"Socialism!"

(See front cover) Monster demonstrations for Smith along the Atlantic seaboard were the most interesting topic of the week for Democrats (see p. 13). Did those great crowds mean votes -- or curiosity? Was Demos what Alexander Hamilton called it, "a great beast," or was it a thinking creature of articulate enthusiasms? Republicans also pondered the Smith ovations, both as campaign phenomena and with reference to a problem of their own. What were Republicans to think of Nominee Hoover's cry of warning against "State socialism" in his New York speech last fortnight? Was that a sincere cry against a genuine danger? Or was it the ecclesiasticism reaches, as everyone knows, from Maine to California, from Mississippi Baptists to Princeton theologues. Religion is an open, acrid issue in Tennessee and Alabama. It is a tacit factor in New Eng land.

Registration. By "Hague-Land"' is meant the strongly Democratic northern counties of New Jersey, dominated by the Hudson County machine of Boss-Mayor Frank Hague of Jersey City. A typical complication of the election was seen last week in Hudson and Essex Counties. N. J. Republicans had been 'trying to fasten shame on Boss Hague. They obtained a new election law and challenged some 40,000 names on the heavy registration .'lists', as illegal. The Democrats retaliated -by charging that in Atlantic City, a Re publican stronghold. 2,370 names were il legally registered, including names of dogs, cats, dead men and a pet parrot named "John Talk." Atlantic City's population is some 57,000, of which some 10.000 are schoolchildren. Registrations reached the suspicious total of 41,643.

Tremendous registrations were the rule, however, even without parrots and dead men. The Associated Press reported a total registration of 43,084,257 for the whole U.S., about four-fifths of the eligible population. A vote of 37 millions was predicted, or an increase of eight millions over the votes cast in 1924.

Governors, Senators. Complicating the presidential vote in many a State, are gubernatorial and Congressional elections. Republican Indiana, for example, seemed last week in a fair way to acquire a Demo cratic Governor. So eaten with corruption is the local G. O. P. reputation that Demo crat Frank C. Dailey, running on a "house-cleaning'' platform, seemed well ahead of Republican Harry G. Leslie.

Illustrative of how Senatorial elections can influence the presidential vote are Minnesota and Wisconsin. In each of these States, the Democratic candidate for Senator withdrew. In Minnesota, the pur pose was to give Senator Shipstead. Farmer-Laborite, a clear field against a Re publican opponent. In Wisconsin, it was to give Senator LaFollette, Progressive Re publican, a clear field against an upstart "regular" Republican. The Hons. Shipstead and LaFollette reciprocated these courtesies by helping the Democratic na tional ticket.

In all, 36 Senators are to be elected. Three are to replace vacancies : to succeed the late Willis of Ohio, Gooding of Idaho. Jones of New Mexico. None of these States figures importantly in the presidential election. In eight other States, the Senatorial results are not in doubt -- Pennsylvania, Maine, Vermont, California (Republicans) ; Florida, Texas, Mississippi. Virginia (Democrats). In 12 of 26 other States, the Senatorial campaigns are un likely to affect presidential results -- Ari zona. Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho. Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico (2), Ohio (2). Utah, Washington, West Virginia. Wyoming.

In 14 States, however, Senatorial campaigns might help or hinder the winning of electoral votes somewhat as follows: In wet Republican Illinois, wet Democrat A. J. Cermak campaigned formidably against Republican Otis F. Glenn. The Cermak insignium was a bottle-opener and the motto: "This is for beer. So is Cermak." So is Smith.

In Republican Indiana. Republican Senator Arthur R. Robinson, campaigning for reelection, was viewed with alarm because of his past relations with proven corruptionists and the Klan. Strength to the Brown Derby thus accrued from the Senate candidacy of Democrat Albert Stump, as well as from the gubernatorial candidacy of Democrat Dailey (see above).

In doubtful Maryland. Democratic Senator Bruce, defending his seat against Republican Phillips Lee Goldsborough, exhorted his supporters also to support Nominee Smith. (Here, too, the gubernatorial situation was in the Brown Derby's favor. Governor Ritchie, wet, popular. Democrat, was campaigning for a third term.)

In problematical New Jersey. Rhode Island and Massachusetts, Democratic Senators Edwards, Gerry and David Ignatius Walsh, respectively, were defending their seats. The intersection of senatorial and presidential campaigns is usually figured the other way around. In the event of a Hoover landslide, the Democrats might lose not only the Presidency but a Senate seat each in four States where they now have both seats. In Montana, Senator Wheeler might get ousted; in Tennessee, Senator McKellar. In Missouri, Democrat Charles M. Hay, slated to fill the seat of fierce retiring-Senator James A. ("Jim") Reed, might lose to Republican R. C. Patterson. In New York, Senator Dr. Royal S. Copeland (red carnation in buttonhole) might be ousted by Nominee the Hon. Alanson Bigelow Houghton, U. S. Ambassador to the Court of St. James's.

