The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1904-09-14
Replying to the Letter,

Roosevelt letter of acceptance could
better demonstrate the strength Of
the document than the replies that
have been evoked. Indeed, TO call
them replies is fattery. They are
mere expressions of disapproval;
they do not answer any argument, do
not cOntrovert any statement, do not
assail with the weapons of fact or
logic the position of the Executive.
These ebullitions amount to a pro-
test that Mr. Roosevelt is guilty of
cruelty to animals. Particular refer
ence is had to that humble beast Of
dropping ear, which has by common
consent and fitness become the sym
Dol of Democracy.
The emblematic jackass, at the
vague prospect of dipping its hum
cry muzzle into a measure of corn,
had begun TO feel the stimulus of a
sweet, pervading hope, and to up
lift the pendant ear. 1t was then Mr..
Roosevelt removed far beyond the
limits of the ass tether the meas
ure of corn. DespaiTing flop Of the
ear. Grief encompasses the creature
about The vale of sorrow is its
habitat still, and out of the shadows
there come sounds of mourning.
There are some peculiar papers an
nOunced to the world as being Demo-
cratic. Part of them are this from
habit. They do not know better, and
to blame them would be unfair.
Others are guilty of pretense, for
they are not devoted TO any princi-
pie or stirred by any motive not
purely selfish. It is not a strange
circumstance that the attempt Of
paper of either of these classes to
meet the bold yet dispassionate as
sertions of Mr.. Roosevelt should re-
suit in failure so absolute as to be
grotesque. That other papers, mark
ed ordinarily by dignity and often by
fairness. should have been led into
similar error, is surprising. When
they found that the letter of accept
ance could not be successfully as
sailed, nor in any part weakened,
they, nevertheless, made the essay,
the only result being their own dis
comfiture and an emphasis upon the
portions of the letter most distaste-
full to them.
The New York Times" resents the
Presidents "self-suff1ciency," this be-
ing it's title for a confidence entirely
healthy. as the possession of a man
who has succeeded, who is conscious
of this success, and knows he has
the approval of the people whose af-
fairs he has administered. It is not
seemly that such q man assume a
role Of humility, that he belittle his
efforts and the outcome Of them; for
speaking as the head of the nation,
he speaks by right as one having au-
thority. A servant Of the people. his
acts are virtually the acts OF the peo-
pie. BY approval, they make these
acts their own. 1t is not a personal
trumpet that is sounded.
But the Times" is panied that
toward the Democratic party the
President is "astonishingIy trucu-
lent" He is said to "defle it with
every insult HIS imagination can con-
jure up
Whoa therei" There is no argu-
ment in these bold and baseless as
severations. There is nothing TO which
to make answer. To the protesting
hee-haw of the disgruntled Demo-
cratic jackass one may have 20 listen,
but one does not have to consider
the outburst as challenge to debate.
The Times" gets perilously near the
line OF abuse, which, by commoBacon-
sent, is this campaign taboo. and Il
also side-steps the path of veracity
wherein to tread is both duty and
pleasure.
In a general fashion Democracy re-
plies to the letter by the avowal that
it doesn't like IT, Nothing could be
more effective in the way of commen-
dation. The purpose of the letter
was not TO inspire the Democratic
soul to utter itself in praise.