The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1903-08-14

dcnce OF this is conclusive, and has
been published time, and again. The
following letter from ames 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. IL personal
and confidential. Dear Sir, / have
just returned from the east where I
honOred 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 wfsest 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 q
| number Of Independents who were
formerly republicans contemplate vot-
ing for the Harrison electors. With
the republican strength thus.augmcnt-
ed 1t would bc impossible for the
democrats TO carry their own electors
ticket to victory. It is therefore thc
part OF good Judgment and wise action
for democrats to support the Weaver
electors In MS large numbers as posi-
bic. For democrats to do this is no
abandonment of principle; on the con
trary, it is Il definite step toward vic
| tory, and the ultimate trinn,ph of
Cleveland and Stevenson, and the
principles they represent. 5
JAMES Il. BOYD.
Mr.. Bryan was then u member OF
congress as we'll us Il candidate for re-
election, and announced that if the
| election was thrown intet 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.. Clevc-
land rs to prefer him to Mr.. Harrison,
but from the standpoint Of democratic
regularity lie cannot be criticised for
0beyins the democratic national COM
mitGec, and voting for General Weav-
cr in Grt!a: TO help elect Mr.. Cleveland.
III the election Of 1886 Mr. Weaver
was one Of the most active supporters
of MIR. Bryan, while Mr.. Cleveland
turned To republican advantage the in
lllcnce which tile democratic party
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 MIR. bryan
has supported, only word need be
said. On tile tariff question no one
will dispute his orthodoxy. lie 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 IL. 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 52nd and 53rd
congress favored the election Of Unit
cd States senators by direct vote OF
the people, and this was nude a part
Of the t;emoern tip=,fs 10. q OIL 300.
This demand will be found Jn the
democratic platform upon which Mr..
Bryan ran in 1890. The Wilson bill
contained and income tax, and this
was supported by q 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 Il plank i'm favor
Ol the free coinage Of silver, and dur
ing that iycar 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 GG to be-
ing the only ratio then considcrcD.
For twenty years the democrats Of the
senate and house had been voting for
bills embodying exactly tho coinage
provisions that the platform Of 1896
contendcd 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 th. CON
Vcntl0n before Mr.. Bryan's nomina-
Lion was considered probable by any
considerable number OF the convcn-
tiOn.
The money plank Of the Chicago
platform, while Identical with the
plank adopted by the democrats of Ne
braska in 1891, had been Endorsed by
The democrats at the primaries in al
most all The states and no one can say
that It's adoption was not the free and
voluntary act Of the rank and iilc 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 rcanirmcd
or reiterated,
Mr.. Bryan has defended the Chicago
platform and the Kansas City plat
form, and if his democracy can be
questioned because Of his advocacy or
these platforms, then the same objec-
tion must be made to the democracy
of the millions who believe In those
platforms us firmly as he and have ad-
vocatcd them as earnestly.
Space has been given to the above
not because Mr.. l'ryan's conduct or
views ought to influence others, but
because the reorganizcrs are seeking
to make the fight IL personal one
against Mr.. Bryan, whereas it is and
ought to be made upon principles. A
principle is neither good nor bad be-