Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1913-07-16

consistently enter republican primary any
more than could democratic.
Understood from your telegram Of July
that the reason for your declining my pro-
posal was that the progressive vote out
numbered the republican. This assumption
OF course Is based upon the fact that more
persons in November voted for Mr. Roosevelt
than for Mr.. Taft. / regard that fact rs not
particularly important at the preseat tire.
The people who voted for AR. Roosevelt aud
the people who voted for MIR. TAN all voted
against Mr.. Wilson. and we're united in
opposing the fundamental democratic doc
tripes. A Mr.. Roosevelt and MIR. Taft both
stood for projections, the difference OF last
November was largely difference Of candi-
dates. IL was TO avoid having difference Of
candidates among constituents who were
united against democratic free trade that
hoped all anti-democrats could have chance
to select at the polls one candidate Of their
choice.
hold that principles are more important
than candidates. 1our letter, however, In
dieates possible difference in principles
between you and me. In fundamental prin-
cIptcs believe there 10 no difference between
| us. believe that the doctrine OF protection
| should be embedded 10 the tariff Law, coupled
with provisions for elasticity, as conditions
change, throusha non PARTISAN tariff board.
As we are doubtless United on this PROPOSE
,ion, and as the tariff is the largest issue now
| in sight, there would appear to be At least no
absurdits in our taking the Judgment Of the
people as to which one OF Us should
| be candidate against a democrat. II In this
or any other essential principles we differ.
| am unaware OF IL.
1 -
| cause there IL no other except the democratic.
which stands for policies we both oppose,
/ had hoped you would disregard any mere
difference in "lsbcls. and refer the whole
| thing to republicans and progressives acting
together. The name republican" was not abb
I horrent 10 you a short time ago, and trust II
will not be so sgain when = new generation
| gradually steps into the ranks.
Iobserse that you have no objection 10 my
publishing our teiegraphic correspondence.
| supposed that you would have none. but
took the precaution on the morning OF July 4
10 write you At Lubec as follows; "Nothinv
was said about our correspondence concern
| ing candidates. being either private or public,
and. as il related to political matter. I have
| 40 objection to your making Il public, and
presume that you have none in my case
| That letter went TO Lubec on the mail iesv-
| ing 1t half-p four, and should have reached
your place in the evening 10 be delivered the
| morning Of July s. Knowing that you bad
| gone through 70 Lubec the ID, supposed that
| you would remain there over the &th and be
| there the morning Of the 5th. see that my
supposition was correct. your last teie-
| gram was dated at Lubec July s, the morning
after my letter should have arrived.
| waited until Wednesday, the 9Th, before
| publishing the correspondence, assnmins
/ that you would have communicated with me
| II you had objections. and waiting also for
| you TO publish II yourself II you cared to.
cannot help noticing in this connection
that in the opening paragraph OF your letter
| you do not say that my letter was not received
before your return from stonin gton. bat yon
say that II was unanswered.
IcheerfuIly publish this supp Elemental cor
respondenee as you suggest, and will en-.
| deasor 10 give it as much publicity as the
kilograms attained.
Yours very truly,
| JoHS A. PETERS.