Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-07-15
PETERS REPLY.
Continued from Page One.)

Continued from Page One.)
there was nothing that | could do.
Had your reply been favorable, this
is what / could have done and most
assuredly would have done TO carry
out the plan which | much regrette1
you would not accept:
could and would have enlisted the
services of numerous friends in this
vicinity, who with automobiles We're
prepared to start Immediately, and III
corporation with you obtain the
requisite number of names on your
nomination papers. If you had come
to Ellsworth, on Thursday, tas ! see
by Your telegram of July that you
actually did you could have signed
papers at any time before IL o'clock
p. NJ. and they would have been On
the official ballot at the primary. Il
you had not been able to come over
here / intended to send or take the
I, papers to you at Rockland by auto
mobile so you could sign them and
easily mail them from there, by the
evening of Thursday.
The facts above reeited are not only
stated by me to be true but they may
be easily corroborated by you.
Knowing you to stand for fair play
confidently expect you to withdraw
your imputation that my telegram
was sent too late and as political
trick
note with interest your characters
ization of my proposition as absurd.
on the ground that your principles
differ widely from those of both the
old parties, and that you could not
consistently enter a Republican prim-
ary,-any more than l could a Demo-
cratic.
/ understood from your telegram of
July 9, that the reason for your de-
4clining my proposal was that the
Progressive vote outnumbered the
Republican. This assumption of
#course, Is based upon the fact that
xmore persons, in November. voted
for Mr.. Roosevelt than for Mr.. Taft.
Il regard that fact as not particularly
Simportant at the present time. The
people who voted for Mr.. Roosevelt
and the people who voted for Mr..
Taft all voted against Mr.. Wilson and
We're united in opposing the funda-
mental Democratic doctrines As Mr..
Roosevelt and Mr.. Taft both stood for
protection the difference of last
November, was largely a difference of
candidates. 1t was to avoid having a
difference of candidates among con-
stituents who We're united against
Democratic free trade that | hoped
all anti-Democrats could have a
chance to select at the polls one cam
didate of their choice
hold that principles are more impor-
tant than candidates.
Your letter, however. indicates a pos
slble difference in principles between you
and me. In fundamental principles ! be-
lieve there Is no difference between us.
believe that the doctrine OF protection
should be embedded in the tariff law,
coupled with provisions for elasticity, as
conditions change, through a non-parti-
san tariff board As We are doubtless
united on this proposition, and as the
tariff is the largest issue now in sight,
there would appear to be at least no alb
surdity in our taking the judgment of the
people as to which one of us should be
candidate against a Democrat. II in this
or In any other essential principles We
differ l am unaware of 1t.
u suggested the Republican primary be-
cause there Is no other except the Demo-
cratic, which stands for policies We both
oppose | had hoped you would disre-
gard any mere difference in labels and
refer the whole thing to Republicans and
Trogressives acting together. The name
Republicans" was not abhorrent to you
a short time ago and trust it will not
be so again when new generation grad
naliy steps into the ranks.
observe that you have no objection
to my publishing our Geographic CORE
spondence L supposed that you would
have none. but took the precaution, on
the morning of July 4, TO write You al
Lubec as follows;
Nothing was said about our correspoh-
dence concerning candidates being either
private or public and, as 1t related TO
political matter. have no objection 10
YOUR making it public. and l presume that
you have none in my case,
That letter went to Lubec on the man
leaving at 423 and should have reaeheo
yo,,r place in the evening to be delivered,
the morning of July 5. knowing tha'
Won had gone through to Lubec, the 80,
I supposed that you would remain there,
over the 4th, and be there, the morning
of the 5th / see that my supposltioh was
correct as your last telegram was oateo
at Lubec, July 5. the morning aiter my
letter should have arrived.
waited until Wednesday. the sth' pc
fore publishing the correspondence, as
suming that you would have commune
Gated with me il you had objections. and
waiting also for you 10 publish II your
self II you cared to. ! cannot heip no.
ticing in this connection that in the opne-
ing paragraph of your letter you do not
say that my letter was not received be-
fore your return from Stonngton but You
say that It was unanswered. =