Evening star., 1931-11-29
CANDIDACY OF ROOSEVELT
r. is LIKE WILSON'S In 1912
Prohibition Question and Growing Split
With Al Smith COmplicate
MuddIed Situation.

stood together. Now, on a step designed
by Chairman Raskob to make the Dem
ocratic party officially wet, Gov. RooSe-
velt took one course disapproving the
step, while ex-Gov. Smith took the
course of approving it and actually
spoke in favor of it at the meeting In
stantly every politician and every in
formed observer presumed cleavage be-
tween Smith and Roosevelt. The cleave-
age-to whatever extent 1t goes-ras
apparently grown deeper ever since. 1t
is now universally taken for granted that
there is fundamental lack of harmony
between Smith and Roosevelt
In the end the National Committee
took a course practically identical with
the view of the New York representative
in the committee, and the presumed view
of Gov. Roosevelt. The committee. in
effect, did nothing. If it was Mr. Ras-
kob's intention to force a contest to a
finish and roll call he was obliged to
abandon that intention by the detection
of New York. The whole matter was
deferred until such time as the next
meeting of the Democratic National
Committee is to be held This next
meeting comes on January 8. What
will happen then-or what prudent
politics may prevent happening then
will be very important
Can Report Action.
There was plausible justification for
what the Democratic National Com
mittee at its March meeting did about
Chairman Raskob's wet proposal. They
can do the same thing at the coming
meeting on January 8. They can say,
in effect, that what they do about pro-
hibition is matter Of party policy, that
the National Committee has nothing
to do with policy, that the only body
having power to deal with policy is the
great quadrennial national convention
which meets in June next-and that.
therefore, the meeting of the National
Committee drops the matter.
They can do that and seem justified
But II they do 1t will amount to a
pretty direct reputation of Mr.. Ras-
kob. Already at the March meeting Mr..
Raskob asked the National Commit
tee to advise and suggest"-and the
National Committee declined to advise
and suggest" or to do anything else,
and its dlsinclination was made with
no particular effort to be respectful to
Chairman Raskob.
Also II the coming meeting of the
Democratic National Committee again
declines. and this time finally, to take
any action on Mr.. RaSkob'S wet propo-
sal 1t will be charged with taking a
"shush-shush" attitude on prohibition.
The question is, what will the Ma
tional Committee really do at the COM
ing January meeting, and also what will
eX-Gov. Smith do? Smith is not a
member Of the committee. but he will
De there as distinguished guest, as he
was at the last meeting; or in tie al
tentative. his absence will be interpret
ed as having political meaning-de-
cidedly so. One feels ex-Gov. Smith
will not be absent.
1t Is vain to attempt to write about
the course Of the Democratic party or
the fortunes OF Gov. Roosevelt without
considering what ex-Gov. Smith will do. !
about Hamlet" the play and
attempting to avoid mention OF Hamlet !
the man would lie an easy literary ath- |
letic feat compa ed to any attempt to
write about the fortunes Of the Demo- |
cratlc party during the coming year |
without taking into account the course |
of ex-Gov. Smith. What Smith intends |
10 do Is q thing wholly within the |
boundaries Of his pretty ample skull |
ana, therefore, impossible for any out |
Sloer TO state. One can, however. guess
what a man in Smiths position would !
pc lkey TO DO. One can guess also at |
course for man having Smiths known |
convictions. The two gueSses coincide, |
Smith May Be Delegate.
II ex-Gov. Smith holds strong views
adverse to the prohibition amendment
and II he holds views still stronger
against the Democratic party pussy |
roofing" on the eighteenth amendment.
the course available to him would be-
gin with going 10 the next Democratic
national convention not as a candidate,
put as delegate. That Smith will do
just this all important Democratic lead
ers believe. Conceivably by some fan
tastic exercise of discrimination against
smith, either Tammany or the New
York State democracy, or Gov. Roose-
velt, or all three, could decline to ex-
tend to Smith the opportunity to be a
delegate. That, however, would be ex-
traord1nary and not very helpful TO
those who might do it. We can safely
assume ex-Gov. Smith will be a dele
gate.
Ex-Gov. Smith as a deleeate can GET
himself on the Resolutions COMMITTEES
Wnlch committee writes the party plat
form, writes the eloquent "whereases"
and "View-with alarms" and the like
In the Committee on Resolutions, Smith
can propose thoroughgoing wet plank
ana demand its adoption. Within the
committee Smith can be defeated on
eAllS poLiI, lor the resolutions Commit
zee consists OF one delegate from each
State, ana 1t may well be that a Reso-
iutions Committee thus composed would
be dry. "0"'O
II defeated in the Resolutions Com
mlttee, Smith can carry his fight for
a wet plank onto the floor of the con-
vention, as Nicholas Murray Butler car
rled his fight for a wet plank on the
moor OF the Republican convention of
1873, and as has often been done he
Iore IN both parties by proponents of
various causes. Smith fighting for a
wet plank on the floor of the conven-
tlon would have {. better chance to win
than IN the Committee on Resolutions
Tor on the floor OF the convention ali
OF the some 1,100 delegates will vote as
if each Individual
VoteS his genuine personal convictions
utVorceo from any consideration of po-
ntlcal expediency, there is likely to he
wet majority in this coming Demo-
cratic convention. All or practically all
the personnel of the delegations iron,
Ine IL pig Northern States-New York,
4illnols, New Jersey, Massachusetts'
pennsylvania and others-wilI be wet
IN the intricate and powerful wheels
OF thls process of the Democratic marty
Delng carried by eX-Gov. Smith into the
wet position, there is, without doubt. a
good deal Of chance of Gov. Roosevelt
and his candidacy being ground up.