Omaha daily bee., 1909-07-24
A Joint Debate.

moner Mr.. Bryan combats the sugges-
ton, which he a y comes to him occa-
sionally, for the formation Of a new
political party to accomplish reforms
which the old parties do aot seem will
ing to take up. The substance of his
argument is embodied in the following
extracts:
The stand for reforms
reforms definite, specific and important,
and It believes that these reforms can be
better accomplished through the demo-
cratic party than through any new party
that could be organized under present con-
ditions. The reform element in the demo-
cratic party is large enough to control the
party, and II the reform element were not
large enough to control the party it would
not be large enough to contribute materially
to the formation Of a new party, for many
more democrats will enlist under the ban
ner Of reform within the party than would
leave the party and join a new one.
The advocates OF a new party suggest
that the reform element Of the democratic
party and the reform element Of the re-
publican party Coin together" in the TOR
nation of a new party. That is not prac-
ticable at the present time. TIL reformer.
II he is a real reformer, wants to see his
reforms carried out-he is so much inter-
ested in seeing them carried out that he
Will work in the party where he thinks ne
can work to the best advantage. There are
a great many republican reformers, and 1t
will be easier to get republican reformers
to act with democratic reformers In the
democratic party than 1t would to get re-
publican reformers TO join with democratic
rcformers in organizing a new party.
At present the only hope Of reform seems
to be through one Of the old parties, and
the Commoner believes that the democratic
party has the largest hope and best pros
poets and, therefore, 1t urges activity
among the democrats who desire to make
the party a positive force for the remedy
ing Of existing abuses.
AS against Mr.. Bryan's position let
us quote from another eminent Ne
braska reformer who, although a
blindly ardent Bryan follower, is on
record on this question at complete
variance with Mr.. Bryan:
The question is. how to bring about these
desired reforms, and how best to unite the
people who are in favor Of them. My own
JuOki leIl is lndI we can make the greatest
progress through a new political party.
We need no party that is founded on mere
wall of calamity, but the nation does need
a party which stands for Industrial progress
without poverty. The present system leads
to progress and poverty; it furnishes :he
multimillionaire and the pauper. The aim
Of the new movement should be to furnish
all an equal opportunity and make this a
1900 49, - 49, - 49, -r..a-
crat nor the pauper. In a new political
party men who have been populists, dem
ocrats or republicans could all unite on
common ground. They could bury all past
differences and join together in favor Of
those reforms on which they all agree.
They would have no past political hatreds
or bitterness I'm their way. They would not
only be on an equal footing, but, what is
Just as important, they would all feel hat
they were on an equal footing. To those
who are ambitious and desire to serve the
public in office there is nothing deterrent
in a new party. In a new party all would
enter with an equal chance for political
preferment. The new party would be I'M
der no obligations to any man for past
political services; there would be no party
debts to pay; there would be no factions
as ~ VI poSN ~
without this new party movement we
will not get the full benefit Of the support
Of those who believe alike in reforms.
Why any democrat should object to thus
forming a new party I cannot understand.
The democrats are practically without any
national organization or standing. They
retain control Of a few southern states
where the negro question is the controlling
enc in politics. But in the territory north
of the Mason and Dixon line, which COM
prises the great bulk of industrial America,
there is practically no democratic organIza-
ton. True, there are many democratic
voters, but they are a ~disorganized body.
Here are the conflicting opinions of
two eminent reformers. Which will
convert the other?
N. B.-The second argument is from
the pen of M. F. Harrington, likewise
of Nebraska.