Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

EDITORIAL PAGE The Democratic Platform and the Opinion of the Nation MR. WILSON is being advised to reject part of the Demo cratic platform. He might well be advised to reject practically all of it. The Democratic house has ignored or repudiated the most commendable planks of the plat form. and there is no reason why Wilson should be burdened In the coming campaign by the ram shackle remaining planks. The Democratic platform declared that “our pledge* are made to be kept.” The Democratic house, the one branch of the national government which the Democrats control, has already proved that the best pro vision tn the platform was made only to be broken. With the navy plank and one or two other Democratic and undesir able planks eliminated, the plat form is left undemocratic, unpro- RTesslve and unsound. It is absurd ly extreme in one point and scan dalously inadequate in nearly every other point. It is absolutely without constructive policy or com prehensive understanding of the unjent needs of the people and the irresistible tendencies of the times. The platform, though made by Bryan, was made for Wilson. The usual procedure at conventions was reversed, and the platform was made after the nomination of the candidate. It was Mr. Bryan's idea, and a characteristic one, that the principles of the Democratic party should be modified to suit the can didate rather than the candidate se lected to fit the principles of the Democratic party. Yet this plat form can not suit the candidate, for there Is hardly a word in it that conforms to Dr. Wilson's recent ut terances since he ceased to be a re actionary and became a militant progressive. The country demand ed a progressive candidate and a progressive program. The Democracy has given the country as its candidate a convert to progressive principles, yet there are but a few planks In the plat form which echo his progressive sentiments or express the progres sive spirit of this progressive age. The country expected, and had a right to expect, from a conscien tious and courageous Democrat a constructive platform; yet there is hardly a paragraph in the platform which is constructive. There is hardly a paragraph which offers a satisfactory solution of the conditions it criticises, or proposes a practicable remedy for the evils of which the citizens so justly complain. The platform Is Bryan's, and is a characteristic combination of Bry an’s ignorance and egotism. He has sacrificed the real issues of pro gressive Democracy to substitute his own visionary views and fan tastic fancies. It Is more than Dr. Wilson's privilege tn reject a plat form which misrepresents the Dem ocracy and embarrasses himself— it is his duty both to himself and to the citizens. Dr. Wilson Is tn a peculiar and a delicate position before the country. There are many devoted Democrats still in doubt as to his actual at titude and his permanent position upon the leading issues of the day. A platform, therefore, which does not express accurately and aggres sively Wilson's actual views must prove embarrassing to him and to the Democracy as well, since those skeptical citizens who doubt the genuineness of Dr. Wilson's conver sion to progressive principles will have their doubts confirmed by a platform which contains few posi tive or progressive utterances oth er than the unsound and extreme plank on the tariff. The tariff plank reflects Bryan's free trade views and recalls Bryan's attitude as a congressman. At that time he called the manufacturers “robbers" find the working men "beggars." when they came before the ways and means committee to present their arguments in favor of the principle of protection. Evidently Bryan's views have not changed. Always violent and al ways visionary, he is more ready to destroy than resourceful to con struct. The most positive plank In the platform is the tariff plank. That plank declares that the Federal gov ernment has no right or power to collect tariff duties < xc< i t for the purposes of revenu- That plank repudiates the whole protective theory and concludes with an appeal to the American people "to support us in our de mands for a tariff for revenue only." There is some modification of this declaration in the text of the plank, but as a who'. the tariff plank boldly brings into question the whole theory of protection .in! makes the Democratic frnht a tight on the basis of a tariff f ■ rcienue only, against the Repubc. an jira of a tariff for protection and d< - velopment of American industries. The Democratic plank deciares that protection does not tend to- Increase the wages of workmen, but that those wages are determined by the competitive svs tem. If, however, the tariff tends to develop new industries and In that way to give employment to a great er number of men, it will be diffi cult for the Democrats to argue that the tariff does not increase the demand for labor, and. therefore, ktend to increase the pric. of labor. ■ If the reduction of the tariff to ' the point of the basis of revenue only would tend to eliminate any it is more than Dr. Wilson’s privilege to reject a platform which misrepresents the Democracy and embarrasses himself—it is his duty both to himself and to the citizens considerable number of American industries, it would be difficult for the Democrats to argue that the men employed in those industries thrown out of work and thrown upon the labor market would not tend to reduce the price of labor, which is wages, through the very competitive system which the Dem ocrats allude to. True enough, the greater the de mand for labor the higher the price of labor. But the demand for labor is made through the number and ex tent of the