The independent., 1904-01-28
THE ST. LOUIS MEETING
some Objections to the Suggestions Of
"Populist-D in The Inds-
pendent of January IA

"PopuIist- t-Democrst" in The Inds-
pendent of January
Editor Independent: | cannot for
bear to enter my objections to the plan
offered by Populist-Democrat" in
your paper of January IA and which
he urges upon the coming conference
in st. Louis on February %. AS he
states it his proposition is:
II propose to the populfst leaders
of the country that they invite.
through the mediumSnip OF me inuc-
those otherwise friendly to the cause
of progressive government along the
ines mapped out, all who believe in
the principles enunciated, to meet at
st. Louis on February % and form a
peoples democratic party to operate
| within the lines of the present demo-
cratic organization with view to
/ capturing the organization and COM
mitting it to the principles we, de-
| clare for. This can be accomplished,
| am sure, by forming distinct and
separate organization and operating
! through the primaries for the election
of delegates to conventions commit
ted to our principles"
Then "Populist- Democrat" proposes
that in case of failure to thus control
the democratic organization, the re-
formers shall revolt and make inde-
/ pendent nominations, under some
name having the word democrat" as
a part of it.
l nhi ~ xxyo s, n
| is doomed to failure from the start.
All history of political, religious or
other organizations, teaches that NC
| genuine reformation Of such organi-'
/ cations by efforts made within them
is possible. Consider the countless
scisms upon religious questions and
| consequent organization of new sects
the paths Of history are strewn with.
Why did not those who sought to eff
feet improvements or reformatiOns in
their religious societies remain inside
and set their own society in order
and compel it to adopt their reforms? :?
The answer is always the same: They
could not, because it was impossible.
Why did not the aboIiti0nlsts COM
pei either the whig Or the democratic
party to accept the abolition doctrine
and incorporate it into IT'S platform?
The reason is the same. Why did not
the prohibitionists in several states
where they were so strong in the los
and SOS compel one or other of the
old political parties to put prohlbi-
ton plank into their platform? Why
do not the prohibitionists Of Maine,
| GoNroi0 rJr
accomplish this at the present time?
The reason is the same. You cannot
put new wine into old bottles" any
more now than the people of Judea
could 1000 years ago.
Why did not that giant reformer,
w. ]. Bryan. swing the democratic
party over to the reforms he advo-
/ Gated? In all the worlds history of
political parties there never was a
more intelligent, courageous or deter
mined effort made by man to break
an old party loose from it's ancient
moorings and persuade it to adopt
great reforms sorely needed by the
nation, than was made by that great
democratic reformer Possessing as
he does all the qualities of a great
leader, it seemed at one time like he
would blaze out new path in the
history of reforms ana convert his
party to the radical reforms he advo-
Gated. But he failed. He was at
tempting the impossible.
!. Now. Populist-Democrat" wants to
try the same thing over again only by
another method He thinks thai
somehow, by some hocus-pocus. sue.
cess may be achieved though Bryan
failed.
| IL history teaches any lesson OF
| this question more than another 1t II
| that the battles of reform, to be sue
| cessful. must be fought by indepen
dent organizations. The prohibition
; leaders have learned this lesson thor
!. oughly and that most difficult of all re
!. forms is steadily gaining heaiway IL
the whole country. Greenbacker'
! learned the lesson at the grave oI
|. their party. Fopullsts who have. moi
|, learned the lesson already will soor
have IL everlastingly impressed upor
: their minds at their party's grave.
. side. unless oil speedily awalsen tc