The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1912-07-25
OFFICIAL COUNTY PAPER
WHAT is THE PARTY?

ItTN -
OF Redfield, against the selection Of
electoral candidates for the republi-
can party in this state not definitely
known to be pledged to vote for
Taft for president. For such as Mr..
Miles there Is certain to be sympathy
by fair-minded persons, eyer if they
cannot agree with his acceptance of
the work of the Chicago convention.
He breathes out no maledictions
against the congressional, state or
county ticket of the republican party.
He is broad enough to recognize that
the republican nominees in this state
have not brought about the predica-
ment over the national ticket in the
United States, and therefore is above
threats OF vengeance upon them.
So far as the theft of the party
name by the Huron convention is
concerned, this paper has already
said that none could dispute 1T was
m act OF political immortality. Ii has
been said further by this paper that
those who committed 1T believed it
would have been an act of greater
political immortality to endorse the
work Of the Chicago convention. Mr..
Miles should remember that one
wrong Ia always likely to breed an
other and he should also remember
that his neighbor may believe that
he would have been DISTINGUISHED il
the Huron convention had endorsed
the Chicago convention.
The Huron convention was con
frOnted by a choice between two
evils. There is much difference oil
opinion as to whether or not 1t chose
the lesser. This dispute The Republi,
can will not undertake to settle. Il
Will say that 1t believes the Huron
convention had In mind the saving o.
the congressional, state and count.
republican tickets.
Our good friend intimates that
The Republican has changed it's base
since the national convention. Let
US see. II there is one statement that
this paper has repeatedly made since
the inception of the presidential
campaign, it is that tho republican
party is entitled to the nomination OF
the man who would poll the larg.
est number of votes In the general
election. In other words, The Repub-
lican consistently asserted that the
candidate OF the majority of the
members of the republican party
should be the party nominee. 1t mat
tered not who he was, this much was
due the party. Any action, then, to
bring about. the nomination of a
favorite candidate regardless of his
standing with the voters, whether he
be Roosevelt or Taft or LaFollette
must constitute disloyalty to party.
Is there any flaw in this reason
Ing? Is this not a statement of the
fundamental principle upon which
any party must conduct it's affairs
II 1t is to survive?
II W e accept the statement that
the party is entitled to the choice of
the voters of the party, does it not
become the essence of d%isloyalty to
the party for any body of mon acting
for the party. whether a committee
or q convention, to take the position
that a certain candidate MUST be
nominated, regardless of the wishes
Of the voters?
What happened at Chicago? The
u%ndeniable figures show that of the
great number of members of the
party expressing a preference, Taft
received only about a third. But even
this would not have prevented the
acceptance OF his nomination, if
those in places of authority had rec
ognized their obligation to the party
to give it its best chance to win in
November. There is disposition to
dispute that there was any real ques-
ton about Taft's control of the Chi
cago convention. But The Republican
does not understand it to be loyalty
Tn the M rfv tn COW h nA wv ,,,;1l o1I.,,.