publish also a “letter of acceptance” in which, as he has announced, he will discuss “all the issues.” As to imperialism, he cannot do better than he has done in his speech. As to the other issues he can do, and is not unlikely to do, a great deal of mischief. My opinion as to the desirability of an independent nomination remains the same.
[J. B.] Henderson was here last Thursday and spent a whole day with me. As to the policy of nominating a third ticket, we were quite in accord after having read Bryan's speech. I regret to say that owing to the state of his health, which forbids any exertion or excitement, he will probably not be at Indianapolis and will not accept the independent nomination. We went over the list of available men and came to the conclusion that, unless Reed consents to serve, which is improbable, General William Birney of Washington might answer. He is the son of Mr. Birney who was the conscience candidate in the old anti-slavery times, an historical association which might be regarded as of some significance; and Henderson, who knows him well, vouches for him as a man of ability and high character and a good speaker. I have written to Burritt Smith and to Osborne about this.
⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅
I say this[1] as one who, I need not tell you, wants McKinley defeated as much as anybody. I say it also as an old campaigner who has had a good deal to do with the “doubtful vote” and who thinks that this is the best way to bring about what we wish to accomplish. Our friends should consider that there is a vast difference between a Gold-Democratic third ticket and a third ticket headed by an old Republican and appealing to Republican voters.
Of course, I do not want to dictate. Nor do I wish my
- ↑ His reasons for desiring a third ticket. See letter of Aug. 7, 1900.
