Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1935-09-08

Will De Mr.. Roosevelt. 1t is simply not
practicable for them to be associated
actively with third party movement.
They may deplore or bitterly resent
Mr.. Roosevelts course-in their hearts
most of the thoughtful among them
do. But Mr.. Roosevelt, like any Presi-
dent in Office, Is able to re-nominate
himself. Since he will be at the head
of the regular Democratic ticket, the
others on the ticket must go through
the motions of endorsing and support
ing him. 1t is not an agreeable con-
dltlon. 1t is not pleasant to contem-
plate hundreds Of men, many of them
leaders highly placed, giving lip serv-
/ ice to a thing in which they do not
believe. But as a practical matter,
/ Democrats now in Office and espe-
cially ones running for reelection
next year, will feel obliged to do just
that. To do otherwise would be po-
litical suicide. or resignation to Ger
tain political execution. A few Demo-
Gratis in active political life may take
the course Of suicide, or of inviting
| political death. Even one example, if
the attention Of the country to the
seriousness Of the issues in next years
presidential campaign.
Glass Effective Critic.
Two of The most conspicuous critics
and opponents of the tendency toward
collectiviSm are Senators Carter Glass
and Harry F. Byrd of Virginia. The
! voice of Senator Glass. certainly. is
/ more powerful than that of any Re-
/ publican. Another effective critic and
| opponent is Senator Willard F.
Tydings of Maryland But I doubt
very much if any of these would align
himself with third party. For their
course, no one who knows political
realities will esteem them any less.
They feel they can be more effective
by remaining within the Democratic
party, and from that leverage seek
ing TO force the party back to what
they regard as its true course. Mr..
/ Carter Glass in the Senate is a DOW
erful voice; Mr.. Glass defeated for
reelection next year would be much
less force.
: 1t follows that the leadership OF the
third party for traditional Democrats
and the candidates of it, must come
from Democrats not now holding office.
1t must come from Democrats whose
offlce-holding days are over. Or it
must come from Democrats disttn-
guished in other areas of life than
! ot1ce-holding. There are many emf
/ &c rf
are living three men who have had the
Democratic nomination for the presi-
dency, ex-Gov. Alfred E. Smith Of New
York, ex-Gov. James NJ Cox of Ohio
and former Democratic Ambassador to
London John w Davis. How any of
these may feel about the New Deal I
do not know. I imagine all three would
Ike to bring the Democratic party
back to where it was when they headed
1t. There are yet others: Ex-Gov. Al
bert c. Richie of Maryland, ex-Gov.
Ely Of Massachusetts, former Secretary
( Of War in woodrow Wilson's cabinet,
! Newton D. Baker. There are others
who have standing without ever hav-
ing held Office. The efforts of the or
esnizers of the third party must be to
md out what ones are willing to align
themselves publicly with the new
party, and then determine what ones
| among these would make the most ap-
/ pealing candidates for President and
Vice President.
| The effectiveness Of third ticket of
! traditional Democrats would not be
measured by its chance of winning,
| for it would have none 1t would not
be measured by the number of votes it
would receive. Its effectiveness would
lie in its causing the country to realize
the gravity of the issue. and in the
emphasis it would put on principle and
conscience.
Figures for Next Year.
In the last presidential election the
results were:
Roosevelt, Democrat, 22,521,525
Hoover, Republican, l5,597,537
The difference. Mr.. Roosevelt's ma
/ Jority. was seven millions. Looking to
next year the principal question is how
many of the 2212 millions who voted
for Mr.. Roosevelt in 1892 will next
| year vote for the Republican candidate.
We may begin by inquiring how many
! persons, habitually Republican. voted
for Mr.. Roosevelt in 1882. Were there
as many as two millions? One would
think so-read1ly that. for the country
was in the depths of the depression;
and in addition TO that reason, many
! Republicans voted the Democratic
ticket because they preferred the forth
right position of the Democratic plat
form on prohibition. Would it be
safe to say that as many as two mil
lion Republicans voted for Mr.. Roose-
welt in 1882? And that those two
million will next year vote for the Re-
publican candidate? II so, that trans.
fer of two million votes would make
the figures
Democratic, 20,52l,525
Republican, 17,597,537
Now how many persons, habitual
Democrats, who voted for Nj. Roose-
welt as a matter of course in 1892
will in 1886 vote against him? Would
it be safe to estimate that there are
as many as 100000 of thess' Trans
fer of that 100000, if it should take
place, would make the figures:
Democratic, 18,521,525
Republican, 19,597,537
In addition to persons who voted
the Democratic ticket in 1882, but will
in 1885 vote the Republican one, we
must take into account the possibility
Of third party, perhaps more than
one third party. A third party
headed by q conservative Democrat
might readily take half q million
votes from Mr.. Roosevelt. A third
party, Of different type, headed by
Huey Long, might take another half
million.
All this is sheer guesswork. To
suggest that roughly Is per cent Of
those who voted for Mr.. Roosevelt in
1882 might vote against him in 1896
may seem extreme. But the lesson Of
that Rhode Island congressional cleo
ton last month Is that very large