"'x'frtrvn
ff (Hi'-fvfy!" o-.r jw, -j w
The Commoner.
MAY 2,9,, 1105.,
5
EDITOR RICHARD L. METCALFE OF THE OMAHA WORLD-HERALD TO
EDITOR NORMAN E. MACK OF THE BUFFALO TIMES.
' i""i
Omaha, Neb., May 16, 1903. Nor
man E. Mack, Editor Times, Buffalo,
N. Y. Dear Sir: Many western dem
ibcrats were interested in the editorial
entitled "The Presidential Nominee,"
and appearing in a recent issue of the
,Times. You say that for the demo
cratic party to "incur the hostility of
-either Mr. Cleveland or Mr. Bryan
,and their many followers" would he
.the height of folly, and you add that
friends of both these gentlemen "must
e willing to eliminate their individ
ual preferences and to join their in
terests for the good of the party."
You Jiave struck an interesting vein
of thought hero and I think that dom
.ocrats tlirougout the country who ad
.mire you as a man and a democrat
jwould he glad to have you go a bit
deeper along this lino.
. We must agree that it is not too
much to ask democrats to eliminate
"individual preferences" if by this
you refer to the candidate; and yet
it will also bo agreed that the candi
date should be a man whose record
and character would justify popular
confidence that he would honestly en
deavor to fulfill the platform pledges.
But while very -properly advising dem
ocrats to yield their preference, so far
as the candidate is concerned, would
you, counsel them to become indiffer
ent as to the character of the plat
form? I am sure you would be the
last to give such advice.
And this prompts me to ask that
you present through the columns of
. the Times- a. program by the adoption
of which the democratic party would
not "incur the hostility of Mr. Cleve
land and his followers."
In the first place, could these gen
tlemen be persuaded to support the
ticket in 1904 if the nominee for
president were 'a man who had faithfully-
supported - the democratic plat
form and ticket in 1896 and in 1900?
" Would you advise that, in order not
.to Incur the hostility of Mr. Cleveland
and his followers, democrats general
ly agree to the proposition that no
man who heartily subscribed to thy
national platforms of 1896 and. of 1900
.be considered eligible to the nomina
tion?. .
"What would you have democrats do
in the construction of their platform
in order to avoid incurring the hostil
ity of Mr. Cleveland and his follow
' ers? How many of the principles and
the policies in which we believe must
we surrender in order to avoid in
curring this hostility?
' Persistent effort has been made to
have it appear that the question of
bimetallism is the sole obstacle to
harmony so far as the platform is con
cerned. Nothing has occurred sinco
1896 to justify the bimetallist in
abandoning his position. On the con
trary, the bimetallist contends that
the very prosperity of which the re
publican leaders boast is chiefly due
to the increase in the volumo of
money, a thing which in the cam
paign of 1896 democrats claimed, and
republicans denied, would bring us
better times; and even though the
amount of money has largely increased
during the past seven years, thero is
constant agitation for further in
crease. Republican leaders would ac
complish this result by multiplying
the national bank notes, Increasing the
output to the fullest extent possible
by the government bond doposit plan
and in addition thereto conferring up
on banks the extraordinary privilege
of issuing notes on their assets. The
bimetallist prefers to obtain this in
crease in the democratic way, through
bimetallism. Yet for your convenience
in providing an answer to these ques
tions, let us assume that democrats
who believe in bimetallism would, for
the purpose of obtaining harmony so
far as the platform is concerned, be
willing to omit that question during
one campaign.
Do you believe that a platform that
made no reference to the money ques
tion would avoid incurring the hostil
ity of Mr. Cleveland and his follow
ers? Do you think that a democratic plat
form that failed to make explicit ref
erence to the money question could
command the respect either of bime
tal! lsts or of single gold standard ad
vocates? In order to avoid incurring the hos
tility of Mr. Cleveland and his fol
lowers, would it not be necessary for
the democratic platform to explicitly
indorse the single gold standard, to
confess to the world that in the cam
paigns of 1896 and of 1900 the demo-v
cratic party was utterly wrong on
that question in spite of the fact that
its position has been completely Justi
fied, at least to tho satisfaction of
men who have become bimetallists
after careful study and investigation?
