The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-12-17
IT IS ABSURD.

The Oklahoma State Capitals loyalty to the administration has been rudely jared by the Presidents tentative sus- gestior in his late long drawn out mes- sage that Congress appropriate money to pay the campaign expenses of the political parties. This is carrying lpaternalism just . little farther than fair-minded Republicans can stand. and some of them. like The Capital. speak out very plainly about 1t.
 The Roosevelt suggestion, as we un- derstand it. is that an appropriation be made flor each of the great na- tional parties" for expenses of Pres- idential campaigns. It is not neces- sary to go into the details of the plan. How much money shall be giv- en, how it is to be paid out, and who Is to have control of the funds are really minor matters: the main thing being that a man who is continually being praised for his honest inten- tions and his broad patriotism should seriously propose that Congress shall provide a political corruption fund every four years.
 The first question that will naturally occur to the mind of the reader Is. What is a national party? One might say that the Republican and Demo cratic parties would be the only ones to come under this designation. but why? In each Presidential year there are several parties having tickets out, all. or a majority of them. extending to all the States. If 8 party solicits and obtains votes throughout the Un- ion is 1t not a national party? Or. does the number of votes cast consti- ute nationality? If so, how many votes must a party. be able to show up before 1t will he entitled to share in the grab game? Also. should the money be apportioned according to the number of votes cast at the last eIec- tton. or on the supposed vote to be given at the election for which funds are provided?
 | All these questions will naturally suggest themselves, as well as a great many more. It is true that the Pres ident does not in positive terms advise such appropriation but he does suggest that it might have the effect of mak- ing voluntary contributions. especially from great corporations. unnecessary. If such a suggestion had come from A private individual 1t would be called siIIy, but coming from the President of the United States such a term ap- piled to it might be considered disre- spectfui.
 But it is silly, for all that. We do not believe any law could be enacted or enforced that would prevent an in- dividuaI from giving his money to any political party he wishes. A writ of lunacy might be effectua1 in some in- stances, but If a man believes in the principles advocated by party he might be willing to contribute to it, even though he had neither confidence nor hope of it's success. A mans mon- ey is supposed to be his own. and if he chooses he may buy gold brick with it or chunk it away on a hopeless political cause.
 If an individual can do this, why may not a corporation? There are many and numerous methods of getting around a law. and if Congress should
 follow the absurd suggestion of thu
 President and undertake by law to con trol the expense account of the politi' cal parties the corporations would
 laugh at such an attempt. The cor porations know where their interests
 can best be subserved and they would
 find a way to hand over some funds
 in spite of all the laws that could bt
 enacted at an entire session of Con
 gress. To put it mildly. the suggestion
 is absurd.