The morning journal-courier., 1908-08-19
Conrnnf,s Inconsistency.

The following on the Hartford Cour- ants attitude speaks for itself;
 To the Editor of the Courant
 In your editorial of August 10th com mentng on the letter of George S. Pal mer of New London, which so sue cessfully evades the teii!ng points of his criticism. you use the following language "--- George L. Lilley-hu man and fallible like the rest of us fell Into some errors as to the facts, committed serious mistakes of judg ment and showed himself sometimes unduly credulous or unwarrantably suspicious"
 Suppose we add to this remarkable list of qualifications for the republican nomination for governor the fact that he showed himself in his own testi mony, as MT. Palmer puts it, "contin- ually inaccurate under oath"
 Is it your view that a man can ex- hibit himself as inaccurate under oath and still be worthy of consideration In connection with the governorship Of Connecticut, for whose good name you "iN bo HitdilS t'ilt'iHNu, u dHIidiH as Park Commissioner Palmer?
 Or, on the other hand, can you dem onstrate that there are not plain dis | crepancies between Mir. Lilleys behav- for (under oath) and that common honesty and sincerity which. human and fallible as we are, most of us still prefer in the men whom we would sec in places of honor? To do so would have all the charm of novelty, since 1t is something which Mir Lilley's sup porters have seemed hitherto dislncln- ed to attempt
 There are other aspects of your po- litlcal position which induce certain degree of curiosity To particularize, you supported Governor Woodruff steadily throughout the activities of the last legislative session, and 1t seems fair to assume that you agree with the many who think that his administra- | ton has been creditable and success ful. Is it not so? The only objection you have so far alleged against hls re- nomination this year Is that 1t would violate long established party pre- cedent. If my recollection is correct you were ready to support Governor Mclean for renominatlon had he not made known his unwilllngness to ac- cept Governor Woodruff having stat ed that he will accept, but not contest for the nomination this year. can you Indicate wherein he Is less worthy to be retained in the service of the state than Governor Mclean was? Or why the precedent that prevents your sup porting him has become so over whelmingly important since 1902?
 Again, if party precedents are 10 be held SO entirely sacred will you ex- plain why you would have the one vlo- lated which has several times promot- ed the lieutenant governor to the chief magistracy? Since the candidacy of William H. Bulkeley in 1882 and prob ably for a much longer time the party has never refused a nomination for governor to a republican lieutenant governor who sought 1t. This is so, is it not? Then why is 1t not as strong a party precedent as the one in refer ence to the renomination of a gover- nor? If you stand so firmly on one, why deny equal force to the other?
 For the advantage of the party and the state it. would seem that the soon- CT both these useless. but not harmless, precedents were dropped out of the window, the better. This year seems an especially suitable one in which to do 1t, and 1t is regrettable that the "Courant's" Influence is not turned al- together, instead of only half that way. D. l.. Vaill. Winsted, August 15.