But having disposed of the money
question, either by complete silence
or by an unequivocal indorsement of
the single gold standard, do you think
it would be possible to retain for the
platform of 1904 other important fea
tures of the platforms of 1896 and of
3900?
Shall the democrats abandon their
position on the Philippine question
wherein they promised not to make
the Filipinos either citizens or sub
jects and favored a declaration of the
nation's purpose to give to these peo
ple, first, a stable form of govern
ment; second, independence; and,
third, protection from outside inter
ference? What change would you make in
the democratic platform with respect
to trusts?
What alteration would you make
in the plank relating to national bank
currency?
Would you declare in favor of the
income tax?
What would you say in regard to
propositions involved in measures lll-.c
tho asset curroncy bill and tho Aid
rich bill?
Would you strike from tho plat
form tho protest against governmon'
by injunction, tho condemnation of
tho blacklist, tho declaration In favor
of th9 election of senators by the
people, and tho proviso relating to tho
initiative and referendum?
What would you advise as to the
general tone of the platform? Should
it be framed so that to one man it,
might be interpreted in one way
while to another man its interpreta
tion would be quite different, a little
deviccT with which democrats becamo
quite familiar in 1892?
I think democrats will very goner
ally agree with you that tho presiden
tial nominee should have behind him
"a united and not a divided army."
But even a united army must have
something to fight for, and the sol
diers must know what they are fight
ing for; otherwise It would very soon
become a divided army, its victories
would bo few and far between, and
those victories would bo of no im
portance to Jhe people.
When men like the editor of tho
Times call for harmony, democrats
must recognize the sincerity of tho de
mand; and yet you will concede that
harmony worth establishing and har
mony worth having wiir be harmony
that will endure until the closo of tho
polls. It must be apparent to every
one that no genuine progress has been
made in the so-called effort at har
monizing the democratic party. No
progress can be made on that lino so
long a3 the efforts relate solely to the
Identity of tho candidate and ignore
utterly the character of tho platform.
To be sure, tho platform is to be
MTitten by tho resolutions committo;,
and yet when genuine harmony on
l.latform and on candidate is so desir
able, it "is important that democrats
who choose delegates to the national
convention be informed as to the
character of tho platform that Is to be
prepared In their namo, by those who
say that they are willing to make con -cessions
In order that "a united ani
noi. a divided army" may do duty be
hind the democratic nominee for the
prehidency.
The question, then, is how many of
their principles must democrats sur
render, permanently or temporarily, in
order to avoid incurring the hostility
of men who during two presidential
campaigns deserted tho party with
which they claimed allegiance and
gave open and boastful aid to the
enemy?
Perhaps no better illustration of tho
difficulties to be encountered when
democrats undertake to avoid incur
ring the hostility of Mr. Cleveland and
his followers could be found than the
well remembered second administra
tion. Mr. Cleveland and his follow
ers havo novor apologized for tho acts
thbt niado his second administration
odious in tho eyes of democrats gen
erally. On tho contrary, thoy insist
that the history that, according to
republican authority, has vindicated
njmblican policies has likowlso vindi
cated the Cleveland policies.
Do you think it would bo possible
for tho democratic party to maintain
Its dignity in this day, when men arc
thinking and reading as they nover
thought and read before, unless the
party set its seal of disapproval In un
mistakable terms not nocessarily upon
tho second administration itself, but
upon tho policies and tho methods, the
intimacies between the representatives
of tho government and the represen
tatives of tho money power, and oth
er evils that characterized tho Cleve
land regime?
