Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-07-28
VOTE SHOWS TEXAS
STILL DEMOCRATIC
y
Hoover Supporters in 1923
Cleavage Found Nowhere
in Primary Lead!q
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

II any proof we're needed that the
1928 election was rot the beginning of
a breakup of the solid South politically
but was an accident of personalities
rather than a party upheaval, it is to
be found in the results of the Texas
primary.
The Lone Star State, like Virginia
and North Carolina, has declined TO
allow The 90. -Jmitn and antt-I mith
cleavage TO hscone permanent ans
those who supported Herbert Hoover
have not been permitted to attain the
aScendency in Democratic political al
fairs in these States, which cast their
electoral ballots for the Republicans
nearly two years ago.
While rum-off in the primary will
be necessary as between Ross Sterling
and Mrs. James L. Ferguson, all the
other candidates who were involved Ia
the issues of the 1928 campaign we're
eliminated from consideration. InSS-
much as the total vote for thu IL canv
oidates was approximately 100000 ana
Mrs. Ferguson RECEIVED about $4,000
votes, 1t is still possible in the run-off
primary for her to be defeated by an
overwhelming vote.
Hoover Supporter Fourth.
National interest, however centers in
the fact that Thomas B. Love, former
Wilson man and State Senator, who led
the fight against Al Smith and deserted
his party to vote for Hoover. received
only about 10000 votes and ran fourth
IN the race, with James Young. who
was the Leading adherent for Al Smith,
running less than thousand votes be-
hlnd, almost tying for fourth place with
Mr.. Love-
This shows conclusively that the
voters IN Texas have no intention Of
transforming the Democratic party into
Republican organization and wo,,ld
seem to indicate that If the next Demo-
| cratic presidential nominee is not too
| extreme on the wet side he will have
no dlfhcuIty in capturing the electoral
| vote In the State. Texas, incidentally
IN the same primary this wear gave
| Senator Morris Sheppard, a leader of
| the drys and co-author of the eight
| eehtn amendment, a clear majority over
MS Two opponents, thus assuring his
denomination and election. One of his
| opponents, Robert L. Henry, cam
pa1gned on what was considered a wet
platform. This would seem to indi-
| cate that Texas is not ready to sub.
| scribe TO The viewpoint of New Jersey
! winch recently gave MIR. Morrow an
overwhelming victory.
State True to Form.
1t was stated at the time bv leading
drys that the Morrow primary was mot
slgnlhcant, since it was known that
New Jersey was wet, and it was argued
tnat there would be time enough tn
talk about a change in sentiment with
respect to prohibition when some drv
SCate changed over to the wet side.
1exas has run true to form by return
ing 10 the United States Senate an ar
oent dry by vote of nearly three tn
one over his nearest pponent-which
compares favorably with the proportion
triumph in New Jersey. ''
=, Inc Texas result. therefore, will have
the paradoxical result of vindicating
CHe conventions of the Al Smith erolIn
OF the Democratic national leaders. on
the one hand, who contended that the
state would return to the party fold,
ana FOSTERING up the argument of the
orys that the dry States are still drv
ana the wet States are still wet,
l. Copyright, 1901