The independent. [volume] (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, 1903-08-13
MR.. BRYAN's PROTEST

gives the full text OF Mr.. Bryan's criti-
Cism of the Denver conference, quoted
from The Commoner of August z.
Mr.. Bryan's first objection is to the
regularity of the conference and its
authority to decide the policy of the
party. But the conference was not
called together as formal body; it
did not assume to write platform.
Those present were unanimous in the
belief that experience has demon
strated the futility Of any attempt to
secure the enactment of our prin-
ciples either through the republican
or democratic parties" and they said
so-as they certainly had right to do
lin the address adopted. Mr.. Bryan
himself testifies to the correctness of
this view, in his criticism that "the
Few platform also fails to emphasize
the demand for the election of sena-
tors by the people, This" he says,
lis reform which has grown con-
stantly for thirty years and is the
gateway to other reforms" Yet dur
ing that thirty years each of the old
parties at different times has had COM
rlete control of the national govern
ment, but neither has done any thing
worth mentioning toward bringing
about this vital reform, as Mr.. Bryan
regards it.
The conference did not claim auto
cratic powers. Pppulists refuse to be
cOerced by party machinery, no mat
ter with what regularity" it may
move. But if the action of the Denver
conference voices the sentiments of
the great body of populists over the
country, they will approve. Otherwise
populists are likely to do, it may be
we'll to state that after the work of
the conference was done, the national
committees of the two wings of the
peoples party MT officially and unani-
mously Endorsed the work of the con
ference. Every member of these COM
mittees was present or represented by
proxy.
AS to the objection that "the COM
promise is no compromise at all, but
an open surrender of the regular or
ganiZatiOn to the middle-of- the-road
organization, there could be no mid
die ground between independent action
and cooperation. The so-called mid
road contingent represented very
small portion of the populists who
viewed fusion with disfavor, but who
sbided by the will of the majority.
Many of these men "came all the way
ever the trail" beginning their activ-
tiles in the days of Peter Cooper. The
n fNOr- IA ov~fry ~ III 1c
record for killing off third party
movements-and when the test came
in 1896, thousands of those most earn
est in the support of Mr. Bryan felt
down deep in their hearts that it
meant death to the peoples party. But
they had such abiding faith in Mr..
Bryan's honesty and sincerity that
they threw past experience to the
winds and said, This time, surely,
the democratic party is dominated by
men who will do something for the
whole people"
1t must not be forgotten in tbs con-
nection that there has never been such
a thing as national fusion" or CO.
operation between the democratic par
ty and the peoples party. In 1886 the
populists, having the utmost faith in
Mr.. Bryan, indorsed him and nomi-
mated Thomas e. Watson of Georgia
for vice president Did the democratic
party show the slightest disposition to
"co-operate?" The question is suffic-
iently answered when we remember
that the millionaire. protectionist, plu-
tOcratic Sewall was retained or the
ticket, thus bringing about the 'two-
tailed" situation of that campaign. In
1900 the populists took time by the
forelock and nominated Mr.. Bryan.
and for vice president a democrat the
peer of any in America. Did the dem
ocratic party evince any desire to CO.
operate? Answer is needless.
In two national conventions the peo.
PIES party expressed Willingness to
join hands with the democracy and
10th times their advances We're re
pulsed in the most decisive manner
possible. Populists might vote the
democratic ticket-but democracy in
its national organization was mid
road" every foot of the way. If the
men who unofficially met at Denver
and advised independent national po-
litical action on the part of tho peo-
pies party next year, are to be brand
H.