Industries requiring la bor and employing labor. And when that demand is lessened through the elimination of any con siderable number of those indus tries. then the competition for em ployment is increased and the price of labor is reduced. For the Democrats, therefore, to make their proposition sound, they must prove that the protective tar iff does not tend to increase the number of Industries in this coun try and the employment of labor by those industries. The plank contains, however, proper criticism of President Taft for his vgto of the farmers' free list, the woolen schedule and other reasonable and legitimate and mod erate plans of tariff reduction pro posed by the Democratic house, of representatives under the leader ship of Champ Clark. The second plank In the Demo cratic platform relates to the high cost of living and says that the high cost of living Is due to the high tariff laws enacted nnd main tained by the Republican party and to the trusts and commercial con spiracies fostered and encouraged by such laws. The high cost of living is not confined to the United States, and, therefore, can not be wholly due to any strictly American institution, not even to the Republican party. The high cost of living is com plained of In England and has brought about many strikes and much discontent In that country. The high cost of living is com plained of In France and has brought about riots In that coun try. The high cost of living is com plained of In Germany and has brought about discontent and dis turbance in that country. The Republican party of the United States does not exercise much Influence in England or France or Germany. Neither do our tariff conditions nor any ether tariff conditions, be cause England is a free-trade coun try and Germany is a protection country. The high cost of living must, therefore, be due to other and broader propositions than those discovered by the Democrats such as assembled at Baltimore. It must be due to universal con ditions, for in every country of the world the cost of living has in creased enormously. What are’those universal condi tions? First, the greater cheapness of money, the enormous production of gold and the general extension of credits. These ' conditions have made the medium of exchange so much cheaper that a dollar today does not buy what 50 cents or even 25 cents would have bought a few years ago. The dollars themselves, on ac count of the quantity of them, being less valtiable, it takes many more of those dollars to buy the same thing th in it took a few years ago. That is one of the main reasons for the increased cost of living. Another important and universal reason for the increased cost of living is the better compensation given in those days to the produc ing classes for their work and for their products. The greater intelligence and the greater efficiency of the working men and the farmer and other pro ducers have enabled them to get a more rightful reward for their ef fort, a higher reward for labor, a greater payment for their product. All Intelligent citizens want the farmers to be well-to-do, yet they can not be well-to-do unless they are paid high prices for their prod ucts, and they can not be paid high prices for their products without compelling a high cost of living to the consuming public. All Intelligent citizens want the working man to rev< ivc high wages, but the working m in can not re ceive high wages without increas ing tile cost of production of the articles on which he labors, and the cost of production of those articles can net be increased without in creasing the high cost of living. The cost of living will never be reduced in these particulars. Money will remain cheap, and, in all prob ability. become cheajwr. Farmers will continue to be well paid for their work, and will become even better paid. Laborers will continue to secure higher wages, and should continue to secure higher w ages. This means that the cost of liv ing will not be materially reduced except in certain forced and unnat ural eases of combinations to se cure unjust and unreasonable prices. If. then, the cost of living is not to be reduced, the remedy is to increase the income of the individ ual to enable him to meet the in creased cost of living. The evil of extortion of high prices might be overcome by Fed eral incorporation to supervise and to regulate all trusts and conibina- The Atlanta Georgian tlons and by empowering the gov ernment to fix the prices of the products of such trusts and combi nations. This phase of the situation the Democratic platform does not go into, and the other phases of the high cost of living, due to the great er cheapness of money and to the greater reward to the producing classes, the Democratic platform does not seem to comprehend. To lay to the Republican party the blame for the conditions which exist all over the world Is an ab surdity. And to fail to have a constructive plank on one of the most impor tant Issues before this country and all other countries is an evidence of ignorance and incapacity. A further evidence of ignorance and incapacity is exhibited in the anti-trust plank, the third plank of the Democratic platform. The pol icy of the Democratic party is ap parently Mr. Taft’s policy of en forced competition. the policy which proved so disastrous to busi ness and so absolutely valueless to the fonsuming public when pressed to Its ultimate conclusion under the Taft administration. The dissolution of the Oil trust and the Tobacco trust resulted in no benefit to the consumer what ever. It resulted only in an apparent advantage to these companies and an enormous increase in the value of their securities. Competition has not been re stored because competition