Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1912-07-05
Entitled to Only That Many
Delegates, Says Colonel.
SUMS UP CONVENTION
Roosevelt Claims Majority, But Says
He Was Robbed,
ACTION HELD NOT BINDING
Nomination Should Be Regulated
by Every Man Loving Hon
esty, Says Editorial.


NEW YORK, july 5.-"Mr Taft's Ma
jority; An Analysis" is the subject of an
editorial by Theodore Roosevelt which
appears in the current issue of the Out
look. The writer says in part:
THE Chicago Evening Post and the
Indianapolis Star were originally Taft
papers. They believed that the voters
ought TO choose Mr.. Taft over me in the
primaries. and advocated their doing SO.
But they also believed that the voters
themselves had the right to decide. When
the Taft managers in Indiana stole the
ajority of the delesates for Mr.. Taft
these papers Immediately protested. TAX
ing the same attitude that another paper
which had favored Mr.. Taft, the Spokane
SpokesmanReview, shortly afterward
took in reference to the theft of the
Washington delegates.
Comment Of Post.
THE Chicago Evening Post on June "a
spoke OF the Chicago convention as fol-
lows:
In our judgment that nomina ton was
a tainted nomination. There was in 1t
trickery and fraud. Stripped OF It's prac-
teal essentials, IT was domination
made by minority instead of a majority.
The miserable twenty one votes above the
nominating point which the steam roller
drivers were able to muster fade instantly
away unoer scrutiny from any stanu-
point of representative determination
when | went INTO the contest Tor the
nomination, 1 was of course pitted
against very heavy odds. To start with,
Mr.. Taft had over ND delegates from the
territories and from states controlled by
Federal of1ceholders in which there vas
no real republican party, and he thus
began the contest with nearly half the
necessary number of delegates to nomi-
nate him. In addition he had with him
the votes of certain purely bosscontrolied
states Ike New York. Connecticut, Rhode
Island. Utah, Wyoming and Colorado,
where the voters had no chance to ex-
press their preference land where the
read ng papers were controlled by the
spec al interests, so that the sources OF
general information were choked and the
truth was sedulousy hidden from the
people,. Adding these votes to the others,
Mr.. Taft had nearly 4OJ delesates in
whose selection the people had no say
whatever.
In Primary States.
Nevertheless we started in, making our
fight especially in the primary states.
In these states the rank and file of the
the politicians, and n these states we
Dea. Mr.. Taft on the popular vote over
two to one in a total of 100000 or there
abouts. and in delegates beat him very
nearly in the proportion of seven to one
So overwhelming was our victory In the
states where the people had even partial
chance to express themselves in primaries
tina. We overcame Mr.. Taft's nearly solid
vote from the rotten borough states and
among the boss-picked deae8ates. and OBJ
tanned clear majority Of all the dele
gases elected TO the convention; that Is,
about 3GD delega es. By Mr.. Taits direc-
ton and connivance. and under the per-
sonal superv sion of his private secretary
and one member OF his cabinet. Messrs.
Barnes. Penrose Guggenheim. Crane,
Franklin Murphy and Mr. Taft's osner
lieutenants. proceeded to steal from the
people enough delegates fraudule<ly to
convert my majority into minoritS
Explains the Vote.
"rhe nomina ing vote for Mr.. Taft was
aGl. being II beyond the majority neces-
sary to nominate him. From these u
the first to be subtracted are two votes
which the chairman. Mr.. Root in his
capacity of modern -Autolycus. the
'snapper-ur. OF unconsidered trifies.' took
from Massachusetts. This leaves ma
jority of but -. Tkere were on the
| roll over 80 Taft delegates who had been
defeated by the people as delegates. but
had been seated as such by the national
committee Not one of the 30 men OPP
| posing the Taft delegates had as poor a
title the Taft delegates from the
borough of Manhattan Of the city of New
YorEr AS regards IS Of Them their title
| was absolutely plain, and quite as good
| as the title Of the uncontested Taft dele
gates. Deducting merely the latter num-
Der. Mr.. Taft's vote sinks at once to 4Sl,
or ca less than were required for his
nomination. These 4s1 represent the
| ma ximum of legally obtained votes which
Mr.. Taft could claim in the convention.
1t was 90 votes less than Were necessary
| for a nomination. Not only was the
domination of Mr.. Taft absolutely fraudu-
| and was every motion adopted by the
| fra uduleat national convention.
other Deductions.
| But there aae other deductions which
must be made from Mr.. Taft's delegates
| IL we wish to find out the exact extent to
| which they represented the people. In
| the first place we must deduct the twelve
| votes from the territories which cast no
| electoral votes. This reduces Mr.. Taft's
vote to Ago. Subtract Florida, Georgia.
| Arkansas, louisiana. South Carolina and
| Virginia. where there is no real republic
can party, and Mr.. Taft's vote becomes
100. Subtracting from these the boss
| picked delegates frcm the states where
the people had no choice. there remain
| about seventy delegates, considerably less
| than 10 per cent c. the total number Of
| delegates. 1O7s all told To these seven
| ty delegates and to these only. Mr.. Taft
| was morally entitled. The other seven
| eighths Of his nominating vote came from
| fraudulently seated delegate. delegates
| representing sthtes and territories where
| there Eas no republican vote. and boss
/ picked delegations from states where the
| people had no power TO EXPRESS their will.
/ The conventions makeup was fradu-
| lent; its action was fraudulent, and binds
no republican. and ii should be repudiated
/ by e.ery man who sincerely believes in
| h>neSty.