New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-01-13
Takes Issue with Those w.
Attack Him for Return 70
Republican Party.
owes NOTHING
TO PROGRESSIVFS
Says Bull Moose Entered ia.
Alliance to Defeat Him
for Controller.

NohTo'ier fren1ergast IN a e,tsr I,
Oscar S. straus. answers Progress.
who have criticised him FOR his ,.,.
10 the Republican psrty. Copies Of ..
document are being sent to prom,,..
members Of both organizations throw
out the country. In II he says. !.
Il have neither the time nor the A.
position to exchange epithets with a..
who sit in judgment upon my eonauc,
It is my opinion that the question. a..
should receive our best thought a, :.
present time have nothing yha,.v..
do with personalities. but are concern,
solely with matters Of principle. n.
statements to which refer may b. &C.
married. thus:
"First-That my nomination for n.
controllership was a concession "a a.
Progressive organization. or. to .yp,..
il in another way. my nomlnstio, -.
part Of the municipal spoils avard.s =
the Progressive party.
"Second-That my nomination "a.
brought about by the Progressive ps,,,'
and
"rhird-That, owing my nomina,,os /.
the Progressive party. should n,.
either declined the nomination ar ~.
tinued TO adhere 10 that organization
The Controller insists there Is no, IN
slightest foundation for the staten~.
that his nomination was an avarS /,
the Progressive party, bur. ASSUMING IA,
TO be true. he asks: who was no~,
mated TO represent the Republicans A
the city ticket? He says that men
beers OF the Committee Of One Hunar
and Seven will bear him out in the M.
ment that he was named by them ps-
on the record OF his first term.
AS for his nomination being brons
about by Progressives, the Controllers
serts that many Of those who contrprx
the organization did all they could I.
block il. Some went even 50 far ur
enter into an alliance with William Rx,-
dolph Hearst. the object Of which va
10 nominate Mitchell for Mayor ard Ban
bridge Colby, another Progressive. r.
Controller. Indeed. he declares he W.
nominated not because Of The Prces
sives. but in spite Of them. He then re
ceeds 10 shoot some arrows into tie Pp
gressive pretensions, saying
In regard to the third question. l.
course. maintain that ! never owed r
nomination in any way 10 the Progessn
party. have been Informed that r.
you remarked upon one occasion that
I had declared my unwillingness 10 n
operate further with the ProgrestTs
party II would have afforded that r.
ganzation an opportunity to select szs
one else for the place upon the tlts
which was given to me.
II can hardly believe that when &C.
made this remark you fully apprecss<
its portent, because II shows unms'a
ably that instead Of being interested
civic betterment. and dedcatint thsr'
selves 10 n-partisanship In rnunicr
affairs, as these Progressives would ,"
TO have us believe they did, what W
really had in mind was that they W.
entitled to the Controllership Al pss,'
of political spells.
Now. may l ask you on what ~
would they have been entitled 70 u
When l was elected 10 this po0uo .
was nominated for il BY the Rspsehee
party. ! took part In the formauoa
the Progressive movement cens
first and only Republican in New i@
State holding an elective position
so, and this some time before mos.
our Christian Soldiers had made up u1H
minds whether Armageddon would NJ
greenwood or drywood 10 them. La
entitled the Progressive. TO the o''"
held?
1T seems 10 me that as a 0uesu
logic and fairness. the place rss'u
longed 10 the Republicans. II We ~.
accept the Progressive view 10 "a''
have called your attention
The Controller states II was 70 y
pected that Republicans would % -
full of the course he took In opp's
TO that party in 1912. but an anAn
the election returns from certain cs'
last fall shows that, while ! W.
by Republicans, the knife was ~
TO an even greater extent by tnos'
., - D-o,~os.gva column.