The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1930-02-11

Colonel Samuel Harden Church would have the
political and party chaos now besettng the country
cured by liberal party" devoted primarily 70 an
attack on prohibition and seeking to establish reli
gious, political and social liberty"
In his attack on the forces which rule through IN
tolerance Colonel Church has presented views which
challenge attention. They should arrest PUBIC
thought and show to how great an extent eiecVlonS
the choice of legislators and administrators, turns on
the single issue Of whether candidates are wet or ory'
But Colonel Church offers no real solution for the
existing psrtv chaos Republicans and Democrats are
divided so hopelessly within their own lines they meet
so closely in their national and state leadership on
major issues of government that both have ceased 70
represent a sharp choice between principles.
There is real need of party reorganization in the
country and one Of the new parties should be truly
liberal" as another should be conservative and a
third possibly radical"
Ostensiblv we have such division now, with the
Republicans functoning as conservatives, the Demo-
Gratis as liberals and the Socialists as radicals But
that Is a. false division, for among Republicans the
Norrises and La Folettes have more in common
with the Shoots and Grundys than the Washes and
heelers of the Democrats have with the SimmonseS
and the Robnsons.
But liberalism must have than one plank to
It's platform It can not live on liquid diet only
which spells the breakdown Of any such liberal party
as Colonel Church suggests. His line OF oeIdICduOil
calls for an an-prohibition party anti-tntoerance
narty It is not sufficiently inclusive to pre-empt the
liberal label
Such men and women who are seeking the way
to relief through liberalism would look among It's lead
es for such men as George Norris of Nebraska, the
volrnger La Toilette of Wisconsin, Al Smith OF New
York Pinchot of Pennsylvania, Walsh of Montana,
Borah of Idaho, and many men whose tame is more
than local but who are great forces In their COM
munities.
On the prohibition issue alone as test OF LIBERAL
ism rnanv of these men would decline to go along with
sucb partv as Colonel Church suggests. And on a
marty of liberalism built on economic principles
which after all are fundamentals of social liberalism
IT is difficult to think Of Norris for instance, or
inchot going along with Colonel Church or Nicholas
Murray Butler, to cite another national Inquire VINO
believes as does the head Of Carnegie institute.
In his agenda for liberal party, Colonel Church
lists religious political and social liberty He is
silent on economic liberty, which would fight the
]ourbon and monopolistio influences which take no
thought of public welfare.
A liberal party founded solely on opposition to the
dry law will not meet the nations needs. But when
such men as Colonel Church and those who sat with
him at the New York meeting show clearly to what
extent the wet and dry controversy is influencing
ics-unfavoraby-they entitled to apprecia-
ton from that great body of the public which believes
in good government and which wants the dry ques-
ton settled integently not through zeaotism, and
removed for all time befuddlng issue in great
and small campaigns