The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-09-12
ROOSEVELT ON sUIzER

Colonel Roosevelt has addressed an
open letter to Governor Sulzer Of New
y lork. in which he calls upon SulZer
to come forward manfully and meet tho
charges made against him, to scr him
self right before the public by vindi-
eating his honesty and good faith.
IL is altogether appropriate that Colo
mel Roosevelt should thus call upon
Governor Sulzcr, since the Colonel vol
UNFAIRLY came TO the support Of Gov
ernor Sulzer during the summer in his
fight for primary law in New York.
Working with Sulzer TO this common
purpose, Colonel Roosevelt has the
right 10 demand that Sulzcr shall free
himself from the charges and make
such public declaration as would be
calculated to restore him in the public
confidence, But Governor Sulzer does
not rise to the invitation; he sulks,
saying that his defense will appear in
his Impeachment trial. This, however,
is not the frank, candid, manly way
in which to meet Colonel Roosevelt g
very proper and straightforward de-
TO ignore the demands Of his friends
and co-workers in this way. Many of
them have called upon him to do pre-
ciscly what Colonel Roosevelt now calls
upon him to do, come to the front with
his statement that will clear him from
the charges which are made, He does
not do himself Justice and he does not
meet the expectations Of his friends
when he refuses the invitation to make
such statement in his own behalf.
Colonel Roosevelt, pursuing the theme,
uses the situation to direct attention
to the imputed disadvantage Of i'm
peachment compared with the recall,
arguing that In the case Of Governor
SulZer the recall would be far more
direct and fair than impeachment. In
this we consider that Colonel Roosevelt
is entirely wrong, and that his effort
to show greater desirability in the re-
call than in impeachment utterly fails
in this case. For the impeachment trial
Of Governor Sulzer will be specifically
and solely upon the articles of i'm
either acquitted or convicted, accord
ing as he is found innocent or guilty
Of the definite charges made, IF proof
lacks, then he must be acquitted; if
proof is made, then conviction Is in
evitable.
On the other hand, IL it were mat
ter Of recall, the questions involved
in the Sulzer case would be entirely
lost sight of in the bitter fight which
would be Immediately sprung OF The
People versus Tammany. So far as
the case Is we'll defined In the public
minds Of the voters of New York, il
is q question as between vicious and
corrupt Tammany and n victim which
it seeks to punish. Sulzer is that vic
tim, and sympathy would be awarded
to him accordingly, and the charges
against him would be entirely lost sight
Of IN the general fight of Tho People
versus Tammany. 1t is precisely such
case as the voters of New York could
not and would not determine upon it's
merits. They would determine the case,
IL II were 10 rCCHIl vote, on
the general lines as above Indicated.
They would not consider the specific
charges against SulZer at all; but if
they were really brought in, they would
be considered as simply the Tammany
case against Sulzer. and would be re-
pudiated by the antl-Tammany voters
simply because Tammany had brought
them. This would be the natural and
inevitable issue in New York in case
it were the question of recall before
the voters, and we are surprised that
Colonel Roosevelt should fail to see this
patent and necessary alignment; to
sense the fact that it would be impos-
sible to avoid making it in fact a
fight simply against Tammany in case
the Sulzer case was submitted to popu-
lar vote.
PERILS OF JURY SERVICE.