can not be compelled. Prices have not been reduced, but, on the contrary, have been In creased. The only advantage to business, or to the community, has come through a certain security and sta bility to those business interests affected, and a certain confidence due to the conviction that they are now conducting their combination along legal lines. Nothing, however, has been ac complished for the consuming pub lic, and nothing will be accom plished until the government is em powered to supervise and regulate the formation of combinations and further empowered to fix prices. The fundamental Importance of this fact is not recognized or un derstood by the Democrats who wrote the platform at Baltimore, and the platform has no practical constructive policy in this third im portant issue before our country. The fourth plank in the Demo cratic platform discusses states’ rights. There has been considerable Dem ocratic outcry about the invasion of states’ rights and very little to justify the outcry. The rights of the states and the Federal govern ment are very clearly defined by the constitution. The Federal Influence can only proceed to a certain point. In many cases it ought, for the benefit of the whole community, to bo aide to proceed further. Rut it will not be able to proceed further on account of the very defi nite restrictions of the constitution. To take a concrete example, there can be state incorporation acts and Federal incorporation acts for the regulation and supervision of trusts. But the state incoporatlon acts can be made to apply only to combinations existing and operat ing within the state, while the Fed eral incorporation act can only ap ply to trusts and combinations en gaged in interstate commerce. Os course, all trusts and combi nations engaged in interstate com merce should be compelled to go under the Federal corporation act for the sake of uniformity and to prevent them from taking advan tage of the lax laws of certain states to the injury of the commu nity. Still, with all the advantages of Federal incorporation, trusts and combinations operating merely within the state can not be com pelled to come under such an act. Therefore, obviously enough, the field and the power of Federal and states' rights are clearly and suffi ciently defined. The objection of the Democrats to the legitimate exercise of Fed eral powers, where they exist and are guaranteed by the constitution, is a baseless one. As a matter of fact, in the con duct of tile business of this great country the Federal government should often have greater powers than it has and can have under the constitution. And in order to se cure a uniformity of laws in the different states as the best possi ble substitute for Federal laws, where Federal laws are not possi ble. the co-operation of all tlte states should be encouraged and such expedients as the congress of governors- begun under Mr. Roose velt’s administration should be con tinued with a view to securing that end. it is unfortunate that the Dem ocratic platform did not make some sin h recommendations as these. The Democratic platform next approves of the income tax and popular election of senators by the people, and applauds those who have acted toward putting these measures in effect-. These ineasur<inaugurated by the Populists, incorporated then into three successive Democratic platforms and finally indorsed and enforced by the Republican adinin- THURSDAY, AUGUST 8, 1912. istration, are matters of universal congratulation. The Democrats have done their share toward advancing these measures to fulfillment, and can properly take a good part of the credit for their success. It is fortunate, however, that in this so-called progressive platform the only measures distinctly and definitely recommended are the measures which are already, for the most part, achieved. The next plank m the Demo cratic platform declares for presi dential primaries in the election of delegates to the national conven tion. This plank is inadequate and un progressive. It Is worse than worth less, since It merely pretends to offer a solution. Its suggestion is not a solution. It proposes a remedy which will not remedy the conditions that the people object to; yet offers the stone of pretense instead of the bread of performances The uselessness of presidential primaries followed by a convention in which the. delegates may defy the expressed will of the people has been shown by the convention at Baltimore. A vast majority of delegates elected by presidential primaries to that convention were elected to vote for Champ Clark and instruct ed to vote for Champ Clark. But Mr. Bryan, like many other delegates in that convention, re pudiated his instructions, denied the right of the people to express their choice through presidential primaries, assumed a superior right for himself and not only refused to vote for Champ Clark, but did his worst to defeat Champ Clark, the choice of the people of his state and his district. There will be other delegates to other conventions as discreditable as Mr. Bryan, with as little moral ity and as little sense of right and decency as Mr. Bryan. Other delegates elected by presi dential primaries, perhaps follow ing Mr. Bryan’s leadership and cit ing Mr. Bryan's example, will re fuse to accept the instructions of their constituents, will refuse to vote according to the expressed will of the people in presidential pri maries and w-ill take 1t upon them selves to defeat the will of the peo ple and to vote according to the will of the corporations expressed in a more material form. For a presidential primary to be effective there must be no conven tion, no delegates with so much power and so little character as to fail to