The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-10-14
AN INCONSISTENT oUTCRY.

Colonel Roosevelt s self -centcrcd ego.
tism, his proneness TO apply the stan
dard of his own selfish interests to
any public question, was never quite so
completely and glaringly manifested as
in his outcrv against the Idaho proceed.
ure which rules his electors of the Off
cial ballot iu that State. Now it is
quite true that the Idaho procedure is
utterly vicious and bad, The fact that
the courts have affirmed that procedure
and that the law is such as to require
that court Judgment, does not in the
least mitigate the obpoxiousness of tho
procedure. A large fragment of the
voters of Idaho arc deprived of their
right TO vote for Colonel Roosevelt by
the elimination of the Roosevelt elec-
tors from the Presidential ticket. This
is utterly wrong, and all of the legis-
lation which admits Of such suppress
sion Of the popular vote is evil with
out exception. The Tribune has FIRE.
Quently denounced all that sort Of leg.
islatiou. and has objected to the ton
election legislation for many years past,
to curtail the liberty of voting and prac.
tically TO coerce the voters into voting
regular party tickets. We are decidedly
Of the opinion that the old practice of
allowing every party to get up its own
tickets and every individual to get up
a ticket for himself. without any Off.
cial ballot at all. was decidedly prefer.
able 10 the election procedure which we
now have under so-called reform lcgis-
lstion
And so we approve most heartily Col.
oncl Roosevelt S outcry against ihc in
Justice of the Idaho procedure which
practically disfranchiscs large por-
tion Of the voters of that State so far
as the Presidential ticket is concerned.
But how about California! Precisely
the same thing is done there but in the
opposite direction. In California the
Taft electors are ruled off the official bal.
lot aud the Roosevelt electors are put
on as part of the Republican ticket.
What has Colonel Roosevelt to say about
this9 So far he has said nothing, and
yet it is precisely the same thing done
in California that he protests against
so vehemently when done in Idaho.
How is that for au advocate Of the
square deal, the man who makes his the
slogan, 'Thou shalt not steal,n and
poses as the reformcr par excellence
and the purist in politics beyond com
pare9
a man who has so much to say about
the square deal and who processes TO
carry the moral code with him into
politics, surely ought not to make a
contradiction like this in his own acts
and procedure. It certainly is no worse
to disfranchise Roosevelt men in Idaho
than it is to disfranchise Taft men in
California. And yet Colonel Roosevelt
makes a loud and vehement protest
against what is done in Idaho and re
mains In complacent silence about what
is done in California. His code seems
to be that anything is proper and right
that serves his interests, no matter how
evil it may be in itself, and anything
that is against him is utterly vile and
vicious, no matter how much it may be
paralleled otherwise in his own favor,
or how much it may be according to
usage and law.
II Colonel Roosevelt bad come out
with rousing deuunciation of the dis
frapchisement Of voters both in Califor-
MIA and Idaho, he would have placed
himself in an impreguable position be-
fore the country. As it is, since he
denounces only the Idaho procedure and
maintains satisfied silence with re
gard 10 California, he makes himself
contemplate before the public and ut
terly bellies his affected insistence upon
"sduare deal' Clearly his rule Of
action is the rule Of utter selfshncss
and the cry for a square deal is sim'
ply put Oh for purposes of imposture
and to mislcad the voters, sort of
self.centered, eager grabbing which ut
terly fails TO he square when practically
applied For, why is it so utterly
damnable to disfranchise Roosevelt vo
ters in Idaho, and so completely praise
worthy TO disfranchisc Taft voters ii
| California?