The Waterbury Democrat., 1936-06-16
J.w. pitsPAtrioIs

the address dee S.,vv. uat.pa evsep. livered by for.
 mer President Herbert Hoover. I listened to it's delivery with an open mind, dlscounting ell my own personal political preferences and, making due allowance for the static which made It's reception diflcult, I came to the reasoned conclusion that 1t contained, llter- ally, nothing deserving attention. To me it was comparable only with the commencement day ad- dress of Q sophomore who found himself suddenly, and ui1wafrant. edly, kicked into the position of Q senior class graduation orator. It generalized about freedom, Amer icail freedom in particular--as if that type of freedom was differ ent from any other kind. It ace cused the Democratic administra- ton of attacking, and seeking to destroy, every vestige of our liberty without application of the accu. sation to any particular act of the Roosevelt administration. There were pious references to the Holy Scriptures which were seized upon by Republican editors as proof that MT. Hoover was preaching Q crusade after the manner, but minus the divine fire, of Peter the
 Hermit. There was Q mention of Mount Pisgah whereon Moses died in sight of The Promised Land, an unconscious admission, doubt. less, of the hopeiessness of the Re. publican cause in November. I may be doing the delegates ct the con- vention an injustice but I doubt whether they ever heard of Mount Piggah or knew the difference be. tween 1t and Mount Everest, Mount Shasta, or Mount Tom.
 Failed Again
 MT. Hoover thanked God rever. ently for the Constitution and for the Supreme Court,-as presently constituted--as if the Democratic national administration reprobat- ed both. He called attention to the fact that the Court had de- clared unconstitutional ten or twelve New Deal measures but he failed conspicuously to say that in almost all of its opinions the Court was divided. The former Pres- idents failure to make this all important reference unfnistakable was, 1t seems to me, characteriB- tic of his entire address. There were words in plenty but instead of specific, direct proofs of the failure of the New Deal to raise us out of the Slough of Despond there was substituted the round- the-bush generalities of Q partisan sturnp-speech maker. It was an occasion which called for sounds ness of thought and directness of expression. To c statesman of gen. uine political genius 1t was the op- portunity of Q lifetime and as usual MT. Hoover inufied 1t. Tho greatest presidential failure in the memory of this generation could no more rise to the potentialities of the Cleveland convention than he could grapple with Q clear mind and an indomitable purpose the problems which arose during his residence in the White House. It is unpleasant to record, because when ell is said and done Mir. Hoover is c former chief executive of the nation and 'as such should receive consideration which he and his associates in the Repuh- lican party refuse Mir. Roosevelt, that after the shouting and the tumult of his appearance in Cleveland died there was nothing he said which, even from the view point of strict party partisanship, is either memorable or deserving of remembrance.
 Thorn in the Side
 Reference has been made in these columns to the fact that the latest decision of the Supreme Court, outlawing the minimum wage law of New York, and with- out actually passing on them dis- carding similar laws of almost 6 score of other states of the Union, would turn out to be 6 thorn in the side of those whose job 1t was to draft the Republican national platform. President Roosevelt has been the target of the g.o.p. and the (duPonts) American Liberty League villitlcation because of his alleged determination to. under mine the prestige of the Court. Yet so pronounced, and 50 impos- gible of ignoring, has been the re sentiment created by this opinion in the minds of ell progressive Americans that Candidate Land0n felt it necessary to send Q teie- gram to the Cleveland delegates announcing that he would favor Q constitutional amendment per- hitting the states to enact legisla- ton to protect the hours, wages, and working conditions of women and children if such legislation could not be enacted under the present Constitution. But since, from the written opinion of the