Evening star., 1944-09-08

searched should find especially in
teresting the column" Mr.. Willkie
wrote last week at the request Of
John Temple Graves and printed
in large number Of papers. !:
For in that column Mr.. Willkie
makes it seem clear that he not only
will not support Mr.. Roosevelt, but
never has had any intention Of so
doing. In fact. 1t would appear
from the reading of Mr.. WILKES
column that Mr.. Roosevelt is the
last man he would support in either
foreign or domestic policies: that he
would vote for almost any decent
man processing the basic principles
to which he adheres, rather than
Mr.. Roosevelt.
Mr.. Willkie does not make this
plain by any denunciation of Mr..
Roosevelt There is not in his COL
unin single violent word. Never
theless, it is impossible to read 1t
without concluding that he has
neither respect for nor confidence
in Mr.. Roosevelt, either as a man
or a statesman; that the Roosevelt
record in both the foreign and the
domestic fields is abhorrent to the
Willkie principles.
Significance Of Utterance.
The best way to get at the sig
nificance Of this latest Willkie ut
terance is to summarize its con-
tents. First, Mr.. Willkie reveals
that the late Newton D. Baker, Sec
retary of War under Woodrow Will
son, was his warm friend and polit-
ical mentor"
He then recites his early devotion,
with Mr.. Baker, to the League of
Nations ideal and graphically tells
the story Of Mr. Bakers heroic ad-
vocacy Of a League Of Nations plank
In the Madison Square Garden
Democratic convention of 1924.
At that time, as Mr.. Willkie
points out, Mr. Baker, almost alone,
made one of the most magnificent
fights ever made in such a gather
Ing. Those who heard that great
speech of his urging the party to
stand true to its principles and re-
main loyal to the memory of Wilson
will never forget it.
He put into that speech every
thing he had-physically. mentally,
spiritually. A man can do no more
1t was a moving and memorable
performance. And Immediately fol-
lowing. the vote was taken and the
convention, though it had enthusi-
astically applauded Mr.. Baker, over
whelmingly rejected his proposal.
Mr.. Willkie leaves no room for
doubt that he regarded that rejec-
ton as shocking and indefensible;
that he was heart and soul with
Mr.. Baker at the time; that he stin
adheres to his views and cherishes
his memory. He touches again on
the rejection Of the League in 1882
and his keen disappointment that
the plan to nominate Mr.. Baker
then failed.
He does not mention the fact that
in that 1924 convention Franklin
Roosevelt sat as delegate but
neither raised his voice nor cast his
vote for the League plank to which
he was deeply committed by his own
1920 campaign as a candidate for
Vice President. But Mr.. Willkie does
pointedly assert that in 1882, when
Mr.. Roosevelt was seeking the presi-
dental nomination, he publicly re-
pudiated the League Of Nations"
Reputation on Record.
Now that Mr.. Roosevelt is again a
leading advocate of the League prin-
ciple this episode of his career is
not often referred to-never by his
friends. But his reputation is a
matter OF record-as is also the fact
that he was driven to it under the
stinging lash of William Randolph
Hearst.
Having thus recalled this shameful
performance, Mr.. Willkie declares
that after these experiences and
after the Democratic party in the
middle 30s began to violate the
very essence of Wilson's philosophy
of government left the Demo-
cratic party-or, perhaps, the Demo-
cratic party left me-"
In effect, what Mr.. Willkie says is
that it was Franklin Roosevelt who
repudiated and betrayed the foreign
policy principles which he still cher
ishes and it was Franklin Roosevelt
who violated the very essence" of
the Wilson philosophy in domestic
affairs; In brief that it was Franklin
WHAT VINn