The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1912-03-28
~ GENTLY, when William j
W\ Bryan addressed the Ohio

the ball was so crowded that many
could not get in to hear HIM, aud
ne was compelled to deliver II sec
Oud speech on the steps leading
IRON the hall into the rUtunda OF
the capitol. In this second speech
ne sand, Everything | have said
will be printed and you will have
The same opportunity 10 read II rs
others. Tins was no vain boast,
.Or the utteranCes OF no other man
n the country are So closely
watched or given wider publicity
'hau those OF Mr. Bryan. No man
"a IN" Democratic party ENJOY ,
more fully the confidence ct the
pcOple or has IA larger personal fol-
owing, who are influenced aud
waved II their opinions 10y what
D." says and uccrpr hl, words a.
political gospel For this reason
shut hc now -al~ ct Nuu utI.
mates OF mr' who are before the
.ruutry as probable Or possible
nominees Of the Democratic party
Tor President viii have % deciding
influence with many voters when
the campaign between the oppo,-
my political forces opens. III,
criticisms of thrscmc should there.
tore be marked with great dl,crc.
non and the most p0srtIy. evidence
OF facts, as prcJudrcrs arr more
easily aroused than alIuycd
We are led to tins observation
by Mr. Bryan : criticism OF the
platform adopted by the Missouri
Convention that elected delegates
10 the National Convention, winch
he says Is painfully incomplete,
does not ludurse the Denver plat.
torn nor say ANYTHING about the
trust question, etc, aud II he does
lot intimate that Speaker Clark,
who was ENDORSED by the cUuvru.
ton rs Missouri ) choice for the
was IN some way re-
~pUu>Iblr tor the omission, he says
that II Is lp t. him to I'LL "a the
gaps Well, that platform may
not hr a. comprehensive a. It
might have been made bat there
/, not now and never has been any
doubt H. to where Missouri Demo.
rats Staud on the omissions men
lOnrd by Mr.. bryan, nor where
Mr.. Clark stands on these qurs
IONS, the Denver platform IucIud .
d. Missouri has an antitrust
aw, the first of It's klud put upon
he books Of any State aud from
which the Sherman law was
modelled. Mr.. Clark introduced
hat law IN the Missouri Legisla.
ure aud helped to pass it, On all
he other omitted points mentioned
~ Mr.. Bryan. Mr.. CIark's posi-
ION is accentuated by his splendid
public record. Ii the Joplin con-
'ehtlon had adopted no platform
Il all, Mr. Clark is platform
within himself as is also Mr..
3ryan. The position of neither of
hem is questioned.
Mr.. Bryan does Mr.. Clark au in.
Justice, not so much III his criticism
# the hastily drawn platform of
he Joplin convention, with which
'ir. Clark had nothing to do, as in
he lusinuatlon that there is some
Ioubt AS to Mr.. Clark's soundness
N the trust question aud the prin.
iples set forth IN the Denver plat.
Orm. There is neither reason nor
,rOuud for such suspicion Mr..
}ryan may be right IN his strenu-
'us opposition to Governor llar-
non. The fact that he WAS n
prominent boiler in 1896. that he
made no attempt to enforce the
law when Attorney Gen.
raj under Mr., Cleveland, aud the
sumption that he Is the favored
f Wall Street among all the Dem
cratic presidential aSpirunts, are
actors against hm. We are in.
lined to the opinion that il the
democrats we've To- nominate him
he party would suffer another
'arker slump and lose Congress as
veil.
BIT MIR Bryan, while he has
OF avow idly declared his prefer.
nee for Gov. Woodrow Wilson, !
as left an underlined yet wide.
preat impression that he favors
he Governor nomination -per-
APPS unlntentlouaI on his part
lr. Bryan seems to have no doubt
I his sincerity and SOundness on
he progressive issues of the day
ct Governor Wilson is very re-
ant and untried If extreme con-
ert. In 1896 he bOlted the Dem.
cratic platform and the national 4
cket of which Mr.. Bryan was the
cad, but for the defeat OF which =,
ANY of the reforms for which Mr.. ,
ryan stands would now he in j,
,rce and the Democratic party in q
,ptroI of fhp government AS