Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1912-10-19

The present squabble between the
Republicans and the Progressives over
electors emphasizes the fact that there
are many conditions which may arise
that the fathers never foresaw when
they made the constitution, conditions
which carry with them no light to
guide in their solution. When we read
that the North Dakota electors chosen
at a Republican primary declare that
II they are elected they will vote for
the Progressive candidate, and when
we consider that this will force the
electors supporting the regular Repub-
: lican ticket to secure their nominations
by petitions and run as independents.
1t will appear how badly things may
be mixed up.
The Progressive electors justify
their position by saying that they were
chosen by the progressive Republicans
of North Dakota. and with the inten-
ton that they should vote for Theo-
dore Roosevelt for president on the
Republican ticket. They assert that
they feel that he was defrauded Of the
nomination. and that his candidacy on
another ticket therefore does not wipe
out their obligation to vote for him.
They admit that If they failed to give
the voters of the state bill of par
ticulars beforehand OF their intentions
if elected, they would then be bound to
vote for Taft, but declare that having
stated their position they are perfectly
justified in continuing on the ticket
of the party that nominated tlem, and
will be justified in voting for Roose-
welt if they are elected.
Claim It 10 Unfair.
The Republicans answer that this is
not at all fair. that it is stealing the
livery of heaven to serve the devil
They assert that IL the North Dakota
electors are Progressives they have no
more right to go before the voters on
Republican ticket than the Republic
cans would have of running on a Pro-
gressive ticket. They contend that 1t
is the very height of absurdity for the
Progressives to masquerade as Repub-
licans and force the Republicans to run
as Independents.
The situation in Missouri is little
different, the electors nominated by the
Republicans pledging themselves to
vote for Taft If their votes will elect
him, but not otherwise. The Kansas
situation is like the one in North Da-
kota. But what is to be done about it
all? The constitution leaves the mat
ter to tire state legislatures. and as
long as they are satisfied, where does
any other remedy lie? Furthermore.
there is not word in the constitution
about party affiliations or party pledg-
es, SO what can be done about it? The
only time ii becomes any business of
the federal government is when state
fails to settle by Legislative enactment
the means of adjusting any disputes by
election day, or when such disputes are
not settled within six days of the meet
ing of the electoral colleges. And even
this is legislative enactment rather
than a constitutional provision.
The present campaign has demon
strated the need of change either
abolishing electors entirely or definite
ly fixing their duties and responsible
ties under our present system of presi-
Dental choice. Yet the experience of
the past holds out no hope that either
result can be brought about through
the amendment of the constitution
A problem that has arisen on at least
two occasions, and which may arise in
more serious form than heretofore, is
that OF determining when the house
gets control of presidential election
In 1857 there were members who in
sisted, while the wrangle over the vote