carry out the popular w-ill. The next president must be nom inated by direct primaries without any. convention and without any delegated power to unscrupulous and unreliable representatives. The next president must be nom inated by direct primaries, and the man who gets the greatest number of votes according to the electoral vote of the state must be the nomi nee of the party. When the Democratic convention failed to declare in favor of such a just and genuine direct primary it failed conspicuously to be progres sive or even to be Democratic. The next plank of the Demo cratic platform relates to campaign contributions. The plank pledges the Democratic party to the enact ment of a law prohibiting any cor porations from contributing to a campaign fund. The only objec tion to such laws is their inad equacy. As a matter of fact, neither this proposition nor the following one, where any individual is prohibited from contributing an amount above a reasonable maximum, is of any particular value. If an individual desires to con tribute a large sum he can always do it through various other indi viduals. and the beneficiaries of special legislation can always man age to return courtesies by liberal campaign contributions, in spite of restrictions of this kind. The only method of preventing corruption in elections is not to try to limit contributions, but actually to limit expenditures. What is needed Is a law which will allow expenditures for litera ture, speeches and other means of informing the people, which will allow expenditures for any legiti mate appeal to the intelligence and conscience of the public, but which will not allow any other expendi ture whatsoever, and which will define any other expenditure as bribery and punish it as such. When we have a law of that kind we shall have clean elections. There will be no objection to spending money if it is spent mere ly for the information of the voters, but there will be no need for any great expenditure of money on such a basis. If any other expenditure of money is made, the individual so expending it or causing it to be ex pended can be arrested and im prisoned as a briber and deprived of his seat if elected to office. Serious nations like England, who really desire to prevent the use of money corruptly in politics, have such laws and hgve destroyed corruption in politics through them. The proposition in the Demo critie platform is ridiculously in adequate and apparently insincere. The next plank relates to the term of president, and favors a six-year term in accordance with the expressed dflslre of every trust and every criminal corporation in the United States. A president elected one term without hope of re-election need have no consideration for the peo- ple whatever. He can not be pun ished by the people, he can not be rewarded by the people. There Is no better Democrat than Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the Democratic party, and in dis cussing this question he said: “My opinion originally was that the president of the United States should have been elected for seven years, and be forever ineligible aft erward. I have since become sen sible that seven years is too long to be irremovable, and that there should be a peacable way of with drawing a man in midway who Is doing wrong.” It is obvious that Jefferson con sidered the four-year term in the nature of a recall. It gave the people in the midst of a presidential term an opportunity to approve or disapprove of the president’s per formances up to that time. It made him subject to the will of the peo ple and continually piindful of the wishes of the people. This plank in the Democratic platform is worse than undemo cratic, worse than reactionary. It removes the president from the con trol of the people, and makes him more than ever in the control of the privileged interests. It is an absolute contradiction of the pro gressive plan to place the govern ment more directly in the hands of the people. It is contrary to the expressed declaration of the founder of the Democratic party. It is a conces sion to the desires of the special interests. It brings into strong con trast the Democratic policies of Jeffetson and the unsound and in sincere policies of William Jennings' Bryan. Jefferson w r as a man of practical experience and sound common sense, genuinely devoted to the people. Bryan is an unsound theorist, without definte policy and without genuine concern for anything but his own advancement, trimming and trading and compromising and evading to make a momentary point at the expense of a perma nent policy and a recognized right. The paragraph referring to the navy, and pledging the Democratic party to a navy adequate to the needs of the nation and to the sup port of the principle of the Monroe doctrine, is exceedingly important, not only as a profession of Demo cratic faith, but as an evidence of Democratic sincerity. The question of an adequate navy has already come before the Demo cratic house of representatives. This Democratic platform at its conclusion says: “Our pledges are i made to be kept when in office, as well as relied upon during the cam paign.” - The Democratic party, wholly in power in the house of representa tives. failed utterly to carry out its pledge In regard to an adequate navy. It has, therefore, absolutely destroyed the confidence of the country in any of the few positive promises and progressive utter ances of its platform. The senate reported a bill which provided for an adequate navy. A good part of the Democrats in the senate voted for that bill. But the Democratic party is not in control of the senate. It is, how ever, in full control of the house of representatives and will surely be held to