The Topeka state journal., 1902-05-07

but there was a lively row over the
name of the ticket on which the candi-
date should be placed. The question
was at length left open for the state con-
vention to decide. and if two state tick
cts are nominated, Rose will be left off
Of both and be nominated as an inde
pendent candidate by petition.
Each party wanted the name but was
willing to give the other side the can
dldate. The Populists as a rule were in
favor of fuSlng and they were cOnser-
VatiVe in their propositions, but the
Democrats were more radical, and at
one time there was danger that fusion
would go to pieces. While the POpulist
conference committee was In the Dem
ocratic convention and the Democrats
were discussing proposition to fuse,
one Democrat got up and shouted, THE
Populists can take the Democratic name
or go to the devil
The POpulist committee would not stand
this and they rushed to their own con-
ventlOn and William Stryker the chair
man of the committee reported what
the Democrat had said. It angered many
Of the Populists and had not J. n. Hay
maker promptly followed and apologized
for the Democrats, the PopuliSts would
have nominated a candidate Of their
own
The Populist convention met in court
house and elected w. A. Ayers, of
Wichita, as chairman. The Democrats
met in the old court house and George
l. 1lASy u sumner county, WAS mace
chairman of their convention. Then each
convention appointed a conference COM
nittee to get together on a proposition
for fusion. The committee was as fol-
lows:
Democratic-J. N. Haymaker, Sedg-
wick; ]. 3. Fugate. Harvey: D. H
Rich, Kiowa; G. n. Diffenbacher. Bar
ton.
Populist-solon Gray. Rice; Joseph
Geary Mcpherson; F. c. Leach King
man; D. NJ. Aldrich, Pawnee; William
Stryker, Sumner: J. P. Parkhurst, ,Sedg-
wick; O. Mills Barbour.
The committees met and conferred
several times but each time they could
ations as made by William Stryker was
as follows:
1. The Democrats proposed to give the
candidate to the POpulists and take the
name. Rejected.
q The Populists proposed to give the
candidate to the Democrats and take
the name. Rejected
8. The Democrats proposed a joint
convention a two-thirds vote to settle
all questions. Rejected.
4 The Populists proposed that the
two conventions nominate a candidate
and that a petition be at once circulated
under the law to put him on the ballot
as Independent" Rejected.
5. The Populists proposed that the
candidate be nom minated and the name
left for the state convention to decide.
If the state convention fails to decide,
the candidate to be named "Independ-
ent. . The Democrats suggested that the
district committee be authorized to
name the candidate. No action was ta-
ken on the fifth proposal and the com
mittee separated
Then came the trouble in which the
Democratic member made the Populist
committee angry. and the Populists
went horne" Judge Haymaker follow
ed with a concilia tory apology, and the
Democrats then agreed to accept the
Populists' proposition, and on this ba-
sis fusion was effected. This was fol-
lowed by the nomination of Rose by
both conventions
Rev. Mr.. Rose is a young man, but
he has spent a nun Der of years in the
ministry and is considered an effective
spellbinder. He was born in Iowa in
1871, and learned the printers trade on
Gen. Weaver's paper, the Iowa Tribune.
In 1854 his family moved to western
/ Nebraska. Afterwards he attended the
Missouri State university. and after his
graduation he entered the ministry OF
| the Christian church, and for five years
he was the state evangelist for that
church, living OF Newton. More recently
| he has edited the Newton Journal as
Democratic paper, but is now employed
bv an eastern investment company. He
was candidate for the Democratic
nomination in the Seventh district two
years ago and made an active canvass