Polk County observer. (Monmouth, Polk County, Or.) 1888-1927, 1912-10-25
THE REAL TRUTH
ABOUT DELEGATES
THE ATTEMPT THAT WAS MADE
TO STEAL THE NOMINATION
FOR ROOSEVELT.
SCORES OF FAKE. CONTESTS
Evidence of Attempted Thefts conclu
sive and Overwhelming, While
President Taft's Title Is
Honest and Clear.

Why is it that thousands of column.
have been printed and innumerablt
speeches delivered charging the Ma
tional Committee and the National Re
publican convention with the theft Of
something like seventy delegates
while practically nothing has appeared
in print or been heard upon the plat
form about the attempted theft Of
more than twice as many delegates or
the part of the Roosevelt managers?
Is not the attempt to steal, deter
mined effort to steal, as culpable NOR
ally as an actual theft?
The evidence is absolutely conclu
sive that the nomination was moi
stolen for President Taft.
The evidence is just as conclusive
that deliberate plan was formed, Of
which he had full cognizance, to steal
the nomination for Col. Roosevelt, a
crime which would have been perpe
trated except for the courageous hon
esty of the members of the National
committee and of the credentials com.
mittee of the national convention.
Truth Should Be Known.
If these statements are startling it
Is because they are new and not be-
cause they are not true Col. Roose-
velt is a postmaster in diverting at
tention from himself by noisy and
terrifying assault upon others. But
the tumult and the shouting have died
away and it is time now for the coun-
try to know and consider the truth.
And the truth is that very early in
the pre-convention campaign the
Roosevelt managers laid their plans to
prepare the public mind for the charge
that the nomination had been stolen,
provided it went to anybody but
Roosevelt, They did this by instigat-
ing great number of contests, utterly
fake contests without, as it was after
wards admitted shadow of ground
upon which to rest.
The purpose for which these con,
tests were instigated was frankly
and cynically avowed, even while they
were still under consideration, in a
dispatch from Chicago, written by
Judson C. Welliver, one of the most
ardent Roosevelt supporters. In this
dispatch, which was sent to Mr.. Mum
sey's Washington Times, Mr.. Welliver
said:
For psychological effect, as a move
in practical politics, it was necessary
for the Roosevelt people to start con-
tests on the early Taft selections in
order that a tabulation of delegate
strength could be put out that would
show Roosevelt holding a good hand
in the game.
"A table showing Taft, $50; Roose-
welt, 10; contested, none, would not
be very much calculated to inspire con-
fidence, whereas one showing Taft,
%; Roosevelt, 19; contested, 1877
looked very different"
Contests Were Pure Fakes.
In other words, here is frank avow-
al that nearly two hundred contests
had been instigated "for psychological
effect" as move in practical poll
tics" to deceive the people into think
ing that Col. Roosevelt had support
when in fact he did not have it-un-
terly fake contests, started for a frau
dulent purpose and with the full knowl-
edge on the part of Col Roosevelt
that their only reason for existence
was to deceive the people and to pre-
pare the way for the cry of fraud
when they were decided against him.
This is severe language but it g not
more severe than the facts warrant;
for of the 234 contests instigated by
the Roosevelt managers, 1872 were
thrown out by the unanimous vote of
the National committee, the Roosevelt
men joining with the Taft men In de-
claring that they had no ground what
ever upon which to rest. In the face
of this questionable record, is there
not full warrant for charging that the
Roosevelt managers, with the knowl-
edge and consent of their chief, at
tempted to steal the nomination?
The command Thou shalt not steal"
certainly implies the further command
ment, "Thou shalt not attempt to
steal?" And with this attempt to
steal so indelibly branded upon him,
what consideration should be given
the charges of theft which Col Rcose-
welt makes against another?
Some Of the Decisions.
Why are the friends Of President
Taft called upon to defend him, for
example, from the charges of having
stolen the Indiana delegation when 1
the Taft delegates we're seated by the |
unanimous vote of the committee, Col. I
own supporters declaring .
the Roosevelt contestants had no
shadow Of claim to the seats? Why /
should 1t be necessary to defend the
president against the charge Of stolen
delegates in Georgia when only two
put Of the SO members Of the commit
tee voted against the Taft delegates?
In no case did Col. Roosevelt make a
louder cry Of fraud than in the Michi-
gan case and yet there again his own
friends on the committee declared
he Taft delegates we're without doubt
entitled to their seats.
Why even should IT be necessary to
inter a defense Of the California case?
This is the one in which the most
noise has been made and yet Il was