Clarke courier. [volume] (Berryville, Va.) 1869-1997, 1907-05-08


them have their money invested in
railroad secnritiesl If such con-
spIracy does exist, then the Presi-
dent has got himself between the
devil of the money power and the
deep sea of trades unionism. His
latest break has made the working
people madder than a wet hen.
His open condemnation of Moyer
and Haywood before they have had
a chance to be tried before am i'm
partial tribunal has set tongues
awagging and heads athinkinc
everywhere in this country, and
people are beginning to ask them
selves the question: has the Presi-
dent of the United States the right
to condemn man before he has
had chance to be tried upon the
facts and the evidenced
| Mr.. Roosevelt is the Chief Mag
istrate Of the United States. Ifhc
were private citizen he might
with propriety express his opinion
of other individuals, subject only
To the penalties which the law at
taches to SANDER and libel. His
opinion, then, as to the guilt or IN
nocence of an accused l.crson woulI
be- presumed 10 have no eff Ct
upon the trial of that person. Bot
as Chief Magistrate of the United
States his publicly expressed de-
nunciati"n carries with it ihe
weight of his great Office.
The injury resulting from such
recklcssness of uttanance ON the
Part of the President of the United
States, serious as il may be To the
individual against whom it is ii-
rected, is chiefly to the community
at large and TO the office which Mr..
Roosevelt holds.
Comparatively few persons
arc interested in what may
befalI Meyer, Haywood or
Hartman, but the whole country
Is concerned in the preservation
of the dignity and character of the
presidential Office, and the ob,er-
vance of properties by any man
holding that office. Mr.. Roosevelt
defends his coures in publicly de-
nouncing these accused men by
declaring that the persons who have
protested to him against his action
are guilty themselves of trying TO
interfere with justice, and he CON
demns this action. If it be true il
should be condemned, but can il Lc
cited as Justification for similar
action on the part of the President
of the United Statesl What is inn
proper for a private citizen is inf
niteTy more SO for the President of
the United States.
If this recklessness and ruthless
ness of procedure on the part of
private individual renders him an
undesirable citizen, may not radio
alism, recklessness and ruthless
disregard of proprieties render a
man an undesirable PRESIDENT
The qualities which Mr.. Roosevelt
attributes to these men are not desir
able In a citizen. Neither are they
desirable in President. They a,c
less eXcu>able in President. Mr..
Roosevelt says that it is absurd to
suppose Chat because man is on
trial for given offcnse he is there
fore to be freed from all criticism
upon his general conduct and man
ner of life. But is it a function of
the Chief Executive to pronounce
upon the desirabilty of American
citizens, whether on trial or not?
Is it for him to determine and
declare who are and who are not
desirable citizensl
His Judgment may sometimes be
right, as TO this, but it may be
wrong in as many instances, and
whatever his opinion might be as
private citizen, he as President of
the United States has no right to
pass his individual Judgment to the
prejudice of either the most power
ful or the humblest American
citizen.
Mr.. Roosevelt declares it to be
as foolish to assert that his denun-
citation was designed to influence
the trail of Meyer and Haywood
as it would be to assert that it was
designed to influence the suits that
have been brought against Mr..
Hartman. Whether so designed
or not, his denunciation of these