The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1940-04-04
Presidential Veracity

One is not supposed puollcly 10
question the veracity of the Presl-
dent of the United States. The dig
nifty of the office protects the man who
occupies it and enables him sometimes
to make assertions that in others
would meet with fiat contradiction. But
that privilege ought to impose upon a
President an obligation to see that his
own assertions are not susceptible to
contradiction. Particularly it should
make him careful not to accuse others
of inaccuracy unless his accusations
are completely justified.
IT. does not seem to work. that way
with this president. For example,
take his most recent denial of news
paper story. 1t seems worth while to
review the facts. This story was
printed on March by the strong New
Dealer and great Presidential admirer,
Mr.. Ernest Lindley. In effect, it said
that Mr.. Roosevelt had told an init
mate friend, first, that he himself
would not run for third term; second,
that he thought highly of Mr.. Hull as
a candidate if Mr.. Jackson were his
running mate; third, that Mr. Farley's
nomination for Vice-President was not
feasible because he is a Catholic. All
of this, except the remark about Mr..
Farley, had been printed before and
there is no doubt whatever that MI.
Roosevelt had said it all before.
Queried about the Lindley article
next day at his press conference, the
President evaded by saying he had not
read it. As it had been printed con-
spicuously on the first page of the
Washington Post, and as almost i'm
mediately he quoted statement he
said he had read on an inside page OF
the same paper, no one believed that.
Used to such Presidential evasions,
the newspapermen did not regard the
President as being deliberately men
dacious; they simply considered it his
way of avoiding an embarrassing
question. The following day both press
and radio commented copiously on the
fact that the story had been allowed
to stand without even the indirect de-
NAL through the Presidential secretary
SO often and conveniently used.
In the days that followed every I'M
portant newspaper in the country re-
ferred to the resentment of Mr.. Farley
and his friends. over the White House
suggestion that Catholic would not
be considered for the second place.
Many columns were written pointing
out that this issue had been raised
against Mr.. Farley nowhere else; that
it would rise to plague the President
in the convention and in the campaign;
that Mr.. Farley could net now be
turned down without having it as
cribed to his religion. All of which
were obvious, legitimate and inevi-
table deductions. There was nation
wide discussion of these points, and
expressions of feeling from Catholics
began to get into the papers.
The existence of what was almost
an open rift between Mr.. Roosevelt
and Mr.. Farley was generally noted
and on Monday Mr.. Farley, in New
York, made a speech in which he
pointedly expressed the hope that in
this country neither race, religion, nor
color should bar any man from aspir-
ing to any office. Enthusiastically,
this was in reply to the Lindley article
quoting the President on this subject.
1t got results. The next day at his
press conference the President
brought up this ffteen-day-old story
himself. He applauded what Mr. r ar
ley had said as grand" and he as
serted that, having now read the
Lindley article, he wanted to say that
it was "false in every particular" and
had been made up "out of the whole
CLOTH"
Now, it would be easy to character
ize this if it came from anyone save
the President of the United States.
Under the circumstances, all that can
be said is that not even his most par
tial New Deal friends believe it. They
do not believe that Mr.. Roosevelt had
not read the story when he said he had
not read it. They do not believe the
story was false, and they do not be-
lieve Mr., Roosevelt believes Mr.. Lind