Evening star., 1932-10-30
All other States and Canada.
Conscience and Campaigning.

The American political system every
four years creates psychological sltua-
ton from which many interesting ques-
tions arise, Under this system a candl-
date for the presidency named by
the opposition to the incumbent party
assumes the offensive against the NOM
inee of that party to make his case
To establish his claim to preferment he
must attack the record of the admins
tration and, if the executive has hlmsen
been renominated the record OF MS
opponent. He must challenge MS
actions. question his motives, belittle
his achievements, indict his capacity
He must, in short, denounce him as
failure In the Office to which ne has
been named and in which he seeks to
continue for another term. The In
cunbent candidate must defend his
record and that of the party which ne
represents and which has elected MIN.
He must meet the charges and accusa-
tions generally and in detail.
In this present campaign Gov. Roose-
welt has made of Mr.. Hoover the target
of his shafts of criticism in the spirit
of the challenger, and after some delay
Mr.. Hoover is replying with both de-
fense and counter attack. In his speech
at Indianapolis Friday night he carried
the war into the enemy's country, as
the phrase goes, and himself assumed
the offensive by questioning both MT.
Roosevelts knowledge Of conditions ana
happenings and the sincerity OF his
charges.
In the Indianapolis speech MT
Hoover either destroyed his opponents
argument by fact or he himself mis-
stated the case and the record. To his
partisans it appeared that he accomp-
lished the former, and that he put upon
Gov. Roosevelt the necessity OF either
correcting and disavowing or OF adopt
ing measures of further attack upon
his former line.
It would be interesting to know the
reactions of the Democratic candidate
to the speech of Friday night, which,
it must be assumed, he either heard
over the air or read in full yesterday
morning. He must ask himself II he
has been misunderstood or If he has
nisstated the case. He must question
his own information upon which his
attack has been based to learn whether
1t has been sound in substance and in
fact.
A candidate for the Office of President
Is supplied by others with ammunition
for his campaign. and upon them ne
must depend for its quality. He must
rely upon the thoroughness of the re-
search of his advisers and associates.
Have they been in fact thorough? Have
all their case materials been tested,
their charges verified? Has their men,
ory of events been dependable? Have
his own deductions from those materials
been sound and his accusations unan-
swerable?
In the enthusiasm of onset and attack
1apses from the strict record Of facts
are likely to occur. And when those
lapses occur and they are detected and
exposed, what course is to be pursued?
Is an unwarranted accusation to be
withdrawn upon challenge and proof?
Is the candidate to avow his error and
attribute it to imperfect information or
to the heat of debate?
Unfortunately it is dictun of Amer
ican politics, and perhaps the politics
of all lands, that retraction or a dis
avowal is to be avoided as a fatal con-
fession of error. The rules of the game
do not require it. Political discretion
commands that the attacking candidate
must stand by his guns even when his
heaviest shots have proved to be duds.
But such a course imposes a severe
strain upon the conscience and greatly
lessons the satisfaction that is felt if
victory is won by such means