The Montgomery tribune. (Montgomery City, Mo.) 1892-1910, 1901-06-14

to he a hopeless task to give battle to such
a powerful element. But it will be recalled
that almost the exact conditions prevailed
in the spring of 1895, preceding the SUM
mer the Pertle Springs convention was held
which resulted in hurting the State commit
tee, headed by &. &. Maffitt and made up of
the Francis followers, from power.
1t is a noticeable fact that many of the
party leaders are more backward now than
they were in 1895 in the matter of express
ing their views on the ACCESSIBILITY of anoth-
err convention. They will discuss the va
rious features of the move privately. but
most of them Decline to be quoted. They
forcibly remind one of the caution with
which u discerning person handles an old
gun, not knowing whether il is loaded. 1t
il surmised they are not unmindful OF how
badly some aspiring politicians were disfigur-
ed in 1895 by not realizing in the early
stages of the Pertle Springs convention
move that il was loaded ut both ends. TIN
similarity in the move for an ~assemblage
of the Democrat. party in 1893 and in 9
is so striking in many respects rs to invite
comparisons.
In 1895 ev-Gov. Ian V. stephens. then
State Treasurer. was one of the principle
leaders in demanding the convention. He
is one of the principle leaders in the present
move. Ills identity with tie Pertle Springs
convention made him Governor. The state
Committee of 1895 was almost unanimously
opposed to the Pertle Springs convention,
and so is the present COMMITTEES almost Il
unit against II second convention. Posing
rs the chief party organ, the Republic OPP
posed the Pcrtle Springs convention just ~
it is opposing the present move. If Demo-
cratic authority is admissible. the rank and
file of the party had no confidence III the
Republic then. and has less. if such 4 thing
were possible. now. Then. as now, the
real object of those who were opposing the
Pertle Springs convention was to prevent
Missouri from swinging into line for Il ma
tional party declaration demanding the free
and unlimited coinage of silver ut the ratio
of l6 to l.. True. there have been many
changes since then, and the free-silycr-or-
bust crowd has evidently lost some ground
bnt still the differences in the principles III
VOWED appear more imaginary than real
when the various elements making up the
issues are dissected.
Gov. Dockery was in Congress IN 1895.
The Pertle Springs convention enthusiasts
accused himthen Of secretly opposing them
and they entertain exactly the same idea
now. They believe it was largely due to
Gov. Dockery's influence with his machine
in St Louis that Iolla Wells received the
Democratic nomination for mayor. IN spitc
of the fact that he had persistently bolt
ed the Democratic ticketsincc 1896. Demo-
Gratis who do not like Gov. Dockcry's meth
! DDS say he likes to skulk in the brush until
he finds ont which side has the heaviest ar
tillcry. In this connection it is worthy of
notice that while the Bryan Democrats are
suspicious of Mr.. Dockery, the gold-bugs,
so-called. eypIess great confidence in him
and frequently assert that he would be u
worthy successor of Senator Vest.
Those who are doubtless in Il position
speak authoritatively on the temper of the
country Democrats. say that one blast from
ey-Gov. Stones horn demanding Il second
Pertle Springs convention would insure the
success of the move. ''Will Stone take
the lead?' is II question Democrat are
asking each other. All believe he will
have something TO say on the subject be-