The Batesburg advocate. [volume] (Batesburg, S.C.) 1901-1911, 1903-08-12

the populistS in carrying them. This
situation having been fully discussed,
the democratic national committee, of
which Mr.. Harrity was chairman and
Mr.. Whitney the controlling spirit,
(f the word spirit" can properly be
used of the Whitney type), instructed
to urge the democrats OF Kansas,
Colorado and number of other west
ern states, to support the Weaver
electors for the purpose OF taking
those states out OF the republican
column and throwing the election into
the house of representatives where the
democrats had a majority. The evil
dence OF this is conclusive, and has
been published time and again. The
following letter from James w.. 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 contidential.)- Dear Sir: have
just returned from the east where |
hon0red 10y a consultation with the
national committee and leading men of
our party, with regard to the best
policy TO be pursued in Nebraska this
ldll III NltdliIS WIJu IIlC
ticket: and they agreed with me that
the wiSest course would bc for demo
Gratis TO support the Weaver electors;
the object being to take Nebraska out
of her accustomed place in the rcpubli-
can column.
Information has reached me that Il
number of independents who were
formerly republicans contemplate ,ot =
ing for the Harrison electors. With
the republican strength thus augment
ed it would bc impossible for the
demosrats 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 az posi-
bile. For democrats to do this is no
abandonment of principle: on the con
trary, il is definite step toward vic
tory, and the ultimate triumph of
Cleveland and Stevenson, and the
principles they represent.
JAMES f.. BOYD.
Mr.. Rryan was then n member of
congress Is well as a candidate for re-
election, and announced that il the
election vas thrown into the house he
would vote for Mr.. Cleveland the
democratic nominee, as against Dir.
Harrison, the republican nominee
Mr.. Bryan may be justly criticised for
having known so little of Mr.. Cleve-
land us 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 Mr.. Cleveland
turned 20 reFPlsDfigan- advas Cag the in
tluence which the democratic party
had given him. When Mr,-Bryy5Siii-- Sii--bs -bss=
came personally acquainted with the
two men, he found that General
Weaver was infinitely more democratic
than Ma. 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
Mf. 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 i'm
the platform upon which Mr.. Bryan
was elected in 1890, four years before
The democrats of the 52nd and 53rd
congress favored the election of Unit
ed States senator's 10y direct vote Of
the people, and this was made part
of the democratic platform Of 1900.
This demand will he found in the
democratic platform upon which Mr.
Bryan ran in 1890. The Wilson bin
contained and income tax, and this
was supported by Il large majority of
the democrats Uf'thc senate ami house.
The income tax was also demanded in
MIR. Bryan'S first congressional plat
form also contained a plank in favor
of the free coinage of silver, and dur
ing that iyear the democrats OF the
house by an overwhelming majority
voted to recommit the Sherman law
with instructions TO the committee to
bring in free coinage bill GIG to 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 1896
cOntended for. There was not plank
in the Chicago platform that was in
consistent with the record OF the party
on questions dealt with, and that
platform was prepared 10y committee
selected from all the states OF the
Union and was reported to the con
vention before Mr.. BryanS 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 i'm 1894, had been iudOrSed by
the democrats at the primaries i'm al
most all the states and no one can say
that its adoption was not the free and
voluntary act Of the rank and file 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 rcalirmcd
or reiterated.
Mr. Bryan has defended the Chicago
/ m at form, an1 tho Irnngas (ritu ,N,.,t