account for the irresponsi ble and unpatriotic action of its majority in the house of represen tatives, when the platform of the Democratic party declared for an adequate navy and when the plat form definitely stated “our pledges are made to be kept.” When, in the face of these posi tive utterances, the promise of an adequate navy is not kept, how can the intelligent citizens of this coun try believe that any plank or prom ise of the Democratic platform will be kept? The Democrats themselves digged the pit into which they have fallen. They created the opportunity to prove their sincerity or their utter insincerity. Their action in prompt ly repudiating the most meritorious plank of their platform is discred ited both from party professions and from patriotism. The paragraph relating to rail roads, express companies, telegraph and telephone lines is not a pro gressive utterance in anv particu lar. There is nothing of any impor tance advocated in that paragraph that is not already in operation, and nothing demanded that is not a dodge or a straddle or an evasion of the actual issue. This paragraph, like so many other paragraphs of the platform, is meaningless and ' worthless; where the opportunity occurs for a statement of progressive princi ples, the platform dodges it in a cowardly manner This is another evidence of Mr. Bryan’s unsoundness and insincer ity. At one time he goes to the ex treme length in one direction of government ownership of every thing. and now he swings to the discreditable length in the other di rection of abandoning even the proper, practicable proposition of the government ownership of tele graphs. The next plank in the platform deals with banking legislation, and here the Democratic party is abso lutely without plan or policy or program. It opposes the Aldrich bill, prob- THE HOME PAPER ably without actually knowing what the Aldrich bill provides in its amended form. But assuming that its opposition to the Aldrich bill is genuine and sound, what plan is substituted for the Aldrich bill’.’ What proposi tion has the Democratic party to make to improve the financial con ditions which are universally con ceded to need improvement? The last panic demonstrated the absolute necessity of new banking legislation, and yet the Democratic party, with all its knowledge of past history and with all its recent experience, has nothing to offer in the way of a plan, has nothing to say except to condemn a plan which has been offered by the op position party. The Democratic party can not expect the people of this country to have confidence in it or respect for it unless it gives some evidence of thought and intelligence and of careful consideration and genuine intention on this and other impor tant matters before the country and demanding solution. The plank in the platform in re gard to rural credit Is proper enough, although not a very posi tive or definite statement of a policy. The best plank in the platform is the next one, which relates to the waterways. This can be com mended throughout. The plank regarding the post roads is an excellent one and might have been made more vigorous and effective in its statement. When a Democratic member of congress I introduced a bill to this effect, which did not at that time secure the support of the Demo cratic minority. The Democratic plank on the rights of labor is a good plank, and if the nominees for president and vice president will adhere strictly to this plank they will do much to overcome the weakness of their personal labor records. The Democratic plank on con servation is another discouraging evidence of the lack of true pro gressive principle and true Demo cratic principle of many planks in the platform. This plank is composed of more or less meaningless generalities. It does not declare in favor of government ownership or control of the water powers, which is one of the main issues in the progressive conservation program of this time. It is astonishing that this coun try and that a pretended progres sive party of this country should lag behind all parties of other countries in such important and essential progressive matters. In Canada, the necessity for the government controlling the water powers has already been recog nized and acknowledged. Neither party in Canada would fall to ad mit and to state this necessity, and as a matter of actual fact the Ca nadian government will no longer grant water powers to private in dividuals in outright ownership, but will only lease them or sell the power developed from them. It is obvious that electric power developed by’ water power is to be the motive power of the future, and the immediate future, and a pretended progressive platform which does not deal with this vital question is not progressive, not worthy of consideration by genuine progressives. Again, in these conservation planks no attack is made upon the timber thieves and the plunder of the public domain by’ the railroads who exchanged thousands of worthless sections of desert land for the most valuable timber land in the United States. . This section of the platform ex hibits the same cowardice which disgraces so many other sections, and which prevents the platform from being considered in any way an honest progressive document. The plank in regard to agricul ture is harmless enough and mean ingless enough, for that matter. Such recommendations as it makes should properly’ be made, and many others that it does not make should properly be made. The plank in regard to the mer chant marine shows an utter lack of constructive poftcy or construc tive ability. It declares in favor of a merchant marine without giving the slight est evidence of how it is to be de veloped or encouraged. It opposes