To Gold Democrats

Disappointed deruourats should read the following leadicg editorial by Secretary Hoke Smitb, publisüed in his Atlauta paper : "In political eruergencies, as in other afiairs of life, men are sometimes constrained to make a 'ohoioe between two evils' or uncongenial situations. Beiug unable after their best efforts to order things just as they would hav.e them, both sound reason and policy suggest that they should take this course. Such au eruergency uow confionts many democrats in all parts of the country. They have done tteir best to influence tneir party to accept and indorse tneir flnanoial poluy, and, having failed in the effort, they have now presented to them the alternativo of coutiuued adherence to the political party with which they have leng associated and whose ruaintenance they believe to be needfnl to protect the country froru bad government and pernicious legislation or to assist in the restoratiou to uuchecKed power of the party whose whole record is marked by acts and policies of this character. "All of us took part in the choice of delegates to the Chicago couventiou, vritb the implied agreemeut - an agreemeut sanctioned by precedent and honor - that we would abide by the de cision of the majority of the coavention. That decisión was disappointing and disagreeable to a large portion of the democratie party in its relation to oue important question. Had this portion succeeded, instead of meeting defeat, they would have cousidered a bolt or antagonism by the other party as an act of bad faith. Is uot the implied agreemenc just as binding on themselves? 'Let southern democrats who contémplate the support of MoKinley or a boltiiig democratie ticket, which could only help McKinley without a chance of its success in a single state, seriously consider the probable effect of their action. They would help to restore to full power, and perhaps to perpetúate in power, a party agreeing with tberu on only one question, and that one attnbutable to a condition caused by republicau legislation, and to disrupt and consign to lastiug defeat a party agreeing with them on every other issue. "Ought the venerable democratie party to be destruyed because of its dissension or its error, in regard to a single question of transient importance? Saall we abandon the vital principies and essential policies fer which ie has jeg contended &imp)y because of disagreemeut on this quesoion? Among those principies and policies are - the preservation of the remaiuing rights of the States and tbe people - rights often usurped or disregarded by the republicau party. A just and impartial system of federal taxation opposed to the repnblican policy of tax ation for the aggrandizemeut of f avored interests and classes ; opposition to the growth and exactions of trusts and monopolies, which have been the especial objects of lepublican fostering and protection; the protection of every state and section of the country from invidious federal legislation or unwarranted interference with their local government. "