The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-02-11
rHE oREEN MoUNrAIN BOYS.

| THE GhEGN mOUNTA4N CC ..
 A Vermont paper having asserted that the Democrats of that State seem to be
 dropping into the procession behind
 Hearst" The Montpelier Vt) Journal re-
 plies:
 | Perhaps The News is right in its clos
 ing assertion; but 1t hardly seems ennssr1s. r1s. tive: They fought Bryanism to the last | ditch and only lent support to It atter | the convention because they believed m the rule of the majority. Some hundreds of them voted the independent ticket and many otheRG joined the Republican forces rather than follow the free silver flag. | love for Bryan or Bryanism. It looks as though Hearstism Is Bryanism revised to suit the new conditions. but still with the old Populistic basis: That vermont Dent , probable. They are more likely to be found behind Olney or Parker lined up in opposition to Hearst and his self created boom.
 There are many thousands of Democrats all over the country who feel just as those of Vermont do, and who have acted in the same way and from the same motives. They never believed in the theories of Mir. Bryan, nor did they look on him as q safe or proper man to receive the nomina- tion. To the pleas of regularity and Par ty allegiance they unwillingly but faith fully yielded their own judgment and gave loyal support to both candidate and platform. That was the condition of majority Of Vermont Democrats, but as an evidence that the dose was too much for some of their stomachs it is only necessary to quote a few figures. The Democratic vote in 1892 was 1895; in 1896, 1O,6S7. and in 1s0o 12.s4s This shows how repugnant Bryan and Bryanism was to the Vermont Democrats. Those who swallowed the ticket did so because they felt that their duty to the Party demand ed the sacrifice from them.
 No such necessity confronts them now. There is no question of Party fealty or Party regularity involved. MT. Bryan is not the Democratic Party and no Demo- crat is under obligation to yield to him or to follow him, and if. as The Journal says, "Hearstism Is Bryanism." then no Democrat is obliged to follow MT. Hearst. Notwithstanding the denials that are made. some of them with unnecessary vehemence. the belief is gaining ground all over the country that Hearst is to be Mir Bryans residuary legatee. and that, if they are not working in harmony for a common end, they have at least an un- derstanding that their interests lie along the same lines
 We are compelled to differ with some of our esteemed contemporaries who con- tend that 1t is some kind of disloyalty to somebody or something to criticise either Bryan or Hearst We do not look on either of them as immaculate or invul nerable, nor do We believe that any Dem- ocrat should hesitate a moment to con demn either or both of them. On the contrary, We think the time has arrived
 Nhen 1t is the duty of Democrats to speak out plainly and declare that there is to be no other ism that is antagonis- tic to Democracy. If we are to succeed, or to deserve to succeed, or to have any hope of succeeding, we may as well re- solve that in enc respect there must be decided retrogression on the part of De- mocracy and that 1t must get back to the principles on which 1t both deserved and achieved success. It is absurd to say that we are bound to Mir. Bryan. and 1t Is an insult to Democrats to say that they are under any obligations to him,
 or that they should be ruled by him while he maintains his present political attitude. If Democracy means the rule of the people, they must show their inde- pendence of any self-eonstituted boss. Let the Green Mountain Boys line up be- hind a. real Democrat and show both their independence and their sound De- mocracy.