the granting of sub sidies without substituting any other plan. It does not even declare for the old Democratic policy of preferen tial duties. After a few harmless and mean ingless declarations about the civil service and law reform, the Demo cratic platform takes up the ques tion of the Philippines, and, influ enced by the small Americanism of William J. Bryan, suggests that the Philippines be abandoned. Here again we have a contrast between the practical Democracy of Thomas Jefferson, who added the whole of the Louisiana terri tory’ to the area of the United States, more than doubling that area, and the visionary ideas and narrow views of William Jennings Bryan, who desires to abandon what the country already possesses and to limit the nation's growth to the petty boundaries of his own prejudices. A party with a policy of contrac- tion abroad and reaction at home can not hope for the support of either progressive or patriotic citi zens. Arizona and New Mexico are welcomed e> the Democracy into the United States, and while these states were admitted under a Re publican administration, their ad mission was largely due to the ac tivity of the Democrats in congress in their behalf. The plank in the Democratic platform in regard to Alaska is an excellent one and every effort should be made to make its pro visions speedily operative. The plank in regard to the Rus sian treaty should in common jus tice and generosity Include a com pliment to President Taft for his splendid work in abrogating that treaty. The question Involved is a ques tion which affected every Ameri can citizen and affected the dignity and honor of the nation as a whole. The Jews might have been more intimately affected than any other class of our citizenship, but every citizen was affronted by the failure of Russia to recognize the passport issued by our government to any citizen. Mr. Taft may have earned the special gratitude of our Jewish cit izens, but he has also earned to a high degree the approval and ap plause of every patriotic American citizen who feels that the dignity of our country should be upheld and the honor of our government sus tained throughout the world. In the plank on the parcels post and rural delivery the Democrats might again in justice and gener osity have praised President Taft, under whose administration the rural delivery and parcels post are being developed. And in the plank on the Panama canal exposition the Democrats could properly have arisen above party lines and paid some compll the Taft admini stration Which did so much for the Panama exposition and to the Roosevelt ad . ministration which made the Pan ama canal possible. The platform concludes with an empty plank and hollow utterance relating to “the rule of the people " which could have emanated only from William Jennings Bryan, and which it would be an insult to attribute to any other member of the platform committee. The whole progressive program is based upon a genuine and sin cere policy of restoring the power of government to the hands of the people. Without this power of government reposed in the hands of the people, it is impossible for the people to accomplish any of the re forms which tills platform or more genuine platforms may declare for The failure, therefore, to restore the power of government to the people, or to indicate means by which the power of government can be restored to the people, is high treason to the progressive cause. No trading, trimming traitor ever evolved a more treasonable plank than the one which concludes the Democratic platform. As far back as five years ago William Jennings Bryan declared in a speech in Brooklyn that the fundamental principles of progres sive Democracy were the initia tive, the referendum, the recall and direct primaries, and no Democrat could be recognized as a Democrat who did not believe in these prin ciples. And yet Mr. Bryan puts forth this professed progressive Demo cratic platform without one refer ence to the initiative, the referen dum, the recall or even direct pri maries. This is either contemptible cow ardice or disgraceful treachery and should be branded as such. It must be, and may be meant to be particularly embarrassing to Dr. Wilson, who but lately became a convert to the cause of progres sive Democracy and to the prin ciples of the initatfve, the referen dum, the recall and direct prima- Dr. W iison has, however, advo cated these principles with the ar dor of a new convert and has con vinced many of his sincerity How will Dr Wilson stand on this plank In this platform? Will he be compelled to return to his former reactionary views, or will he repudiate Bryan and Bryan’s treasonable plank and declare bold ly and bravely for direct primaries and direct legislation, the essential principles of the progressive cause 7 This platform as a whole is no platform for a progressive to stand on. It is a compromise from be ginning to end. It is a cowardly evasion in nearly every plank u lacks courage and it lacks con structive policy. Its policy throughout is a policy of opposition, without the substi tution of a practicable plan to anv policy it opposes. Whether this is due to ignorance or insincerity is immaterial. It deprives the progressives of all hope in the Democratic party It deprives the citizens of the country of all confidence in the Democratic party. P ar ty without a popular policy will be a party without popular support. J} Wils °n’s opportunity and Dr. \\ iison s duty to write a platform which will do justice to himself and to the Democratic par ty. which will arouse the enthusi asm of all genuine Democrats and invite the support of all genuine progressives. WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST.