Arizona republican., 1911-06-19
Tn. Times and the co.onsI.

llt 4-t> -AI6Fl0- i alllNTB II ny ms ~
an article in last weeks Outlook, at
some length administers to Col. Roose-
welt the severest rebuke the colonel
has received in the course Of his long
and active public career.
Friends Of Mr.. Roosevelt and read
ers of the Outlook viii agree that it
was invited-we were about TO say
provoked
The Outlook article. and not the
first one on the same subject by the
way. deals ostensibly with the case of
the alleged dynan.ters. but ii was in
reality a vigorous attack upon the
alleged reactionary policy Of the
Times which the colonel declares
has again and again shown it
self 10 be as much an enemy
10 good citizenship. honest. decent
government and every effective ef-
Tort TO secure fair play for working
men and women as any anarchist
could show himself"
The Times takes for its text these
words from Col Roosevelt's article.
IF the Times building Was dyna-
mited, then those who did the work
should be punished" The Times OBJ
jects particularly to the use OF the
word If, pointing to the finding OF
the coroners inquest and the report
of the grand jury. both OF which
agree that the building was dyna-
mited. The Times states that if the
colonel had expressed a doubt whether
the men accused of the dynamiting
were guilty. that would have been as
proper as it would be improper for
the Times to assert that the accused
men are guilty.
But an attempt to raise a doubt as
10 the cause OF the destruction and
death that October morning, is an
attempt TO conceal the corpus deficit
and so shield the guilty parties who
ever they may be.
The Times dwells at some length
upon the Inconsistencies and shift
ness Of the colonel, citing especially
the interest he took, adverse to the
defendants Meyer, Haywood and Pet
tibone. while their case was on
trial, denouncing them as "undesir-
able citizens" Now, the Times be
Iieves, the colonel is ~groveling al the
feet OF Gompers" To the end that he
may earn the appreciation of that
class. which ne formerly designated as
undesirable"
Ia its indignation the Times. We
believe. has overlooked one phase
or fault Of the Outlook article which
Is a repetition OF one that appeared
in the first article on the Times case
Some months ago. There was de-
nunciation of the crime of dynamit-
ing followed in the first article by
criticism of the course of the Times.
not so much with respect to its atti
tude toward organized labor as to-
ward some of the so-called progress
sive policies.
Ii naturally occurred to disinter
ested and thoughtful readers at that
time that the colonel had erred SER
iously What had the policy of the
Times with respect TO any matter
- h.
or innocence OF those charged with
the destruction Of the Times build
ing and the murder Of twenty-one
persons?
Why, il the colonel were discus
sing the incident at Los Angeles, eth
or as an accident or an abhOrrent
outrage, did he introduce his opinion
of the policy of the Times at all?
II the colonel did not offer the
unworthiness of the Times as a jus
tification Of an outrage. he fell into
the error frequently committed by
young and unskillful lawyers, OF
introducing matter wholly irrelevant
and we can hardly believe that it
was the purpose Of the colonel to
find justification for the most horrible
crime Of the century.
1t will strike the average man that
the coloneTs reference TO the Times.
policies and the expression Of his
disapprovaI Of that newspaper were
not only wholly irrevelant but were
in exceedingly bad taste as part Of
an article on the subject of dynamit-
ing If II was necessary or desirable
TO criticise the Times, that criticism