Do you think that a democratic plat
form which ignored or dealt apolo
getically with thoso evils could pro
vide serious attraction for the peo
ple? Do you bellovo that a platform
framed so that it would impress upon
tho tariff baron and the trust mag
nate, as well as upon the pcoplo, tho
party's determination to give the
people practical relief from tho Im
positions under which they suffer to
day impositions that emanate from
the same powers that wielded more
Influence at tho White house during
Mr Cleveland's second administration
than was exerted by tho entire dem
ocracy of tho country do you think
that a platform so framed could avoid
incurring the hostility of Mr. Cleve
land and his followers?
I know you do not make tho mis
take of thinking that democrats who
may not entirely agree with you are
any less desirous for tho termination
of republican power than you aro.
But will tho American people, requir
ing and demanding relief, turn from
the republican party to a party that
gives them no right to believe that iti
professions aro sincere and that it Is
determined to re-establish popular
government and to dethrone the tariff
baron and the trust magnate?
As enxious as you can possibly be
for democratic victory, by "a united
and not a divided army," I respect
fully ask you to present for the benefit
of democrats generally, and in tho
Interests of genuine harmony, an ou
Hne of what the democratic platform
should bo In order that It may not In
cur the hostility of Mr. Cleveland and
his followers.
I am sure that" In the preparation
of these suggestions you will not
overlook the fact that while it may
be well to win back tho impenitent
prodigal sons it Is somewhat import
ant to remember that tho convictions
of the faithful boys who remained at
home are not entirely unworthy of
consideration. Yours truly,
RICHARD L. METCALFE,
Editor World-Herald.
I
MR. MACK'S REPLY TO THE OPEN LETTER WRITTEN TO Hlfl BY flR. METCALFE
Buffalo, N. Y., May 18, 1903.Mr.
Richard X.. Metcalfe, Editor World
Herald, Omaha Neb. Dear Sir: In
Teply to your open letter, addressed
to me through the columns of the
World-Herald, I beg to acknowledge,
first of all, the admirable spirit of
frankness which animates its contents,
and to assure you that, 1n response, I
will endeavor to be guided by the
same sentiment
On the whole, it seems to me that
we are not very far apart in the main ,
as you .say: "We must agree that
i't' is not too, much to ask democrats
to 'eliminate 'individual preferences' N
if by this you refer to the candidate;
and yet it will also be agreed that the
candidate should be a man whose rec
ord and character would justify pop
ular confidence that he would honest
ly endeavor to fulfill the platform
pledges."
It goes without saying, I trust, that
I would counsel the nomination of no
man who could not CQmmand that
confidence. You ask if I would coun
sel democrats to "become indifferent
as to the character of the platform,"
though doing me the justice to add
"I am sure you would be the last to
give euch advice. A candidate ' must
represent his party, and he can do so
only by subscribing, honestly and sin
cerely, to the tenets of that party as
laid down in its national platform.
As to that platform: You ask If I
believe that a platform which made no
reference to the money question would
avoid incurring the hostility of Mr.
Cleveland and his followers. I do not
view the matter in that light Frank
ly, I think it would be very unwise
to construct a platform without a
nhancial plank, for finance is the
bone and sinew of the government
as domestic virtue Is that of the na
tion. Monetary conditions have
changed vastly since tho adoption of
the Chicago platform, thanks to en
tirely natural causes, first and fore
most among which must be counted
the remarkable increase in the sup
ply of old, by reason of the Klondike
discoveries and other developments.
This has brought about, practically,
the same result which the democratic
party sought to achieve through bi
metallism, thereby fully sustaining
the position of the platform of 189&
How long this condition will last, no
man can say. Should the natural sup
ply of gold fall off to its former di
( Continued on Page 13
V
--'-.C .-A.A.A-jL'LkjgHt j ., i,m--?: rLb.il. ,3a.
.!W'',T .iSlU.I.jl-ii.iiLM,.-.L'i'i,
EsTffllMffiB
-k .ntf.M
WjJysmm
