The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-05-05
SATURDAY. MAY 5, 1900.
AN OPEN SECRET.

The 1ndex-Appeal in commenting on the
action of the Norfolk convention says:
AS to the platform. 1t is simply a verbal
nuibble to say that there is in ct any
modification or evasion of the Chicago
platform Some stress is laid upon the
fac. that the Norfolk platform does not
in terms reaffirm the Chicago platform.
OF course It does not. That would have
been a usurpation Of the rights and
powers of the Kansas City convention.
The Norfolk convention did arl it could
when il endorsed the principles Of Demo-
cracy as enunciated by the Chicago Plat
form. and voted down the minority re-
part declaring against the free coinage Of
silver as an obsolete and dead issue.
One of the most distinguished members
of the Norfolk convention. a man who
stands high in the party, VINO has always
been a strict rarity man and who was one
Of hr. Bryan's most loyal supporters fin
1896, says that the convention was by
a large majority in favor Of adopting the
minority report as presented by Mr.. Mum
ford. Indeed. 1T is his opinion that the
Afunford substitute was adopted by the
convention and that &c the recorded vote
had been taken ma jority would have
been registered In its behalf. He says
that If Nr. AIunford had made a short
speech. contending simply that as pros
perity had come there was no occasion
for exploiting free silver lin the campaign
of 1900 and that the thing for the Demo-
paign upon diving issues. his resolution
would have gone through without any
great opposition. or as he expressed it,
alike flash
We have it from the best authority that
AIR. Glass, of Lynchburg, who was
member of the platform committee In the
Chicago convention of 1896, had consented
TO make a speech in behalf oftMr. Mum
ford s substitute, and there is good ground
for believing that Senator Daniel at least
would not have opposed it. 1t is only
lirtle while ago that Senator Daniel said
IN public interview that he wanted to
see the Democratic party make its night
this time on Living issues"
B,t Mr.. Munfor.i in his zeal made such
. s.-onr speech against free silver ana
against the position taken by the Demo
cratic party in 1896 that Senator Daniel
Mr.. Glass and Others concluded that Tor
Tho convention 10 adopt his resolution
would put it in The attitude OF sanction
t,r MIR. Munford's speech and so OF re-
cantiug.
Therefore, Mr.. CLASS did not make the
s,eech which. we are informed, he would
otherwise have made. and SO senator
paniel when he came on TO speak. con-
tended that the Democratic party was
right In the position that it assumed IN
1s.s ii, this-that it had declared that there
could he no prosperity without an IN
crease In the volume OF money, and that
that Increase was 10 be obtained by OPEN
ing the sr.fnIs OF ghe country 10 the Tree
ca,nace of silver at a fixed ratao Senator
Daniel pointed out that the volume of
money had been largely increased. not by
The free coinage Of SILVER, 10 be sure, but
by other means than that this increase
In the money supply Was responsible for
the prosperity Which the country is now
enjoying That is what Senator Daniel
meant by saying that the silver question
was stin very live question.
1t was a question OF judgment for Mr..
Munford. whether he should state as
strongly as he did the position of those
Democrats who refused 10 vote for free
silver in 1895. but whose allegiance 10 the
fundamental tenets Of the party has
never faatered. or whether he should pur-
sue rnore concilasory course and. by
assuming. as granted, the logical deduc-
ton from the events. apply himself chiefly
20 the proposition of present harmony.
The course that was followed, as mat
ter of fact, left the convention the ai-
.e-nsea.e OF adoE;i.E the majority report
90 speech that, in she opinion of the
.ie.esates. stated TOO strongly the exist
etace and cause OF the break between the
two wings Of the Democratic party.
We would not have It appear that ne