New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-02-24

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: With the advance notices heralding
it as the keynote speech marking the open
ing Of the Republican national campaign, the
address delivered by Senator Root at the
Republican State Convention must be of espe-
cia interest.
OF equal interest to the writer, however
your pithy editorial upon that speech.
under the caption, THE Issue"
Splendid words, those of Mr. Root well
and truly spoken. And detract not one
whit from the praise properly t be accorded
to Mr.. Root for having spoken them when |
say that they were. after all. the iteration OF
the views expressed with characteristic vigor
and fearlessness for the last nineteen months
by Theodore Roosevelt. With his unsurpassed
skill as an advocate, Mr.. Root It's admirably
summed up the case rhich Colonel Roose-
welt, practically single-handed among our
public men, has been trying before the coun-
try for more than one and one-half years
The Tribune has affirmed that the Root
speech defines and declares the fundamental
issue Of the impending national campaign to
be "Americanism versus Cowardice" You
pungently state: "The Republ can party of
the nation cannot repudiate Mr.. Roots
speech and Mr.. Roots opinion without openly
and frankly confessing a mora. cowardice
as great as that which their opponents have
displayed"
Your warning is proper and timely. 1t
cannot be too strongly emphasized. But will
the Republican party impart a vitalizing
force and effect to the phrases of its spokes-
man? Or will it make of them the cheap.
empty yainglorious mouthings of pretence
and Hypocrisy?
But are there not disquieting conditions
indicative of the fact that certain elements
within the Republican party are, even now
operating to make their partys actions belle
its spokesman's words? For, scarcely twenty
four hours after the deiverance of those
words. we behold the most powerful group Of
leaders in the convention which heard them
headed by Mr.. Barnes openly indorsing
Elihu Root for the Presidential nomination
of their party.
Does this Sem consonant with an accept.
ance Of the principles 50 strongly enunci-
ated by Mr.. Root in the hearing of those
self-same leaders? Do they deliberately pro-
pose. after all, to foredoom 10 defeat their
campaign for Americanism by making the
hght behind the candidacy of Mr. Root?
Have they already forgotten that the product
Of the Constitutional Convention OF last
summer of which Mr. Root was the recog-
nized guiding spirit. and for whose work he
was conceded to be largely responsible -
was rejected by the electorate of this state
By probably the most overwhelming adverse
vote ever cast upon any proposition sub
mtted 10 that electorate?
Ii these leaders have so forgotten, you. Mr..
Editor. lnow full we'll that the people have
not suffered similar lapse Of memory
Neither have they forgotten the leading role
played by Mr. Root in the sordid drama
staged at the Chicago convention of 1912
when a miserably small clique of party
bosses, through mere control of the machin-
cry OF the convention. contemptuously tram
pied upon the will of their party's voters
as voiced through the primary ballot box
all over the country.
Then there is the continued agitation
within Republican ranks for the nomination
Of Charles F. Hughes. The remarkable per-
slsteney with which his candidacy is being
urged, in the face OF his oft-repeated asser-
tons that he is "out Of politics" and is not
a candidate for any political Office, gives rise
to several pertinent queries
Are the members OF his party skeptical as
70 the sincerity OF Hughes's assertions? II
not, are they DESTROYS Of Aouting the high
proprieties which he apparently prefers to
strictly observe? Or do they interpret his
expressions as falling short Of an unequivocal
declaration that ne would not accept the
nomination for President were il offered to
him, even though he may have done nothing
TO influence the offer?
Justice Hughes owes it primarily to the