¥
Mr. Roosevelt is not the man to bear
such a slight in silence. He evidently
felt that Mr, Taft's violation of the im
plied agreement released him, and since
his return from Africa his chief ambi
jon seems to be to prevent the Presi.
dent's re-election. Whatever may havp
been the cause of Mr, Taft's change of
front it is natural that bis anger should
be aroused by Mr. Roosevelt's biting ac-
cusation. He has, however, gone far he-
vond what might have been expected
from one of his disposition, The speeches
made by him and Mr. Roosevelt in the
contest for delegates pained the friends
of both--so lacking were they in the
dignity that is supposed to attach to the
highest office in the land. The newspa-
pers in foreign lands have used the
bes made by the President and by the former occupant
of the White House ss a basis for the comparisons un-
‘
averabie 10 rep
At the convention the interests of the party were lost
sight of and each side seemed more auxious to Win out against
the other than for the success of the party or for the triumph
of any set of principles. Usually when feeling is excited be
tween two candidates the party puts them both aside and
takes some one who has not aroused antagonisms, but Mr, Taft
ng to stand aside and Mr. Roosevelt was not
i to compromise on any other Progressive. So we bave
this pot and kettle campaign. While Mr. Roosevelt's friends
condemn Mr. Taft for ignoring the ex-President and his close
friends, the supporters of Mr. Taft point out that Mr. Roose-
velt, instead of seeking to make the President's administration
a success, laid in wait for sins of omission and commission.
the situation went from bad to worse snd the two men,
bosom friends, have become implacable enemies, and the
voters of a great party are unable to consider campaign issues
ob their merits,
was pot willl
“Did Mr. Taft treat Mr. Roosevelt fairly? and “Did
Mr. Roosevelt act justly towsrd Mr, Taft?"—These questions
absorb attention to the overshadowing of principles and poli:
cies, Had some pionecr reformer like Senator La Follette been
against Mr. Taft the line could bave been drawn with
yd the contest could have been conducted without
resort to personality but it is difficult to make a definite
wsue between Mr. Taft and Mr. Roosevelt when Mr. Taft is
now what Mr. Roosevelt was until very recently, and Mr
8,
s pow what Mr. Taft, as the Progressive Republi.
cans insist, promised to be! It wonld be unfortunate for the
Republican party for dither Mr, Taft or Mr. Roosevelt to be
| i
elected; it would ly continue the feud—as bitter as any
blood feud among mountaineers, If both are defeated the
party be reorganized and made useful as one of the great
part i the country. If both are defeated each side will
be satisfied=—it will have won half a victory and reconciliation
will be possible along reform lines.
The Republican party can not hope to rival the Demoeratie
arty as a reform party—it will remain, relatively speaking,
he conservative party, but one defeat will make it progressive
enough to draw back most of those who now follow Mr. Roose-
velt's standard. The Republican party is not going to fall to
pieces, as the more sanguine members of the new party seem
to think There is little difference between Mr. Roosevelt
and Mr. Taft except as to leadership, and leaders can be
changed more easily when we secure presidential primaries,
On essentinls Mr. Taft and Mr. Roosevelt are not far apart,
They agree on the tariff; if either one will write out his views
on the subject the other will have no difficulty in indorsing
hem. They both take the side of the trusts against the people,