Evening star., 1931-04-24
FeSs VS.. Shouse.


Chairman Jouett Shouse of the DEM
ocratic Executive Committee quite nat
urally does not like to be called a
deliberate liar" by Chairman Fess of
the Republican National Committee. In
two statements issued since his return
to Washington Mr.. Shouse has, figura-
lively speaking, taken the hide off"
the chairman Of the Republican COM
mittee because Mr.. Fess charged that
Mr.. Shouse in a speech in San Fran
cisco had said that the Republicaa
National Committee had purchased
100000 copies of a magazine con-
tanning an article written by one Nc
Manus, aimed at John j. Raskob,
chairman Of the Democratic National
Committee, because he was a member
of the Catholic Church. Mr.. Shouse
insists he never heard OF McManus nor
of his article. Chairman Fess, it ap-
pears, relied upon a published account
of Mr.. ShouSes speech in a San Fran
cisco newspaper, and, using the data
in that account. uttered his attack on
Mr.. Shouse.
When the dust of charge and counter
charge Is cleared away, however, it APP
pears that Mr.. Shouse in his San
Francisco speech was referring to an
article published in Scribners Mag
azine OF last September. written by
Frank Kent of the Baltimore Sun. ex-
cerptS from which were reprinted by
the Republican National Committee
and used in the campaign last Fall.
This part of the Kent article was re-
printed under the caption Smear
Hoover-Raskobs order to His SubSi-
died Propagandist." The point made
by Mr.. ShcuSe in his reference to this
article seems to have been that the
Republicans used 1t in their campaign
because Mr.. Raskob was a prominent
member Of the Catholic Church. In .
statement issued by Mr.. Shouse last
night he said: For the information
of DR.. FesS, have alleged in speeches
that throughout the campaign last Fall
studied effort was made to emphasize
John Raskob because Of his member
ship In the Catholic Church"
It seems to be the logical conclusion
from Mr.. Shouse'S remarks that, because
he Is q Catholic, Mr.. Raskob must re-
main free from attack by the Repub-
licans, or, indeed, from attack by those
Democrats who co not care so much
for Mr.. Raskob as CO.'S Mr.. ShouSe.
1t happens, however, tIat Mr.. Raskob
Is chairman of the Democratic National
Committee and it happens also that he
has been providing, or perhaps it may
be more correct to say arranging for,
the funds which have been used by
the Democratic organization to make a
personal attack upon President Hoover
over long period. 1t was this matter
to which Mr.. Kent referred in his
article in ScribnerS Magazine. The
fact that Mr.. Kent is Democrat doubt
less caused the Democratic organization
much pain and undoubtedly it caused,
in part, the Republican organization
to reprint excerpts from the Kent article
as material for the G. o. P. campaign.
1t seems q little unfair for the Demo-
cratic chairman to say that his organ
ization shall have a free hand in
personal abuse of President Hoover and
at the same time Mr.. RsSkob must be
immune from attack by the Republicans.
To attack Mr.. Raskob, Mr.. Shouse
insists, II to raise the religious issue.
Senator Fess, in his statement based
on the San Francisco newspaper ac-
count of Mr.. ShouSe's address, accused
Mr.. Shouse Of attempting TO raise the
religious issue again. Mr.. Raskob last
January charged Mr.. Kent with having
attacked him on the ground Of his
religion. To this Mr.. Kent replied that
a perusal OF his articles about Mr.. Ras-
kob showed he had never mentioned Mr.
Raskob's religion, and in language not
at all complimentary Mr.. Kent express
ed the opinion that the Democratic
party would be well rid Of Mr. Raskob
as national chairman. 1t appears from
the Kent incident and from the asser-
ton now made by Mr.. Shouse in regard
I to Republican attacks on Raskob that
the Democratic organization, headed by
Mr.. Raskob, is extremely sensitive, to
say the least.
The chairman OF the Republican Ma
| tional Committee, the statement issued
| by Mr.. Shouse shows, was hasty in
| making his charges and owes Mr.. Shouse
an apology for having accused him OF
making a deliberate misstatement re-
gagding the purchase OF a magazine
containing the McManus article. But
Mr.. Fess' charge that Mr.. ShouSe had
again brought up the religious issue in
his speech in the West is another thing
! entirely.
| One almost sure-fre way to save
monty seems TO be to refrain from
bringing suits for theatrical plagiarism.
|