The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1916-05-26
WHO SPLIT THE G. O. p?

placed in divers quarters on Colonel
Roosevelt and it is on this score that
so many of the old-line Republicans
have been SO unwilling for so long to
consider him again as a, presidential
candidate. They charge him with the
destruction of the party four years
ago. They have been reluctant to for
give him. And did not this feeling
prevail among not few Republicans,
Colonel Roosevelt's name would
probably be the only one for the pres
identiaI nomination to be presented to
the n-to-assemble Republican ma
tional convention.
But, as matter of fact, was Colo
mel Roosevelt responsible for the
schism of four years ago that temper
arily wrecked the Republican party?
A searching analysis of the facts
surrounding the activities that were
incident to the conduct of the Repub-
Hcan national convention of 1912 does
not seem to indicate.
Certainly such an analysis does not
show that Colonel Roosevelt was
wholly to blame; and there would
appear to be good grounds for the as
sertion that the entire blame belongs
elsewhere.
Whether Colonel Roosevelt's efforts
to obtain the Republican presidential
nomination in 1912 was well-advised
is not a part of the question at issue
He had his rights in the conven-
ton, though. He had been a member
of the party all his life and had serv-
ed it with distinction. It had honored
him generously, it is true. Whether
it had IGNORED him enough is also
question that should not have been
much of factor in the situation; nor
was it.
There was a considerable sentiment
in the Republican party that was of
the opinion it hadn't. How consider
able it was was not disclosed to the
doubters until the votes were counted
on election day.
This count showed that 100000
of the voters in the Republican party
had left it to vote for Roosevelt, while
only 3,400, 900 of the members of the
party stuck to the presidential choice
of their national convention and fol-
lowed their party into the litch-
1t is also a fact that the sentiment
in the party for Roosevelt for presi-
dent was represented in the Repub-
lican convention by a number of
delegates regularly chosen by the
voters of the party, either at pri-
maries or in local conventions
So it will surely be conceded that
Roosevelt had rights in this conven-
ton.
When it appeared that there was
danger of a deadlock in the conven-
ton and a fracture of the party some
Of the wiser heads among the party
leaders on both sides suggested that
party harmony might be preserved If
the names of both Colonel Roosevelt
and President Taft were withdrawn
from the convention and compro-
mise candidate named.
How did Colonel Roosevelt meet
this suggestion?
Did he decline it?
He did not.
He agreed to have his name with
drawn from the convention provided
Taft's name was withdrawn; and pro-
vided further that the rolls of the
convention should be ''purged" and
that only delegates with proper Gre
dentials be permitted to sit in the
convention and name a presidential
| Taft.
Was this an unreasonable request
Think it over!
It is true that some of the contests
for delegates that were made by
I Colonel Roosevelt and his friends were
of f1imsy variety. But not few
of them were based on reason and
justice. And the steam roller that
|
ton treated the latter contests with
the same lack of consideration that
it properly did the former.
Was it unreasonable to ask the
Republican national convention to I'M
do some of the work that may have
been improperly done by its commit
tee on credentials, for the sake. not
only of party harmony. but also in
order that the party might go be-
fore the people of the country with
hands against the cleanliness of which
there could be no suspicion; and with
a candidate, a compromise candidate
in place of either Roosevelt or Taft
who had received his nomination only
from delegates who had a right to
sit in the convention.
Instead of being an unreasonable
request. it had the smack of being q
fair and decent one, didn't it?
But this, and this alone, was the
proposition on which those in contro
of the convention baked.
They were reluctant, it is true, tt
ask Mr.. Taft to permit his name to be
withdrawn, even in the interests o.
party harmony, because they knew
| TO ~ hi !, ri soft
: denomination to which he thought hs
was entitled, and which it seemed tina
, he was. But they probably woult
| have brought this about had they beer
willing to revamp. the rolls of the con
vention.
This they were unwilling to do, re
l gardless of the justice of Mr.. Roose
velt's suggestion that it be done. Per