The Washington times., 1912-09-11
PRINCIPLE, NOT PARTY.

Acting in accordance with the request of Roose-
velt and the Progressive party leaders men interest
ed in the success of the Progressive party move
ment have placed complete State, Congressional and
local tickets in the field in several States. Some OF
these States are Vermont, New York, Ohio, Indiana
Missouri and Illinois. Still other States are pre-
pairing to do the same.
On the other hand, acting upon the advice of the
Progressive party leaders the earnest supporters of
Roosevelt have not placed any third party ticket in
the field but have indorsed the men nominated by
Republican conventions prior to the formation of
the Progressive party Maine is one of such States
Kansas is another, and California another
This apparent inconsistency upon the part of
Roosevelt and the Progressive party has furnished
the old party newspapers excuse and opportunity
to befuddle the publcs mind-and they have readily
embraced the chance.
They say the Progressive party is party of op-
portuniss; that it is thing in State, and the
reverse in another State; that in Maine it supports
the Republican nominees, but in Ohio it demands
that the Republican ticket be knitted; that in Yer
mont Roosevelt demands that his followers complete
ly sever themselves from the Republican party, but
in Iowa he says ne is reconciled to the position Of
Senators Cummins and Kenyon, who are on record
against third party.
Of course on the surface this does appear
contradictory, and while the newspaper writer's who
make this charge know better, great many of their
readers are not conversant with the situation and
accept the accusations as true.
The truth is, there never more consistent
attitude than that which determines these apparent
contradictions within the Progressive party. 1t is
consistency to principle. Take two typical States
as examples-Indana and Kansas
Indiana's Republican party is controlled absolute
ly by reactionaries; the partys State nominees are
reactionaries; the parys Congressional candidates
are reactonaries; the Republican nominees for Leg
isature are reactionaries. They are opposed to all
progressive principles, to the Progressive party and
to Roosevelt.
For the Progressive party to indorse any of these
Republican nominees for State Congressional Of
legislative offices would be to give the principles
the Progressive party the lie and to indorse the prin
cipes of the old, standpat, reactonary Republican
party. Hence, the order goes out to the Indians
Progressves to nominate a complete Progressive
ticket all the way down the line and fight the Repub
lcans and Democrats.
In Kansas the Progressves are in control of tn,
Republican party; they ARE the Republican party
The Republican party was captured by the Progress
sive element long since and the State candidates. th
Congressional candidates. the legislative candidates
although nominated by Republican conventions, ar
as progressive in their views and in their policies
are the Progressive party men in Indiana.
So why repudate the men in Kansas who wer
pioneers of the Progressive party, simply becaus
they bear the name Republican? Why defeat pro
gressve Victor Murdock because he was nominate
by Republican convention which was radically pro
gressive by bringing out another progressive on
Progressive party ticket thus splitting the Progres
sve vote between two men and letting the standpa
tiers of both old parties unite their strength on
one man? Why pursue this same suicidal policy tc
ward the candidate for United States Senator or tn
candidate for governor-when they are progressv,
even though bearing the label of the Republica
party?
1t is not party labels that determine mans prir
ciples Where the old parties are still controlled
reactionary influences and make reactonary nomns
tions there tine Progressive party makes fight fc
all the Offices in order to be consistent
The Progressive party is standing FOR principls
-not' for party emblems or party labels or par
traditions