The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-12-12
WHY THE DIFFERENCE?

We are quite in sympathy with tne
position assumed by Colonel Roosevelt
that the rights OF the voters of Idaho
were violated when the Supreme Court
of that state declared that there was
no lawful way OF putting the names
OF the Roosevelt electors on the Official
ballot. When a considerable portion OF
the voters OF a state wish TO vote Tor
a set of candidates. as the Roosevelt
| supporters in Idaho and the Taft sup
porters in California, there certainly
ought to be lawful and proper means
| for putting the names Of those caudi
dates on the official ballot To refuse
is practically TO deny the right of suf
| frage to the voters who wish TO vote
for the indicated set of candidates; and
| anv election laws which deny the voters
this right are so defective that they
| ought TO be thrown out of court as
vioiative Of the peoples rights; and
the court should order the names upon
the ballot, arbitrarily if need be. For,
the people TO vote for candidates of
their choice is invinlate ia theory and
ought TO be inviolate in practice. 40
law should be affirmed by any court
which denies this inherent right of the
voters To a fair opportunity to express
their viii at the polls
But Coionel Roosevelt $ plea is one
sided and contemplate in that il does
not take the same notice OF an equally
gross violation of popular rights in Cal
ifornia; and the reason why he ig.
nores California and scores Idaho is
plain. That reason is that in Calfor-
MIA be benefited by the unjust laws
and in Idaho he suffered from them
In California the refusal TO put the
Taft electors upon the official ballot
was tremendous aid to Roosevelt,
and. therefore. he ignores the injustice
In Idaho the refusal to put the Roose-
Welt electors on the official ballot hurt
his case and. therefore, he is rampant
and indignant. As a good citizen he
should be equally indignant over the
injustice in California as that in Idaho.
1t does not become man of his pre-
tensions TO support injustice that helps
him and denounce injustice that in
.jures him. Colonel Roosevelt is a Ma.
tional figure. He should be big enough
and broad enough to dcnouDcc injustice
OF the same sort whether it serves his
ends or operates against him. The
fact that he does not rise to the oc
casion and denounce the California in.
justice as roundly as he denounces the |
Idaho injustice, wrecks his plea and |
makes him contemplate before the |
public.
As TO the Idaho Supreme Court, there !
has been too much reason to charge it |
with political bias in the past Tt |
Will ne remembered that when the Dem, |
ocratic party split in that State and |
one faction nominated candidate for |
Supreme Judge against the sitting Judge |
on that bench who had been renom-
mated by the Republicans, that Judge
sat on the hearing, although he was in.
-erested IN it, and threw OFF from the
'f1icial ballot the nominees Of that fac
ion of the Democratic party which had
dominated a candidate against himself,
Affirming tho right OF the Democratic
faction which had made no nominate
against him-a clear bribe. That was a
gross abuse Of legal propriety which
made every candid citizen Of Idaho
rang his head in shame. Aud now that
'ourt IS under the fire OF Colonel Roosc.
'eit for rendering decision which i'm
fleet disfranchised thousands ,Ipon
thousands of Idaho voters in their
'hoice for President of the United
states. In that denunciation bv Colo.
,cl Roosevelt we fully share; but we
that Roosevelt is not the man
o attack the court for committing in
IDAHO precisely what the courts did
n his favor in California. as long as
ie remains silent over the California
outrage, He should denounce both or
ieither; because they are both Of pre-.
'iscly the same character, alike invasive
If the clear rights Of the voters in The
wo States respectively, IL is pity
hat Colonel Roosevelt could not broad
N his mind SO as to take in both bases,
and. give the same denunciation to
that he docs 10 Idaho. But
lie seems to have an obGquity Of vision
which makes everything right that
lelps him, and everything wrong that
5 against him, an unfortunate charac-
eristic which he often manifesis. and
which rs destructive Of the regard IN
which thousands Of candid. patriotic
nen would like TO hold him.