Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-09-29
STUDY
HEARST RAD|O.TALK
Leaders Wonder If Speech
Marks Break Between Pub
Usher and President Hoover.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

Political Washington was discussing
today the radio speech of William Ran
dolph Hearst and wondering whether II
indicated break between the publisher
and the administration Of President
Hoover, to whom the Hearst paper:
gave their support in the 1928 campaign
i still think" Mr.. Hearst was quoted
as saying, 'if Theodore Roosevelt haC
been alive or If Grover Cleveland hao
been alive, you would have heard little
OF w. r. Hearst, to be sure, because he
Is OF no Importance in this situation, but
you would have heard much Of the value
and validity and inviolability of the
American passport and of due and nee
essary respect for the rights and liber-
ties OF the American citizen
Referred to Expulsion.
The publisher was referring, of course
to his recent expulsion by the French
government on the occasion of his ar
rival In France. The radio speech was
delivered on an international as we'll as
national hook-up of stations, so that
the remarks of the American publisher
were widely distributed.
Some hint of the Hearst attitude was
given in a recent speech by former
Senator Lewis of Illinois, who COM
planned that the administration did not
take issue with the French government
when Mr.. Hearst was expelled. Opinion
OF the American press was generally
favorable to Mr.. Hearst, the argument
being made that an American editor
should not be punished for expressing
his views on the policies Of any foreign
nation. The American Government
however, has Studiously refrained under
the Hoover administration, as well as
under Democratic administrations, from
raising q question as to the right of q
foreign country to deport any visitor,
particularly since the United States
reserves the right to do the same thing.
Others Have Been Barred.
On many occasions, however, when
American newspaper men have gotten
into trouble with foreign governments,
efforts have been made to smooth out
the differences, but no legal protest has
ever been lodged because the foreign
government had the technical right to
debar any visitor. Great Britain has
on more than one occasion refused to
admit American citizens who had at
tackled her policies.
There is no doubt that Mr.. Hearst's
experience was brought on by his public
statements and writings concerning the
French government and the probabilities
are that the Hoover administration did
not wish to become involved in a con-
troversy with France over the issues Of
foreign policy raised by Mr.. Hearst. The
point about the inviolability of an Amer
lean passport has not become an issue,
because the French government recog-
nized the passport by admitting Mr..
Hearst to France and then asking him
to leave.
Had there been a refusal to admit the
holder of a passport, 1t would have given
the American Government the basis for
protest, though here again the authors
ties differ as to the obligatinos of q
country to admit q visitor who is per-
soma non grata.
1t is not clear yet whether the criti-
cism expressed by Mr.. Hearst means a
complete break with the Hoover admin
istration or whether it is merely a COM
ment confined to this particular Ques-
ton. Heretofore the differences of
opinion between the Hearst papers and
the Hoover administration have related
solely to broad questions such as the
World Court and nothing personal has
arisen of the nature involved in the
affront given Mr.. Hearst by the French
government.
(Copyrisht, 1900