is hardly worth
discussion Mr.. Bryan is responsible for
the money plank, and he Is not disposed
TO shirk the responsibility
fet study Of the vote in committee by
states and territories will be found inter-
eStlng and instructive. Following is O ia
bic showing the vote for and against the
transportation Of the coinage ratio:
AfIaska. North Carolina.
connecticut, New Jersey
California, New York
FLORIDA, Ohio,
GSoI GA, Oregon,
IIlddn l, Pennsylvania,
sluIaHa, Rhode Island
1SUJulsIdlid, South Dakota,
nlinneSota, Texas,
Mississippi Virginia
h1aryIand. West Virginia.
MIchlsan' Wisconsin-24
For specific 16 to 1:
ARIZONA, Missouri.
Alabama. Nehra slra
Arkansas, Nevada
SSoiiofaoo, North Dakota.
I GeldW ware New Hampshire,
hawaii New Mexico,
indian territory, Oklahoma.
ITudno' South Carolina
6oWd' Tennessee,
Kansas, ITtab
Kentucky, Vermont
Malhe. Washington
Massachusetts, WvominpN9s
This record shows some noteworthy
facts.
For one thing, 1t shows that the South
ern states are not so strongly insistent
upon a declaration for specific ratio
as has been commonly supposed. Placing
all the former slave states In the South
ern category, eight were opposed to a
specific l6 to l declaration and only seven
were in favor of it.
FOR another thing, it shows a sub
stantlal agreement among the important
states of the Union, with but few ex-
ceptions, against that declaration
The great Eastern states of New Jer-
sey' maryland. Pennsylvania and New
YORK were opposed to a specific ratio
SO We're the great Middle and Middle
Western states of Ohio, Indiana. Illinois,
Michigan and Wisconsin.
so were the great Southern states of
virginia, West virginia, North Carolina.
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and
Texas.
or the great Eastern states Massachu-
setts was the only one whose vote was
cast for a specific ratio, and Massachu-
setts is as hopelessly Republican as
pennsylvania. The Middle and Middle
Western states to the Mississippi were
solid against the ratio feature
1t was, indeed, mainly the states of
comparatively small population and com
mercial and industrial Importance and
the territories, which have no voice in
the electoral college, that carried the day
for 16 to 1.
But even this is not the whole truth.
In fact, Mr.. Bryan's wishes governed
Attaching undue Importance to the Pop
ul1st vote in states which count for lit
tie In the electoral college-to his own
personal following in those states-he in
sisted upon an express declaration for 16
to l. and the delegates bowed to his
wishes against their own best judgment.
NO doubt Mr.. Bryan's personal follow
ing would have voted for him in any
event. But if the omission of specific
Is to L declaration would have alienated
them so will the subordinate ton of that
! plank and the emphatic declaration that
imperialism is the paramount issue of
the campaign"
AS a matter of practical politics moth
Ing whatever is gained, while much may
be lost by sltbordinating the Judgment of
an overwhelming majority of the conven-
ton to that of the candidate as to the
treatment of this dead issue.