Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-04-26
BY MARK SULLIVAN.
TINE question is. what will the dry
Democrats do?

The situation confronting
Il them Is that the present man.
agement and official headship
and principal leadership OF the party
IS wet in sentiment; that this
wet leadership has drafted its senti-
mentS into the rough form of a pro-
posed wet plank for the party at its
next national convention; that the wet
leadership is actively organizing re-
cruits to assemble a majority with
which to vote the wet plank into the
platform-and. finally. that the wet
leadership is succeeding in its work.
About the latter assertion there can
be little doubt. The vets will command
all. or majority of all, the big delega-
tons from the big States excepting
Texas. They will command probably
every delegate from the big wet State
of New York (ninty-four delegates
rs many as five average dry Southern
States combined). They will command
probably every delegate from the COM
paratiyely large State of New Jersey.
probably four-flfths from the big State
of Pennsylvania (76 delegates in alb,
probably two-thirds from the big State
of Illinois, probably three -fourths from
Massachusetts,, probably three-fourthS
from Ohio. And so on.
II is hardly to be doubted, in short,
That the wet strength in the convention
will have a majority with which to
write their wet plank. They may make
their wet plank smooth for the drys to
swallow. They may have one of those
placatory preliminary "whereases," in
which they will recite that they take
their wet stand reluctantly and only be-
cause of 'the failure of Republican ad-
SninistrationS to enforce over a period
Of IL years." and that sort Of thing
But they will write their wet plank and
they can vote it into the platform
They can cause the Democrats to go
through the 1882 presidential campaign
as an onacially and completely wet
pA1ty.
Prospect DispIeases Drys.
Against this outlook what will the
dry Democrats do? The prospect Is ut
terry Ynpleasing to them. They feel
oltra8ai. betrayed, and they say So
AHfew Publicly. many privately. An ex-
member Of Woodrow Wilson's cabinet,
William G.. McAdoo. publicly resents
ard regulates the wet program. An
other Democratic ex-cabinet member
sits in at an informal and private gath
ering Of dry Democrats at which it is
agreed. informally and privately, that
they won't stand for" the wet plank.
The wife Of an ex-national chairman
Of the party. Mrs. Glenn Shaver of West
Virginia, publicly proposes departure
from the party. Two other ex-national
chairmen Of the party participated in
the informal meeting already men
toned.
In this listing OF dry professors
against the wet program. or any SINH
lar listing, there Is significance in the
repetition of the words sex" or for
ner." The most active OF the dry pro-
testing leaders are either men whose
careers in public Office are over or ones
who do not have ambition for political
careers. This statement should be
qualified by saying that several dry
participated in the informal private
meeting already mentioned; that many
may yet protest publicly; that three
present Senators, Robinson of Arkansas.
Huh Of Tennessee and Morrison of
North Carolina, spoke publicly-indeed,
sensationally-in protest against Chair
man Raskobs wet program.
It Is material fact. nevertheless,
important in estimating what may hap
pen. that dry Democrats having present
active public careers which they might
compromise are reluctant to appear in
public opposition to what is apparently
TO be the party's official program SONY
are even ready to go along" keeping
their protests silent. The reason is that
the wet program seems to promise party
success. Dry leaders in active public
life hesitate to fill the traditional role
Of trouble makers: they hesitate, in the
popular phrase. to throw a monkey
wrench" into machinery which. in
the minds OF most Democratic leaders.
now seems set to produce Democratic
national victory and a Democratic
President in 1892.
The expectation Of victory is power
1ul cohesive. salve. an emollient. a
sugar coating for what may be dis
agreeable IN the world Of private con-
viction.
Question of Two Sides
The answer to the question. what will
the dry Democrats do. divides itself in
two. What will they do in anticipation.
what effort will they make TO prevent
the party from going wet? And what
will they do after the event. when and
II the party goes officially wet?
To consider the second question first,
the dry Democrats, after and II the
party has gone wet, can either 1aD
form. or unite with others in forming,
q third party: or tb) vote the Repub-
lican ticket. assuming the Republican
party Is dry or at least more dry than
the Democrats; Or (cl confine their
protest to remaining away from the
polls.
AS to these three possible courses.
the first the forming OF third party.
does not present any present evidence
OF coming to fruit. The very idea OF
third party seems TO inspire reluct-
ance, dtsavowal, among those who
might normally be most expected to
form it. Not only do the Southern
drys seem reluctant to form third
party. Their natural allies in such an
enfPr0riap the
seem equally to shy from the notion
The principal leader and spokesman of
the western ProgreSSives, Senator Nor
riS Of Nebraska. practically disavows
the idea. Senator Norris says the likely
program Of those who are disappointed
with the two major party nominations
assuming both are disappointing,
which may not be so) is to use the cleo
ton holiday as an opportunity to go
fishing
Moreover. there is weakness, almost
cleavage, in the tie which might
give to Southern Democrats and West
ern ProgreSsiveS the common ground
for third party. The cleavage is the
same that Is cutting deep divisione
everywhere In politics-prohibition Tks
Southern dryS want third party for
the sake of its dryneSs: the Western
Progressives want it for the sake OF
what they call the economic issues"
meaning, chiefly, the power issue The
Western Progressives want to ignore
prohibition; their recent conference at
Washington was ofiicially and deliber-
ately and affirmatively silent on prohi-
bition: they decrfed prohibition as an
ISSUE, exiled it from their proceedings.
sThe explanation is that many of the
Western Progressive leaders. La Toilette
aud Blaine Of Wisconsin. for example,
ere wet.
The net of which, for the purposes of
Che present article. is that the Demo-
cratic drys I'm the South and elsewhere