Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-05-11
ROBERTS hackers
BELIEVE DRY FOES
HAVE BEEN Fooled
Statements From Mcbride
and Dr.. Wilson Are Held
Favorable.
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
WILL ACT TOMORROW
Nomination Is Expected to Be Re-
ferred to Subcommittee to
Prepare Report.
BY G. GOULD LINCOLN.

The nomination of Owen j. Roberts
of Philadelphia to be an associate JUS
tice Of the Supreme Court comes before
the Senate judiciary committee tomor-
row for consideration. If precedent is
followed, and it is expected that it will
be, the nomination will be referred to
subcommittee which will consider all
protests that may be made and then
report to the full committee its recon-
mendations.
Up to date the only opposition to Mr..
Roberts that has taken tangible form
is based on speech which he made
in 1928 at dinner given in New York
by trust companies. In that speech
Mr.. Roberts is reported to have said
that he held no brief for prohibition
and that he believed that it was
matter which preferably should have
been dealt with by statute rather than
by an amendment to the Constitution.
Whether the more intense drys in the
Senate will hold that this constitutes
being foe of the eighteenth amend
ment remains to be seen.
The supporters of Mr.. Roberts, how
ever, believed last night that the dry
opposition had the wind taken out Of
its sails when statements regarded as
favorable to MIR. Roberts were made by
F. Scott Mcbride, general superintend-
ent OF the Anti-Saloon League and DR..
Clarence True Wilson of the Methodist
Board OF Temperance, Prohibition and
Public Morals.
McBride's Statement.
Mr.. Mcbride said in his statement:
Integrity Of character, legal qualifi-
cations, intellectual honesty, judicial
temperament and capacity to deal with
legal questions from strictly judicial
viewpoint without bias created by per-
sonal prediction should determine the
fitness OF members Of the judiciary,
rather than other qualifications. II Mr..
Roberts measures up to these qualifica-
tons he should be confirmed"
DR.. Wilson said that the Methodist
board had taken no action in regard
to the appointment of Mr.. Roberts, and
he added: II don't think we will. Mr..
Roberts, understand, is an excellent
nominee and viii be impartial We
don't want a partisan in the Supreme
Court, either wet or dry. We are well
satisfied. We liked the Parker nomi-
issue had anything to do with his de-
feat. Some vets might have voted
against his confirmation, but many
drys did, too. However, if it had been
brought out that there was wet oppo-
sition to him, there might have been q
division on this ISSUE"
During the debate In the Senate
over the Parker nomination there was
nothing said about an effort of the
vets to defeat him. But since the ap-
pointment of Mr.. Roberts there has
of IN 70
he was opposed because he was q
dry" Mr.. Roberts has denied to
Senator David A. Reed of Pennsyl-
vania that he made public statement
either for or against prohibition. One
fact that potential opponents Of Mr..
Roberts in the Senate have turned up,
however, is that his partner, w. w.
Montgomery, and Mrs. Montgomery,
appeared before the House judiciary
committee In its recent hearings
against the prohibition amendment.
Simmons May Oppose Him.
Senator Simmons of North Carolina
has been regarded as possible leader
of the opposition to the Roberts norni-
nation. 1t is known that he resents
deeply the rejection of Judge Parker.
How many other Senators he might be
able to rally to the opposition to the
Roberts appointment, however, Is prob
lematical. While Senator Overman,
also of North Carolina, and one Of the
leaders in the effort to have Judge
Parker confirmed, is saying nothing for
publication at this time, it is under
stood that he regards Mr.. Roberts as an
able man and that he sees no real rea-
son for objecting to his confirmation.
Senator Overman Is member of the
Senate judiciary committee.
Mr.. Roberts already has had to run
Continued on Page 2, Column g.