The Washington times., 1922-10-31

the situation: WILLIAM HARD
and the editorials in the great organs
Of conservative opinion would say:
Just as in 1916 this man Hiram
Johnson slew Charles Evans
Hughes in California when Mr..
Hughes was running for President,
so in 1922 he has slain that great
champion of regular Republicanism,
Mr.. Friend w. Richardson, whom
we never heard Of before but whom
we now introduce to our readers as
the latest victim of Hiram John
sons jealous. vindictive. autocra.
tic. domineering. deplorable tenn
perament.'
Such will be the comment -
and 1t will be just as silly now as
1t was in 1916. Mr.. Johnson is
faithfully making speeches for Mr..
Richardson today. just exactly as in
1916 he faithfully made speeches for
Mr.. Hughes. The point, however.
seems to be this:
If any Republican candidate goes
and commits suicide in California,
it is Johnson's fault; because John.
son ought to have prevented It;
and in any case he ought to have
draggci that candidate into port
alive or dead, because Johnson con-
trols the State.
But does he control the State?
Let us look at the whole turbulent
story of this years California fight
The characters in II are Mr..
Johnson, Mr.. Moore, Mr.. Richard
son, Mr.. Stephens and Mr.. Pear.
son. The case of Mr.. Pearson can
be readily and quickly disposed Of.
Mr.. Pearson 10 the Democrat who
Is willing to run against MIR.
Johnson for United States Senator.
He is an oil promoter. He calls
himself a dirt farmer. He Is a
dirt farmer the same way that Mr..
Johnson Is a chauffeur. Mr.. John
son owns a car and Mr.. Pearson
| owns-or has owned-a ranch. He
has no political reputation to lose
, through getting knocked out by
| Mr.. johnson. II he can stand up
| for a few minutes after the polls
! open and can remain visible long
enough to get his name INTO the
Eastern papers. he will have ad.
vertised himself politically quite
considerably.
Such is Mr.. Pearson's prospect.
| But now we come to the case of Mr..
| Richardson. 1t teaches us that no
prospect in politics is sure. The very
best politicians in California were alb.
solutely sure that Mr.. Richardson
could not win the Republican nomi.
nation for governor.
They were absolutely sure that Mr..
Stephens would win 1t. They were
| willing to bet that Mr.. Stephens, a
quite Johnson Republican. would de.
feat Mr.. Richardson. a not quite
johnson Republican. by a couple of
hunHraH th1uoapd x,ntaS Vet Mr
Richardson won. He won against the
candidate whom the Johnson forces
favored
Question, then: Does Mr.. johnson
control the State?
Answer: Nobody controls Califor.
mia. California and Johnson under.
stand each other well enough. East.
| erners who think that either one of
them controls the other do not un-
derstand that marriage.
Richardson won for three-among
| other reasons:
Years ago he had helped to or.
ganize the country newspapers Of
California into a favorable attitude
toward the ideas represented by the
political interests associated with the
Southern Pacific Railroad Company.
Out Of those days he secured
and he maintains an enormous quiet
country newspaper support.
Two: Mr.. Stephens. as governor
OF California, raised the taxes of the
public utility corporations, the bank.
Ing corporations and the insurance
corporations of California. These cor.
porations Immediately naturally he.
gan very strong agitation in favor
Of much more economy in the ad.
ministration of the State government
Of California. This agitation implied
that Mr.. Stephens had not been
economical enough; II favored a can.
didate who would be the most
economical candidate possible.
Three: Mr.. Richardson was that
candidate. The annual State expenses
of California are about $45 900 900.
In n governors term-which Is four
years-those expenses would he about
$3.50 900 900. Mr.. Richardson promised
that In a governors term he would
save s115,OOO, 900.