The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1926-06-05
T7T1
i racY
No Referendum Now
Bankers and Frenchmen
That TWo-Thirds Rule
By NJ. e. Tracy

T6lSTSHuuln Oll IuO NOlolOeIA AT VI
the Eighteenth Amendment and no
body thought there would
Congress won't consider any nodi-
f1cation bills either and that is no
calamity. though it may disappoint
some.
AS a matter of common sense. we
are in no frame of mind to vote or
leglslate intelligently.
1t was by jumping at conclusions
that we got into all the trouble and
we should only get into more trouble
by repeating the performance.
The problem we are up against
is painfully complicated. We have
barely begun to discuss it seriously.
Thus far, the agitation has re-
vealed little but discomfort.
It's a good thing to realize that we
are discounted, but it's much more
essential to realize precisely what we
are disconnected about and after that
practical remedy remains to be dis
covered.
An unofficial referendum such as
has been authorized in New York
and such as is being promoted in
several State, offers only one prac-
tical advantage. 1t may serve to
clarity public opinion.
At present, public opinion is hope
lessly confused.
The great majority Of people sSG
think of prohibition as moral
rather than a political issue.
1t is the simple question of being
dry or wet with them.
They haven't visualized the cen
tralization effect OF what has been
done. the definite suppression Of
State rights and local self-govern-
ment. They. haven't visualized any
practical way of readjusting the sit.
uation without going back to the old
order and that is repugnant to most
of them. The decision is fine. but
let's not expect results too soon,
or assume that we can get salts
factory ones by hurrying.
+ Il
The House of Representatives
ratified the French debt pact much
quicker than anyone expected and
much quicker than it does most
things.
The Senate holds off, though It
made up it's mind long ago and IL
ready to raify on the shortest
notice.
Well-staged performance and a
grand gesture intended for nothing.
except to help NJ. BRAND.
1t was supposed that prompt &C
ton by the House would encourage
him and his supporters. while
stalling by the Senate would scare
their opponents.
But canny Frenchmen see another
side to the picture. or think they do.
why should the House be in such
hurry" they ask. unless the debt
pact Is overly favorable to the United
States and why should the Senate
hesitate unless there is a possibility
of it's going back on the debt pact
just as it went back on the Wilson
treaties In 1892
So all the grand gesturing turns
out boomerang, making NJ.
Brands talk harder.
But why should we take Il serious
ly and would we take It seriously
IL France didn't want a big loan, If
a group of international bankers
weren't ready to accommodate her
and II the whole thing didn't depend
upon ratification Of the debt pact?
There is more back OF the show
than has come out yet, or may ever
come out. But France. not the
United tSates, stands to lose most If
the debt pact fails.
If the debt pact fails, not only
does the chance of a loan go glim-
mering, but France walls once more.
The international bankers have
something at stake, of course. but
one is not supposed to know about
that, much less discuss It.
Move for abrogating the two-thirds
rule at Democratic national conven-
lions has reached that stage where
everybody is asking who's back Of
it?"
Whether rightly or wrongly, it is
not now regarded as the Simon Pure,
spontaneous demand it seemed to be
at first.
Instead of having the partys
permanent good as its object. It is
now suspected of being staged for
the immediate good Of certain candi.
dates. In plain English the propo-
sition prevails that certain distin-
guished gentlemen who aspire to run
for the presidency on the Democratic
ticket are moving heaven and earth
to get the two-thirdt rule out of the
way. because theyNfeel they have
no chance if it remains.
Not only what occurred in the
1924 convention, but the factional
lineup that made it occur and still
exists is measureably responsible for
all the commotion.
If Smith and McAdoo hadn't
staged a bitter fight on that occa-
sion and if they didn't plan to stage
another fight in 1928, either for
themselves, or for candidates of
their choosing, there wouldn't be
half so much talk about abrogating
the two-thirds rule.