The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-01-14
ROOSEVELT SHOULD RESPOND.


Wo havo shown heretofore that il Is
tho clear duty of Colonel Roosevelt to
proceed TO Idaho and there, in manly
fashion, challenge the Supreme Court
We find this sentiment exactly con.
CURED in by tho Springfield [Msss,)
Rcpu blcan, which thinks that the
Idaho Supreme Court could have well
afforded placidly 20 ignore Colonel
Roosevelt's diatribc, assuming that IL
was wholly without Justification, mas
much rs nothing he could have said OF
a critical or defamatory nature could
have injured the court under The cx'
isting circumstances. "Tbc people uu-
when in n state of excitement, and
they knew how to discount his fervcn.
uttcrances. The courts in such matters,
should he like the wise, experienced
schoolmasters. who have learned not to
SEQ absolutely everything that goes on.
Continuing its comment, our Massa
chusetts contemporary says:
The country was not wrought up in the
least over the decision, and Mr. Roose-
Vclt's original appeal 10 the American
people ITO prevent the consummation OF
the outrage" left the nation cold. For
the American people had observed that
precisely the same sort OF A raw deal
had been the portion of the Republican
party in California through a decision OF
tho state Supreme Court. No Tat
electors were on the California ballot.
but no ono ever heard single shrek of
protest from Mr.. Roosevelt because OF
the California courts decision.
An of which is very much TO the
point But rs to the outcome Of the
Court s decision, the newspaper men
were sent to Jail and fined $500 each;
but Roosevelt, the chief offender, cs-
capes accountability. On this point the
Republican says:
But the Idaho editors-the martyrs
whose Incarceration draws a throb OF
sympathy from every embattled jour
nJlist's breast-those poor editors arc In
jail While Mr.. Roosevelt storms at the
court again from oyster Bag. What
puzzles one is that he did not go TO
Idaho himself. knowing as he did what
the editors were UP against, and say to
that august tribunal; "Bchodl I am
the guilty man, I, Theodore Roosevelt.
am responsible for the reflections which
court. If anyone is TO be punished. pun
ish me
Now, that is the idea exactly. The
Boise Capital News men were not the
real offenders; Colonel Roosevelt was;
and it was the Roosevelt name that
gave the great prominence to the mat
ter throughout the country. If it had
been simply matter coming from
the Idaho editors, very little interest
would have been taken in it by the
country at large. But the Roosevelt
name gave it notoriety and the noto-
riety OF the case spread from shore to
shore. But the prime offender Is
Colonel Roosevelt. 1t is not manly in
him TO allow others TO suffer in his
cause. Let him come to tho front, go
of the Court just as he does while he
is in New York. Nothing else will sat
lsfy the demands of manly course.
And besides, as we have pointed out,
there is no danger in this to Colonel
Roosevelt, since he can Immediately
take the case into the Federal courts,
and there obtain full justification OF
his freedom as an American citizen in
criticisin2 the Judgment OF the Idaho
court,
AS TO the similar question touched
upon above by the Springfield Repub
lican and certain to arise whenever the
Idaho case is considered, the like case
in California should receive like treat
ment by Colonel Roosevelt. As said
by the New York Evening Post
shouts about another 'infamy" This
shows that ne is well and happy. Unless
they would not be normal. People, how
as he does, and who wish somehow TO
adjust their emotions to the facts. viii
ask what the truth is about the action
Of the Idaho Supreme Court which Mr.
chief complaint is that by q judicial
OF the State election laws
the. people OF Idaho were not permitted
to have an official ballot with his name
a similar decision keeping Taft's name
off the ballot, and about that lnfamy
the Colonel has had never a word TO say
case. by his profound respect FOR the
Judiciary, Anyhow. he ought to see that
he cannot make fish of one decision and
io"l OF the other without lmpairing his
reputation for high impartiality. And
what IS really needed IS a clear state
ment OF the text and intricacIes OF the
Idaho law, under which the judges felt
constrained to decide they did. This
the Colonel has never made pretense
OF giving. It Is SO much easier 10 hurl
epithets from safe distance. and TO
affirm that this case proves that
judges ought 10 be kicked of the bench
whenever the people" don't like the
way In which they declare what the
law is