Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-06-01
CANNON ASKS END
OF SMITH FACTION
RULE IN VIRGINIA
Continued frorn First Pase)

palgn, WIFI It's eNch -liSiCoSihS Shh-
phasis of attakcs upon prohibition and
the unwarranted and persistent denun-
citation Of anti-Smith Democrats as
traitors and intolerant bigots,' not only
by Smith and Raskob, but by many
Virginia State Democratic leaders, re-
suited in the defeat OF the Democratic
national ticket in Virginia for the first
time since the Civil War. and was a
clean-cut, sweeping Reputation by a
majority of the people In Virginia of
those Democratic State leaders who fol-
lowed and defended Smith n Raskob
and vilifled the anti-Smith speakers
and leaders.
up to this good hour nc retraction
has been made by those Virginia State
Democratic leaders who SO loudly and
persistently attacked the anti-Smith
Democrats as traitors and intolerant
bigots,' ETC., nor has there been any
open declaration of reputation of the
Smith -RaskOb national leadership for
its betrayal Of Southern prohibition
Democrats.
Moreover, at the Jefferson day
dinner in New York City in April.
attended by leading Southern Demo-
Gratis, Alfred E. Smith was acclaimed
as the greatest living Democrat and
the sweeping denunciation of prohibit
ton by the chairman was loudly APP
plauded. Shortly after this dinner,
John Jacob Raskob came to Washing
ton, declared that he had no intention
whatever OF resigning the national
chairmanship, and with great o~Stenta-
ton set up an organization with an
executive committee to function on
~tinuouSly in Washington. and further
more outlined and emphasized his own
views as to the future activities Of the
Democratic party until 1882.
up to his hour no voice Of protest
has been raised by the Virginia men,
bers OF the Democratic national COM
mittee. or by the Democratic State
leadership of Virginia. against the con-
tinuation OF the Smith Raskob leader
ship and against its so-called liberal
anti-prohibition policy.
Fayors Roanoke Convention.
"To accept now the present day still
unwaShed and still ~unrepentant State
or national Democratic party leadership
would be to brand as utterly mistaken
and unwarranted the course pursued
by the anti-Smith Democrats in 1928.
and would, therefore, very properly
subject them to contempt and ridicule
as cutters or towards in a strenuous,
unfinished, still continuing conflict for
Tx maintenance IA lilC 6ACab AilOt al liz
social policy of prohibition. 1t Is surely
a ground for congratulation and salts
faction that the President of the United
States. for whom the anti-Smith Demo-
Gratis voted, is placing such tremendous.
continuous emphasis upon the vital
Importance of the effective observance
and enforcement Of all laws, including
prohibition. Had Alfred E. Smith been
elected. it would have been declared
that h iffAn had hnnn ropttIiatnl
and that a mandate had been given for
such modification of the prohibitory
laws as would have resulted in their
practical notification. AS long. there
fore. as the same persons and influences
dominate the national Democratic COM
mittee and that national committee has
the support Of the Virginia State
Democratic committee, so long should
the anti-Smith Democrats refuse to
follow hat discredited and defeated
leadership. and should stand back Of
his openly declared policy for prohibi-
ton enforcement and observance. in
Guiding the pcrpetuation Of national
prohibition.
Il favor, therefore, the holding of
the Roanoke convention of anti-Smith
Democrats on June IS for two reasons:
"First. To declare to the people OF
the State of Virginia and to the Ma
ton at large that those Democrats who
refused to surrender their moral con-
victions and to be whipped into line
by the Democratic State party leader
ship. who refused to wear the wet
Tammany collar, and who aided in the
crushing defeat Of the Smith Raskob
leadership, still refuse to accept that
same wet national leadership, o. to
follow a State leadership which is
lacking in either courage or inclina-
ton. or both, to repudiate that wet
national leadership, which so shame
fully betrayed our Southern people,
and, Furthermore. to declare their de-
termination to give their loyal support
to the President of the United States
In his efforts to uphold, defend and
maintain the Constitution of the
United States, including the eighteenth
amendment.
Would Nominate Smith Foes.
Second. To nominate for State Of
fees only such men as in the election
of 1928 openly placed moral principles
above party regularity, and such men
as not only refused to speak or to vote
for Alfred E. Smith. but who, regard
less of personal abuse or any possible
personal, political, social or financial
detriment, spoke against Alfred E.
Smith and his betrayal of the Demo-
cratic party. For example, there are
three candidates for the governorship
of Virginia in the Democratic primary
next August. All of them, with vary
ing degrees Of intensity. it is true.
magnified party regularity and political
affiliations and obligations above the
principles for which the anti-Smith
Democrats felt constrained to contend.
No one of these three candidates has
made any statement expressing any re-
greet for the position taken in the 1928
campaign. There is, therefore, nc rea-
son to suppose that in the interval be-
tween now and the presidential nomi-
mating convention in 1882, or in that
convention itself. or in the presidential
campaign in 1882, that any ont of
these three candidates for the gov
ernorship would pursue any different
course from that which he pursued in
1928, should similar circumstances
arise. In short, were Alfred e. Smith,
or a man holding his views on prohi-
bition, to be nominated by the Demo-
cratic national convention i'll 1892,
there is 10 reason to suppose that any
one Of the three candidates in the
August primary for the g~ubernatorial
nomination would fail to support and
10 VOtc loI SucH pIcSlueItial HoIIllIlee,
and there would be the same condi-
lions and lineup in 1882 as in 1928,
with the power and prestige of the
State administration aiding in the
election Of such nti-prohibition cam
didate.
Personally, I want the opportunity
to vote for some man for Governor of
Virginia who did openly refuse to vote
for Alfred E. Smith, who did openly
%repudiate the Raskob- Smith national
Democratic leadership and did also re-
pudiate those State Democratic leaders
who placed party regularity above moral