Arizona republican., 1911-10-08

the current week there is an elabOr-
ate attack on President Taft by Gift
ford Pinchot. It is an adroitly
phrased article, but it will not bear
analysis, and will not mislead any
but the prejudiced or the thOughtless.
The sum and substance of Mr.
Pinchots charges is that Mr. Taft is
a "reactionary," and that he is an
enemy of conservation. He establishes
to his own satisfaction that Mr. Taft
IS a ''reactionary" from the fact that
two years ago in his Boston speech
the president said something in COM
pliment to Senator Aldrich, and in
his Winona speech-WinOna being the
home of Congressman Tawney-he
said some nice things of Mr.. Tawney;
and inasmuch as Mr.. Roosevelt was
not liked by either Aldrich or Tawney
Pinchot concludes that Mr. Taft could
not possibly say anything agreeable
about Aldrich or Tawney without
showing himself a traitor to the
Roosevelt policies" And of course
the presidents approval Of the Payne
Aldrich tariff bill is cited as addi-
tional proof that he is a "reactionary."
The ex-forester skilfully passes over
the presidents frequently expressed
explanation that his official signature
To the tariff bill by no means i'm
piled his personal approval of the
measure in all its details. and that
he signed it simply because it was
the best bill obtainable at the time:
and no attention is paid in the maya
zine article to the presidents states
manlike policy of providing for tariff
reform on rational lines by first Sc
curing from n non-partisan board Of
tariff experts a report covering
the whole subject. Finally, Mr..
Pinchot proves that Mr.. Taft is
''reactionary' by citing the fact that
during the closing weeks Of Mr..
Roosevelts administration, Mr.. RoOse-
NtlL WIS NlDltINlN NllAlNlStu III UoAll
houses Of congress and Mr.. Taft did
nothing to stop it" Presumably. in
Mr. Pinchot's judgment, the president
elect ought to have haunted the cor
ridors of the capitol, club in hand.
for the purpose of subduing the out
going presidents enemies.
Mr. Taft is undoubtedly an enemy
Of conservation, according to Mr..
Pinchot, because he appointed Mr..
BaIlinger to be secretary of the in
terror But Mr.. Pinchot assumes that
the mere mention Of Ballinger is suf
ficient TO prove that the appointment
of that gentleman was a blow at con-
servation-he sidesteps the fact that
under Secretary Ballinger more land
was withdrawn from entry, to be held
for purposes Of conservation, than
during the whole OF the preceding
administration. The ex-forester could
not very we'll pass over the appoint
ment of the Hon. Walter L. Fisher
as Mr. Ballingers successor-and Mr..
Fisher having been the executive
head of the national conservation as
ISOLATION, II is admitted that his ap-
pointment was an admirable one. But
notwithstanding the Fisher appoint
ment. Mr. Taft is an enemy Of con-
servation-Pinchot says so, and what
Pinchot says goes" Mr.. Pinchot
also fails to mention that Secretary
Fisher and President Taft are work
ing out plan for the mining of coal
in Alaska under a leasing system
whereby all the sound principles of
public interest protected. monopoly
prevented. and the needs Of coal con-
sumers in the Pacific coast country
supplied
The Pinchot article is full of ref
erence to the Roosevelt policies
and full of laudation of the ex-
president. But the ex-forester might
be considered a more reliable witness
against the president in the matter
of conservation if one did not re-
member Mr. Roosevelt's own descrip-
ton Of Pinchot: 20, Pinchot has be-
come unbalanced on the question of
conservation"
The magazine article is strangely
silent on the one question concern
ing which the public would like to
hear from Mr. Pinchot. 1t has been
repeatedly charged that Pinchot is a