The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-07-13
BRYAN VS.. ROOSEVELT
PATRIOT VS.. BULLY
Senator La Toilette Compares Conduct Of Two
Famous Leaders at Chicago and Baltimore
Nathan 81 I Conventions
National Conventions

Washington. July i2.-Under tho
caption The Case OF Mr. Roosevelt,
Senator Latolletto has written the fol =
lowing editorial IN the current number
q LaFoilette's Weekly:
Bryan at Baltimore. foregoing all
chance OF his own nomination. mar
shelling all his forces. Drawing Tam
many and the trusts. 10 rescue his
party from their domination. carrying
the convention for tho adoption OF the
most progressive Democratic platform
set offered, and the nomination OK the
most progressive Democratic cand'-
cate available. was . towering figure
o, moral power and patriotic devotion
TO civic righteousness.
Roosevelt at Chicago. backed W
money derived from tho stock water
ing operations OF tho Steel Trust ana
the Harvester Trust. organizing what
are now confessed to have been fake
contests as 10 nearly two hundred
delegates IN order to control the Re
publican convention and secure his
own nomination, refusing 10 aid I'm
making progressive platform, bound
,c have the nomination or destroy the
Republican party. was q most striltinp.
example or misdirected power ana I'M
worthy ambition.
Roosevelt had as great an oppor-
,unity TO serve tho progressive cause
at Chicago as Bryan had at Baltimore.
But Roosevelt was serving the man.
not tho cause. lie wanted one thing
ne wanted the nomination. And yet
&c did not have enough votes 10 nom
mate himself upon any honest haste
lie did have enough delegates in that
convention ultimately TO have nomt-
mated real progressive and adopted
strong progressive platform lie
could even have nominated Hadiey on
such n platform. and progressive Re
publicans could have supported ;Iadlev
In much tho same spirit rs hundreds
OF thousands of them Will now sup
port Wilson. Neither Hadley nor
Wilson arc veterans In tho progress
sive ranks Neither OF them has been
tried by the sererest tests Both ap-
pear TO bc men OF hign Ideals whose
records. though short. give promise.
But Roosevelt would not consider
Hadley. He would have no one but
himself At the first suggestion or
Iiadley he ordered tho third party
nianeuvcrs lest lie lose his followers
If he had tho evidence to rrove
that Tart could not be honestly and
fairly nominated, why did he not direct
his lieutenants to present that evi-
dence to the National Committee, and
/ then to the convention and the coun-
try so clearly that the convention
would not have dared to nominate
TAFT and that Taft could not, in
honor. have accepted the nomination,
II made
Tho reason Ia obvious An analysis
Of the testimony viii. am. convinced.
show that neither Taft nor Roosevelt
had majority OF honestly or regu-
larly elected delegates. This the man
ayers upon both sides well under
stood. Each candidate was trying to
scat n sufficient number OF fraudu-
lcntly credentiaiod delegates. added to
those regularly chosen to support him.
to secure control Of the convention.
and "steamroll" the nomination. 1t
was a proceeding with which each was
acquainted, ana which each had sane
toned in prior conventions.
This explains the extraordinary
conduct of Roosevelt. He could not
enter upon such an ANALYSIS OF tho
evidence az would prove rafts rcgu-
larly elected delegates In the minority.
without inevitably subjeotins his own
sruricusly credcntlalcd delegates to an
! examination so critical as would ex-