Devils Lake inter-ocean. (Devils Lake, Ramsey Co., Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1905, 1904-09-30

u n
3 ship Senator Fairbanks In the <
Z senate, May 20, 1897. (
Akk*kAk*AkAkA*Aka 4 4
NOTHING TO TAKE BACK
How Will Bryan Explain His Hostility
to Parkerf s4
William Jennings Bryan has BEEN
officially engaged by the Democratic
national committee to make speeches
in New York, Indiana and other
places. The former candidate for the
presidency has something Of a reputn-
ton as an agile political contortionist,
but he will have the time Of his life
explaining his record during the pres
ent campaign. Mr.. Bryan has been
on good many sides of a good many
different questions, and yet he lives to
tell the tale. But just how he proposes
to advocate the election Of Parker is
mystery.
Bryan was opposed to Parker before
the convention met at St. Louis. He
was opposed to Parker every day dur
ing the sessions of that inharmonious
gathering: When Parker sent his tele
gram supplemerting the Democratic
platform Mr.. Bryan rose from bed Of
sickness to denomce the nominee as
a traitor and dictator, and his dra-
matte appearance on that Saturday
night was one of the most extra
ordinary episodes Of an extraordinary
convention. Bryan dashed Parker and
he dared the convention to send tele-
gram to the nominee demanding his
honest opinion on other well-known
Democratic principles
Later on Mr.. Bryan, in his paper,
The Commoner, while the events in
the convention were fresh before him,
openly charged that Judge Parker was
party to a corrupt attempt to deceive
the convention and that his nominal
ton had been secured by improper
means. It was then that the former
candidate for the presidency put him
self on record by saying in The Com
moner of July Is, less than week
after the nominations: II have moth
ing to take back"
1t seems q curious thing to find q
man who has nothing to take back"
appearing on the stump favoring the
election Of Alton B. Parker for the
presidency. If Mr.. Bryan has moth
ing to take back" he should in COM
mon honesty when he appears ON the
stump in Indiana, and elsewhere, re-
peat to his audiences exactly what
he said In The Commoner Of July 10,
which was printed exactly one week
after the Democratic convention was
called to order and only four days
after Judge Parker was nominated for
the presidency and had sent has tele-
gram repudiating the Democratic plat
form.
In this issue of The Commoner MP.
Bryan said: s'7 jjszs
1T was a plain and deliberate at
tempt to deceive the party. The New
York platform was vague and purpose
ly so; because the advocates Of Judge
Parker were trying TO secure votes
from among the people who would
have opposed his views had they
known them. The nomination was
secured, therefore, by crooked and I'M
defensible methods"
AS an exhibition Of political gymnas-
tics Bryan's campaign speech for Par
ker ought to be worth going miles to
hear. If, as he says, he has nothing
to take back" how will be explain
matters to the people? What did he
mean when he said in The Commoner:
'The nominat ton of Judge Parker
virtually utilities the antitrust
plank?" Was it true on July 13 that
Parker's nomination had been secured
''by crooked means?" If it was true
then is it not true now?
Mr.. Bryan in The Commoner said:
Il shall not appeal for votes for the
ticket on false grounds" How can he
appear on the stump, therefore, and
seriously ask the workingmen of the
country to vote for the Democratic
nominee after The Commoner had de-
clared that "The labor plank as pre-
pared by Judge Parker's friends on
the subcommittee was straddisng.
meaningless plankT"
Was Mr.. Bryan lying when he said
In his paper, "a Democratic victory
viii mean very little, If any, progress
SO long as the. party Is under control
Of the Wall street element?''
If the party was under the control
Of the Wall street element when Mr..
Bryan wrote that editorial, is It not
just as much under the same control
while he is on the stump?
Perhaps Mr.. Bryan can explain
away these things. Perhaps he can
answer these questions.
! Perhaps not.