Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1910-08-26

NOuIleI-JOufnals
Noting In Che Commoner some friendly
observations which had appeared in the
Courier-Journal, Mr.. Bryan adopts the tone
and uses the language OF superiority. He
writes as law-giver. The purpose Of our
parchment concerned itself rather with Mr.
Bryan as an Individual, than the demo-
cratic party as an organism. Though not
our brothers Keeper, we wrote as an elder
and well-wisher. because the glimpse had
OF the famous Nebrdskan in 1908 revealed a
personality Of so many virtues, of such real
simplicity and charm, as to obliterate by
gone misconceptions and antagonsms.
The editor of the Courier-Journ knows
what malice is. Temperamentally incapable
OF hatred, even of anger and resentment
after the event, he believes with Talleyrand
and Bismarck that in public affairs revenge
should be an unknown quantity. states
manship would expunge the word from the
dictionary. The friends OF yesterday be-
come the enemies Of today, and vice versa
nothing true or stable except the good of
the commonwealth ever with events chang
ing from time to time its needs and its
Observation-Disclosures.
Here is the way Mr. Bryan translates our
well-intended honily:
Mr.. Watterson assumes that there may
be disposition on the part of some demo-
Gratis to nominate man who did not vote
the ticket in 1896, and he urges Mr.. Bryan
not TO oppose it, giving as his reason that
loyalty to the party In this election ought
not to be made a test. He assures Mr.
Bryan that he would win great applause if
he would bury the past and Join with the
eastern democrats in winning a victory for
the party under the leadership OF some one
who opposed the party in 1896.
Mr. Bryan appreciates the kindly spirit
in which the editorial is written, and will
give 1t due consideration when the time
comes to select a candidate
1T is not necessary to discuss the subject
at this time. There will be plenty of time
to speak when there is serious attempt to
name candidate who was not loyal in 80
In the meantime Mr.. Watterson might use
some of his energy in trying TO persuade
those who have defeated the party to con-
slider the wisdom of supporting a candidate
against whom the charge of disoyalty can
not be made. 1t ought to be possible to
find an available man among the 650O 900
who supported the ticket in 1896, 1900, 1904
and 19OS.'
There seems a touch of the disingenuous
were driven away from the party by the
free silver issue in 1886 voted the ticket in
1900. In the foregoing, Mr.. Bryan joins with
lS96-as covering the range of choice-the
years 1900 and 1904 and 1908, as IL Mr.. Wat
terson's adjuration implied otherwise. No
| body would thing of nominating a demo-
cratic candidate for president who had
voted for Mckinley in 1900, or for Roosevelt
in 1904. The point made relates to 1896 We
| said that test of loyalty should no more
carry to 1896 than to 1860.
! In both years there was a cataclasm The
| Courier-Jorurnal would have the party in
| 1912 name the most available man. no
matter where he lives, or how he voted in
1896, and we much mistake the prevailing
trend and temper II This be not the opinion
of nine-tenths of thinking democrats in
every part OF the country. If Mr.. Waiter
son could heartily support Mr. Bryan in
1908, Mr.. Bryan ought to be able heartily to
support Mr. Watterson in 1872 and-as Mr..
Watterson has passed the age limit-Mr.
Anybody Else who, with Mr.. Watterson.
opposed the election of Mr.. Bryan In 1896.
! But IL seems imnossihIa for Mr. n,,.o,,