Arizona republican., 1908-01-19

1 in the contest, and that is by instruct
 ing our delegates Arizona is called ! at the foot ~H 'ha~ list, after all the | states; an .s in hepublican
 conventions, where a majority suffices to nominate Git requires two-thirds in
 democratic conventional, the result is
 reached and all is over but the shout 1 ing. before the formal call of Arizona ! is made.
 If we have choice-and inquest | ionably the choice of Arizona repub- | licans is Taft-why should've not have the manhood and courage to express that choice, by instructing our dele gates? Unless delegates. are instruct | ed, nobody can say whatsare the sen | timents of the people who send them. and the choice of the convention de- bends upon the caprice of bosses and
 the personal views or the personal in terests of delegates. By instructing , delegates to a national convention, the representative form Of government is carried to logical result. By failing to instruct, the representative form of government is abandoned, and the masses of a party surrender their judgment and their interests to few individuals whose judgment may not
 be at all in accord with that or the people they purport to represent.
 "I hear it said, of course. that the
 party should keep its own views in
 the background, and send delegates who will make the best bargain possi-
 ble.' What kind of a bargain, pray? Shall it be a bargain for future office
 hOldilS2 Just such methods in the past have more than once brought the territories into contempt. If the re- publican party were to have no higher ideals, nor higher purposes, than to provide offices for this or that set of men, every selfrespecting republican would be ashamed of it.
 "The very object of a national con- vention is to give expression to the views of the rank and file of a party, because the rank and file cannot att tend in person, and they must send delegates to express the sentiments of the rank and file. It is only when the party has no choice. and is unable to make a choice, that an uninstructed delegation is justifiable. But so far as Arizona is concerned. since Arizona is for Taft, this territory would make it.
 
 Speaking of Senator FOraker, Gov4 ernor Kibbey said: "All Arizonians who were opposed to joint statehood felt grateful to the senator for his po- sition on that matter. As I probably was as consistent. and as earnest. and risked as much in my opposition to joint statehood as did did any other man in Arizona, I felt particularly biased that Senator Foraker opposed ! it. I felt just as grateful te all the i democratic senators. because happily 1 the exigencies of politics likewise com pelled them to oppose the measure. 1 think. howeover. that common sense | and due regard for principle suggest ! that there is limit to which we should go in the expression of our ! gratitude. I think that no careful ob- | server of political events has any idea that Senator Foraker's alleged | candidacy for the presidency aspires to | any thing beyond the defeat of Judge 1 Taft
 "I know that Judge Taft was ap- posed to joint statehood, and if occa- ! sion were to arise would be opposed to ] it again. and I know that he is friend 1 ly to this territory and its aspirationos i for statehood.
 If the fight for their political lives ! in Ohio by Senators Foraker and Dick should succeed to the extent of carry ! ing that state against Taft-which. ! fortunately, Is an utter impossibility- the result would be the nomination of some other aspirant. That other as- pirant could not possibly be FOraker. It would be Cannon, or Fairbanks, or Knox, all of whom are working with Foraker in the general scheme of the field against Taft. And each of these candidates was for joint state- hood. With Taft defeated, the nom inee might possibly be Hughes; and if weare to judge by his environment and the action of other New Workers. he too would be against us.