Bisbee daily review., 1903-05-02
REGARDLESS OF BRYAN OR CLEVELAND.

REGARDLESS OF BRYAN
 OR CLEVELAND.
 The following comes to The Review from a Bryan democrat:
 Editor of Review:-
 You are advising Bryan and Cleve- land democrats to vote together next election, but are they all democrats? 1 think if Bryan is a democrat Cleve- land crowd is not. In 1896 this fac ton worked as if they thought Nc Kinley a better democrat than Bryan. If Bryan or a Bryan man is put up this time will the Cleveland outfit help to elect him. Won't they do as they did before. Cleveland has been republi- can since 1893. Bryan is right in saying that to have two parties we must have two different platforms.
 "The Kansas City platform is differ ent from the republican platform, but Cleveland is not. You might as well ask the republicans and demo crats to unite. The election of 1896 proved that the Bryan vote was sixty times the Cleveland vote so it is in or der for Grover Mahomet to come to the mountain
 BRYAN DEMOCRAT"
 The Review desires the success of the democratic party and We believe our correspondent is with us on this proposition. The success of the dem ocratic party was never so necessary as now. because of the aggressive and increasing power of trust monopolies which have grown under the policies of the republican party. We believe every section and faction of the Dem ocratih party can be brought into har- monious action on platform in which the distinctive issues shall be the re- moval of every tariff duty which is known to protect a monopoly, and de- termined opposition to the further growth of the trust evil.
 In the Bryan campaigns of 1896 and 1900 the distinctive feature of the platforms was "the free coinage of silver at the ratio of 16 to l, without waiting for the consent of any other nation on earth" We believe a ma jority of the delegates in the Kansas City convention would have refused 10 repeat that declaration of 1896 had they not been coerced to do so by MT. Bryan We believe MT. Bryan would not insist on repeating this dehlara- ton in 1904. The silver issue was a timely and righteous one in 1896. It was a policy adopted at that time in order to relieve the necessities of the people and of the business world who were clamoring for money to do the business of the country. It simply involved the quantitative theory of money, as stated a few days ago, and our every contention in that regard has been amply proved by subsequent events. We wanted and needed more money in circulation and advocated bi-metallism as the remedy. The remedy came, but it came in the shape of one metal only, superinduced by the failure of crops in the old coun- tries, by the war with Spain and by the flood of gold from the mines of Alaska. The result was the same.
 But the threatening dangers of trust domination of every American -pd fe fa than was the gold standard policy of the republican in 1896, and to combat this danger we believe democrats or every brand and under every leader will be found in one harmonious DO litical army in 1904
 Neither Bryan or Cleveland will head the democratic hosts next year and as the issue which divided them in the past is now generally conceded to be in a state of formacy. for the present. we feel justified in the hope that unity will prevail in democratic action next year, regardless of the per. sonal animosities which have behome
 unfortunately bitter between Bryan and Cleveland. rs
 Not only should democratic unity be possible next year, but no one should hesitate to invite republicans to desert their trust-ridden and controlled party craft and seek refuge in the demo- hratic ship, wherein is only to be found hope of taking the government out of the hands of the trusts and re- storing it to the people