The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-08-27
ROOSEVELT TO TILE COMMITTEE


ROOSEVELT TO TILE COMMITTEE.
1t is unfortunate, indeed, that the
Senate Committee which has been in
vestigating the campaign expenditures
of the Presidential election OF 1904
was not able to hold session so
that Mr. Roosevelt could testify before
it. Instead. he writes Il long letter to
the committee, in which he has the full
control of what he wants TO say. In
this letter, of course, his own version
Of all matters which he touches upon
is given, and all who oppose him will,
as usual, be given the lie This sort
of thing, however, is by no means what
the public either expects or desires.
When Mr. Archbold testified before the
committee, opportunity was given for
cross examination and pertinent queries
were developed, and much new and in
teresting information was obtained
from Mr., Archbod by this specific
questioning. Undoubtedly it is desr-
able to have Colonel Roosevelt give
his testimony orally before the COM
mittee, and for him TO have an op-
portunity to explain a considerable
number Of things that the public wish
to know, but which he, of course,
avoids in his ex parte letter. The
croSs.examination OF witnesses is al
ways a most valuable feature Of any in
vcstigation, and no matter how full or
comprehensive Colonel Roosevelt might
wish to make his letter. it is inevitable
that the very things which he says
will suggest questions that he does not
meet. To be sure, it is stated that
a month or so hence the committee
may get together and hear Colonel
Roosevelt; but by that time the reve
lations made by Senator Penrose and
the testimony of Mr.. Archbold will be
dim and vague in the public mind, and
the Roosevelt testimony will by no
means have the effect that IL probab bly,
would have if he were to testify now
before the committee.
In this connection it may be stated
that Colonel Roosevelt IS denials are so
OFTEN inaccurate, that what he may
say in his letter will not be accepted
as the final word on any question.
These inaccuracies would be fertile
before the committee, 4 sample of
his misrecolectlons is given where
Colonel Roosevelt sneerlngly replied
to Peurose s statement Of the Penrose
activities in the campaign OF 1904, that
Pcnrose chad nothing to do with the
1904 campaign. The fact is, how
ever, that Senator Quay died in May,
1904, before Colonel Roosevelt was
nominated, and Mr.. Penrose succeeded
Senator Quay as the Republican lead
er in Pennsylvania. Therefore, to
say, as Colonel Roosevelt does, that
Penrose had nothing to do with the
1904 campaign is a very curious and
a. very serious mistake; for as chair
man of the Republican State Commit
tee in Pennsylvania, Mr.. Penrose
necessarily had very much to do with
that campaign, precisely as he stated
in his explanation of the use of the
$4,000 received from Mr.. Archbold
Right there is the core of the whole
question. Mr.. Penrose was assailed on
the proposition that he received this
$4,000 as something in the nature of
personal gratuity, this on the mis-
taken notion that he chad nothing to
do with the campaign of 1904. - But
when Senator Penrose shows that he
had very much to do with that cam
paign, and that he received this money
as chairman of the State Committee
whole situation is changed. The Roose
Welt view that Penrose had nothing to
do with that campaign would place
Senator Penrose in the class of men
receiving large personal gratuities fol
iniuuitous public dealing. Mr.. Pen
rose's explanation that he received 1t
as chairman Of the State Committee
and used it in the political campaign
of that year, makes him out simply the
political leader and the one who
naturally and properly received that
campaign contribution, so far as 1T was
proper TO receive such money from
that corporation. The difference
is vital, and Colonel Roosevelt's s mis-
taken idea puts Mr.. Penrose in a cate
CORY to which clearly he does moi
belong. So serious mistake as TINS
makes it necessary for Colonel hoose
Welt s statements to be siftcd by cross
examination; and therefore his failure
to be heard by the committee Is most
serious one The letter is no satisiac
tory substitute for the oral eXamlna
tion that ought to be had.
SUN VAT SEN SAFE.