Bisbee daily review., 1904-09-22

New York. Sept. 21.-With afuri- ous rainstorm raging, an enthusiastic crown in Tammany Hall wildly cheer ed whitening analysis of President Roosevelt's letter delivered by Bourke Cochran last night.
 It was a speech of the stirring i'm passioned kind, and was delivered with unusual ardor by the speaker with the result that when he finished MT. Coch- ran narrowly escaped physical coi- lapse.
 Chairman James w. Gerard intro duced the orator, with a reference to the fact that MT. Cochran had largely contributed to the highly gratifying results in Maine. MT. Cochran said in part:
 Now, my friends. before Roosevelt's letter was written it was a remark able feature of this canvass that all the Republican orators and leaders and newspapers, and, I am afraid. some Democrats. were inclined to con duct the canvas on the assumption that the differences between the two parties were so slight that they were almost the same; that the declara- tions in one platform were but the paraphrases of those embodied in the other, that the voters were required to choose merely which of the two men would enjoy the emoluments and honors of the Presidency, but that the result to the people would be of little consequence since the conditions and policy controlling the Government would remain the same
 "Our Republican friends even went so far as to intimate that there was practically no difference between the two candidates; they would have us believe that Mir. Roosevelt. instead of being what our knowledge of his life of forty-six years had led us to as- sume. was something wholly different. that he was not strenuous and violent and picturesque. but calm. deliberate. contemplative and almost common place.
 Now, this letter of the Presidents casts aside the disguise which has been so carefully cast over him by MT. Moody and MT. Taft and MT. Hay and Mir. Root. He has clearly shown that the difference between the two parties are not unimportant, but that they are deep, radical and irrecOncilable.
 This letter shows that MT. Roose- welt differs from Judge Parker as widely as man who believes in the authority of the big stick can differ from a magistrate who believes in the authority of the Constitution. as far as a man can differ who believes in doing things as he can regardless of moral restraints from a man who be- lieves in doing things as he ought in obedience to the injunction of the modern law and in compliance of the requirements of the law of the land"
 MT. Cochran declared that Mir. Roosevelt did not understand the meaning of constitutional authority. He quoted from MT. Roosevelt's ref erence to his pension order, in which the President said the order was re- vocable at pleasure.
 What is the meaning of that? That the Executive claims the right to change the interpretation of the law as he pieases, revocable at his pleasure? That the law may mean one thing today and another thing to-
 
 decide its meaning from day to day, changing it as he pleases. Why, if the declaration of a legislative intent, and changing it from hour to hour, does not constitute legislation itself. then it is impossible to say of what leg islation consists.
 And, mark you, he asks what will the Democrats 6o? Will they come out and make it an issue? Make the interpretation of law by a sworn of ficer a political issue? Conceive the infamy of the suggestion. infamy none the less because the man who puts it enormity. Why a candidate standing upon a platform would undertake to declare that his interpretation Of the law if elected would be subject to the behests of a party would deserve i'm peachment if he was successful. and would deserve infamy whether defeat ed or unsuccessful.
 "'What will the Democrats do? he asks. I will tell you Democrats can do but one thing, and that is obey the law.
 "It is true that Mir Roosevelt ap- pears to be impatient of the Constitu- ton only when it stands between him and some purpose which he thinks to be meritorious. But that is pre- cisely the difference between a Demo cratic and an autocratic government. He must obey the law whether he approves or disapproves it.