The Hartford republican. (Hartford, Ky.) 18??-1926, 1912-07-19
ROOSEVELT SHOWS
UP CHICAGO Theft
Backs Up His Charges Of
Fraud With the Facts.
The Colonel INDUCES in Some
Plain Talk in Article in
The Outlook.

New York. July i2.-Theoionc I,pose-
volt further discusses the soaelng nj
contested Obligations In the ItapuJ-
lic.un National Convention at Clicsl.so
In an editorial entitled Thou SHAT
Not stead" which appears In the cur
rent Issue OF the Outlook. lie says in
part
'rlc American people are entitled 20
know that the charge of .stea.ing the
than campaign recuiminaton. and that
tte frauds complnin,d of are much
more serious than the mere repetition
ibf zoos practices which might have
found unfortunate preceden,.s in s,rie
previous oonventions OF both parties.
'S,rou-!y and literally. Presli nj
from the AmcrIoLn ,ople. and tho
rltfApa;ipn or Tet elton of that non,-
nation rais's the critical issuc wl,,,,h :
votes or fraud shall determine the So
lection of American Presidents.
''Pro~i1"nt Taft was rc-nnminatcd by
"A majority of h,rcly twenty-pne votes
and two Of these w,re DubIchty mpcd
at the list moment from Massachusetts
II. therefore. more thin nineteen or
. twenty-one OF his votes were demnnstt,t
~ frlM1uient. all claim to an ,hono,t ma
oority Disappears The demonstration ca,
he mai" az 10 many more ihan tiis
numhnr without touching on "a singh,
honesty dbaiable case.
ARTIFICIAL SUPPORT
This reckoning takes no pcoo,sn, Of
The notorious fact that even the un-
disputed pirt OF MIR. Taft's s,tpoyt
was largely prtiftcil and misrspr,-
sentative. male M OF Delegates from
the outlying possessions. from hope-
lessiy Democratic States. and from
States where the people had been sIc-
cessfrhlly denied the eNpreSsion OF Lh.'r
the four confessaily indefensible eases
of California. Arizona. Washington AMI
Texas, wiiiah alone wape out tn.
margin. All that could he added from
the other cases would only iuoraas So
the Roosevelt majority of the honoSt
convention. hut l wjs,, IL distincL'v
lflsIs tsrufl laat
cases We're clear as the California
case itself.
Three of these cases ware "a ,iir,-t
assault ON the right of she peaphe to
elect their own Delegates aa primaries.
since dn than few soors Ipiitscianrs dc
ctded that the voters as n whole hal
no night themselves TO decide whom
they wished Ia see nominated. In IT,.
California case the dolegatrs to the
national convention were elected BY
direct vote at Statewide prefe,,ntlA
primaries.
"'rhe National Committee inst AMI
then the National Republican Convan-
ton. nulhfied the State law. and tlicre-
fore. by inference. all State primary
laws. In Arizona and Washington the
control Of the State CONVENTIONS de-
pended on which of two rival desega-
tions wene seated from certain oour-
ties the one set elected by hhe Isepuo-
lican VOTERS ut primary Regularly Gale !.
and the nther set arbitrarily anpodntei
by bobting minonities of both commit
tees. The St,ute commitaees. An each
case. seated the appointed delegates.
and the National Committee appnovod
THAT action.
''Prasldept TAFT was nominated by
twenty-one vOtes-or by nineteen, II
the two from Massachusetts, are omit
ted (which were counted only, by the
extraordinary ruling of Chairman Root
and NOT voting his alternate shall be
called 10 vote. always Crowded that al
ternate is a Ta6t man. ana the delegate
4 Roosevelt man.
1.-The cuses here discussed cover. In
their nanrowest application. tllatry
vote,s-Californta 2. Arizona g. W)ash-
lngltan IA and Texas-at-large , 8. The
change of these thinty votes would
). have defaated Taft they would have
reversed all the important actions Of
the conypntion. Several of the dis
trot cases from Texas are involved
IN the Same ruling ~ that which was