The daily star-mirror. (Moscow, Idaho) 1911-1939, 1913-01-30

third method of making nominations
and that is by petition. 1t was thei1
effort to get their nominees for con-
gress and for presidential electors
named by petition, upon the official
ballot, that the supreme court frus-
trated by its decision.
Now, what was the law relating to
nomination by petition, and what were
the facts? The law provides that can
didates may be nominated by petition,
provided the requisite number is OBJ
tanned of MISUNDERSTANDING pre-
scribed for different offices-of, quail
flied electors who have not joined in
/ the nomination of any other person
| for the same office. But here comes
| the cruX of the case. The Idaho stat
ute relating to nominations by petit
ton contemplated only state offices"
1t did so by general description and
also by specific detail-so many sigma
lures for this office, so many for the
other. For the nomination of con-
gressmen and presidential electors the
Idaho laws made other provision.
They could not come under the sec
ton covering nomination by petition
unless they were state officers" The
progreSsives, in their desperate legal
straits, graWely contended that con-
gressmen and presidential electors
were, in fact, state officers, but the
court had no difficulty in showing that
law and constitution and precedent
were dead against that contention
Roosevelt, justice, to the contrary not
withstanding. To quote the language
of the unanimous decision of the Idaho
supreme court:
Having treated candidates for
congress throughout the direct pri-
mary election law and statutes of |
the state as separate and distinct Of |
fees, which they are, from state Of
fees and then having omitted candi-
dates for congress and presidential
electors from section 1856 of the stat
lite, which authorizes nomination for
state offices by petition, it is evident
hat the legislature has not intended
% authorize the nomination of candi-
dates for presidential electors and
members of congress by petition. :.
The rule is too well recognized and
understood everywhere to even require
epetition that the expression of one
hing is the exclusion of another"
On the basis of that exposition of
he law of Idaho, the supreme court
uled that the progressive nominations
y petition for state offices should be
laced on the official ballot, but that
ne nominations for congress and for q
residential electors should not
The supreme court of Idaho did not
ay whether it thought the law wise T
r foolish. 1t merely pointed out in .
long and calm opinion what was the
ecessary intendment of the statute. n
is not probable that Roosevelt had
yer read the Idaho election laws.
is certain that he had not read the
III text of the decision of the court
hich he branded as Outrageous" 81
+ it was not printed until after his o.
licago explosion. What happened
Idaho was very like what hap
ned in California. The sudden or
of the progressive party,
thing never contemplated by the
revealed defects In the
action statutes. In Idaho they OPP
ated, under Interpretation by the
urts, against the progressives, and "
:. Roosevelt screamed about the
ghtful injustice. In California, as ct
.erpreted by the judges, they oper-1
I'd against the republicans, and H
'osevelt had never a word to say.
for the Idaho case, the plain tale M
the law and the facts and the rea-
ming of the courts is all that is nee .
,ary to show how ill-informed Mr.
osevelt was, as well as how reck-
/, cruel, and incendiary. &c