The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1924-10-23
Charles NazeI Former Secretary
Of Commerce Explains Why He
Cannot Support Mr.. Lar GILLETTE

The following is an authorized
statement by Charles Nagel, of st.
Louis, Secretary of Commerce and
Labor, during the Taft Administra-
ton. 1t was given after he had been
urged to definitely set down his po-
sition in the campaign. 1t deals with
the new aligments Of old political in
f1uences, with the fundamental prom
lens of the day and with the confu-
sion that would follow an indeclslve
election.
81 have been asked what my posi-
ton is in this campaign. This ques-
ton has almost come to be the rule
rather than the exception; so broken
are old alignments, and so conflicting
are determining factors. L shall vote
for Coolidge for President; for New
ton for Congress; and for Baker for
Governor; and may add that this
conclusion is not governed by past
affiliations. Having voted for Reed
for Senator, should not hesitate, II
conditions demanded, to cast an equ-
ally Independent vote now for the
national and state tickets.
cit has for some years been my
opinion that realignment of the
great. parties, in obedience to well
defined convictions, is desirable, and
that it would make little difference
how that result is brought about. At
this time, however, there is danger
that we may reach no popular decl-
sion at the polls, and according to
al indications the success OF Cool
idge can alone save US from that i'm
mediate very threatening situation.
GAS between the old parties, l
have less difficulty than usual. In
foreign policy they are separated as
widely as they were in 1920. That in
itself would determine me. In many
other respects they occupy common
ground of complacent conservatism;
although President Coolidge has the
advantage of very definite plan for
domestic economic rehabilitation.
Beyond that the distinction SCENE to
be that Republicans frankly avow
what they want, and Democrats would
like to achieve the same thing with
out saying so. There is considerable
virtue in the attacks made by Davis
upon corruption; but such an attack
from Democrats is rather belated.
Indeed, one of the chief complaints
against the Harding administration is
that it failed to expose the stagger-
ing corruption of the preceding DEM
ocratic administration. Again, the
Democratic candidates advocacy Of
free speech and like constitutional
guarantees would be more persuasive,
if the denial of these sacred princi-
pies had not been had chiefly under
a Democratic administration of which
he was a distinguished member: and
if these appeals had not been made
after President Coolidge had released
political prisoners, and after his At
torney General Stone had restored
the Department of Justice to it's con-
stitutional integrity.
81 admit that the Republican adj
ministration neglected great oppor-
tunities to restore the confidence and
good will of the public; and that
particularly with respect to problems
growing out of the war; it permitted
and to paralyze its conduct. But I
do not find that the Democratic party
offers one inspiring challenge to in.
vite Independent support.
However, l regard it as of pri-
mary Importance CndC Cne popular
vote result in a choice of President,
and that the elections be not thrown
into the House and the Senate. In
as much as Davis appears to have
no practical prospect for victory at
the polls, it will be more profitable to
give reasons for preferring Coolidge
to LaFollette; between whom the
contest seems to lie.
81 depreciate all personal attacks
upon La Toilette. But / simply can
not accept his fundamental policies
and principles. He demands that the
Versailles Treaty be revised; and to
judge him by his following, he rep
udiates the Dawes report. / regard
the Versailles Treaty as an iniquity-
ga treaty or revenge" the temporary