The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1903-08-12

dence of this is conclusive, and has
been published time and again. The
following letter from James E. Boyd,
then the governor Of Nebraska and
the Nebraska member Of the national
committee, ought to set this fact at
rest:
Lincoln, Neb., Oct. 17.-(Personal
and confidential. dear Sir: l have
just returned from the east where |
hcnored by a consultation with the
national committee and leading men OF
our party, with regard to the best
policy to be pursued in Nebraska this
fall in dealing with the ELECTORAL
ticket: and they agreed with me that
the wisest course would be for demo.
Gratis to support the Weaver electors:
the object being to take Nebraska out
of her accustomed place in the republi-
can column.
Information has reached me that a
number of independents who were
formerly republicans contemplate vot-
ing for the Harrison electors. With
the republican strength thusaugment.
ed it would be impossible for the
democrats to carry their own electors
ticket to victory. 1t is therefore the
part OF good Judgment and wise action
for democrats to support the Weaver
electors in as large numbers as posi-
bic. For democrats to do this is no
abandonment Of principle; on the con-
trary. it is a definite step toward vic
tory, and the ultimate triumph OF
Cleveland and Stevenson, and the
principles they represent.
JAMES +. BOYD.
Mr.. Bryan was then member of
congress as well as a candidate for re-
election, and announced that if the
election was thrown into the house he
would vote for Mr.. Cleveland, the
democratic nominee, as against Mr..
Harrison, the republican nominee.
Mr.. Bryan may be justly criticised for
having known SO little of Mr.. Cleve-
land as to prefer him to Mr.. Harrison,
but from the standpoint of democratic
regularity he cannot be criticised for
obeying the democratic national COM
mittee, and voting for General Weav-
er in order to help elect Mr.. Cleveland.
In the election Of 1896 Mr.. Weaver
was one of the most active supporters
of Mr.. Bryan, while MIR. Cleveland
turned to republican advantage the ir-
tluence which the democratic parry
had given him. When Mr.. Bryan be-
came personally acquainted with the
two men, he found that General
Weaver was infinitely more democratic
than Mr.. Cleveland in environment,
principles. purpose and method.
AS to the policies which Mr.. Bryan
has supported, only a word need be
said. On the tariff question no one
will dispute his orthodoxy. He helped
to prepare the Wilson bill, which was
much more acceptable even to Mr..
Cleveland, than the senate bill after
Mr.. German and Mr. German and Mr..
Hill got through with it, The free
list OF the Wilson bill was practically
identical with the free list set forth in
the platform upon which Mr.. Bryan
was elected in 1890, four years before.
The democrats Of the SIND and 53rd
congress favored the election Of Unit
ed States senators BY direct vote Of
the people, and this was made part
of the democratic platform of 1900.
This demand will be found in the
democratic platform upon which Mr..
Bryan ran in 1880. The Wilson bill
contained and income tax, and this
was supported by large majority Of
the democrats Of the senate and house.
The income tax was also demanded in
Mr.. Bryan's first congressional plat
form also contained plank in favor
Of the free coinage of silver, and dur
ing that ayear the democrats Of the
mouse by an overwhelming majority
voted to recommi5 the Sherman law
with instructions to the committee to
bring in a free coinage bill Q6 to l be-
ing the only ratio then conSidered).
For twenty years the democrats of the
senate and house had been voting for
bills embodying exactly the coinage
provisions that the platform OF 1886
contended for. There was not a plank
in the Chicago platform that was in
consistent with the record of the party
on questions dealt with, and that
platform was prepared by a committee
selected from all the states OF the
Union and was reported to the con-
vention before Mr.. Bryan'S nomina-
tion was considered probable by any
considerable number Of the conven-
tion.
The money plank Of the Chicago
platform, while Identical with the
plank adopted by the democrats of Ne
braska in 1894, had been indorsed by
the democrats at the primaries in al
most all tie states and no one can say
that its adoption was not the free and
voluntary act Of the rank and tile OF
the party. at Kansas City the only
controversy was over the money plank.
No other plank Of the Chicago plat
form was questioned or opposed, and
the dispute over the money plank was
as to whether it should be reat1irmed
or reiterated,
Mr.. Bryan has defended the Chicago
platform and the Kansas City plat
form, and if bis democracy can be
questioned because OF his advocacy OF
those platforms, then the same objec-
tion must be made to the democracy
of the millions who believe In those
platforms as firmly as he and have ad-
vocated them as earnestly.
Space has been given to the above
not because Mr.. Bryan's conduct or
views ought to influence others, but
because the reorganizers are seeking
to make the fight personal one
against Mr.. Bryan. whereas it is and
ought to be made upon principles. A
principle is neither good nor bad be-
cause it is advocated by any man; it is
good or bad in itself, and this discus
sion OF Mr.. Bryan's personal connec-