In the restless Northwest, the chances of a Progressive-Democratic sweep were lessened when Senators Frazier of North Dakota and Howell of Nebraska, both very vaguely Republican, decided to campaign as Hooverites despite the opposite action of their Progressive and Farmer-Labor comrades in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Representatives.--The chairmen of the Congressional Committees--Indiana's Will R. Wood (Republican) and Arkansas's Will A. Oldfield (Democrat)--each predicted, as a matter of course, that their partisans throughout the land would win or retain enough seats to control the U. S. House of Representatives in the 71st Congress. The effect of these campaigns upon the presidential result is almost nil. except in special cases. In allegedly wavering Florida, the last minute efforts of Ruth Bryan Owen, daughter of the Great Commoner, Democratic candidate for Congress, will doubtless help the Brown Derby. Similarly effective, for Hooverism, has been and will be Ruth Hanna McCormick in faction-ridden Illinois. Lowden was her choice for the Republican nomination. But her father was Marcus Alonzo Hanna. Party regularity is her creed.

cry of a Hamiltonian sort of person who viewed the People with alarm? Was it by any chance purely a vote-hunting cry? In any case, was it a wise cry, politically? The nub of the Hoover speech was this: during the War, the U. S. Govern ment was centralized, given extraordinary powers over U. S. business, viz., the opera tion of the railroads. After the War, the extraordinary powers were withdrawn, control decentralized. "There has been revived in this campaign, however, a series of proposals which, if adopted, would be a long step towards the abandonment of our American system and a surrender to the destructive operation of governmental conduct of commercial business. Because the country is faced with difficulty and doubt over certain national problems -- that is,<< prohibition, farm relief and elec trical power -- our opponents propose that we must thrust government a long way into the businesses which give rise to these problems. In effect they abandon the tenets of their own party and turn to State socialism. . . . We are confronted with a huge program of government in business . . . based on principles de structive of its [the "American system's"] very foundations." The three Smith proposals to which Nominee Hoover referred were in essence as follows: 1) Liquor -- to give the States their choice between a) the present Federal Prohibition or b) manufacture and sale of liquor, not for private profit or public (saloon) consumption, but under State administration, for home consumption. 2) Farm Relief -- Federal assistance in distributing marketing costs over units of any crop in which a price-depressing sur plus occurs. 3) Water Power -- Government develop ment, ownership and control of undevel oped sites still in the Government's hands. The Smith proposal was also understood to include Government operation of public power-plants, if necessary, though this tenet had not been stressed in expositions of the main thesis against long leases of public power sites to privateers, and leases without adequate rate-controlling and re capture clauses. Nominee Hoover had generalized from three proposals by Nominee Smith in such a way as to represent his opponent as the apostle of an entire political philosophy foreign to the U. S. In doing so he had been indirect, impersonal, but purposeful. For example, he had cited government operation of railroads, a question not under debate. And he had quoted from the late great Laborite Samuel Gompers to improve his general argument, without explaining that the Gompers quotation had reference to Government operation of railroads and that alone. These things about the "Socialism" speech made it sound like just another political speech, and bad politics at that, because Nominee Smith was left with an obvious retort. Moreover, as any student of recent political history knew, many a member of Nominee Hoover's own party stood with or near Nominee Smith on the specific proposals described as "social-istic." Vice President Dawes, for example, who had spoken just before Nominee Hoover from the Manhattan platform, had long been an archproponent of the principle involved in the Smith proposal for farm relief. Charles Evans Hughes, at that moment westbound to speak for Nominee Hoover in critical Missouri, had long been an archproponent of the prin ciple involved in the Smith proposal of water power. Nominee Smith was not slow to pick up the "Socialist" challenge. Speaking in Boston, he "called the roll" of eminent Republicans past and present whom, he said, would have to be classed as "Social ists" if he was one -- the late Theodore Roosevelt, Mr. Hughes, Vice President Dawes, Nominee Curtis, Frank Orren Lowden, Senator Borah, etc., etc. Nominee Smith nailed the deceptive use of the Gompers quotation and kept his whole reply on that political level. Instead of elaborating a politico-economic theory, he simply said: "There is a very wide differ ence between public ownership and public control of water power sites, which in the first instance belong to the people them selves, and the operation and ownership of a going business [e.g., railroads]." He defended his Prohibition proposal only by reiterating that it was oldtime Jeffersonian States-rights doctrine. He mocked Nominee Hoover with his own acceptance-speech phrase, "We shall use words to convey our meaning, not to hide it," and dismissed the "Socialism" speech as "the cry of the special interests." Political effects of the exchange were immediate. The Hoover speech undoubt edly solidified portions of the Business vote of the U. S. It also hastened the pro-Smith declaration of independent Senator George W. Norris, reputed controller of Nebraska's electoral votes and a potent influence throughout the restless North-west (see p. 16). Senator Norris flatly opposed the Hoover position on water power, which for Senator Norris is the paramount issue. Senator Borah, one of Hooverism's most vigorous campaigners, was forced to admit, "I disagree with Mr! Hoover on the power question. If that were the only issue in this campaign. I could not support him." Senator Borah said the paramount issues were Prohibition and Farm Relief, of a different brand than Smith's. He did not "bolt." Neither did Senator Johnson, loud-spoken champion of a Federal water and power supply for Los Angeles.

The pro-Hoover Scripps-Howard chain-papers, which had already disowned the Hoover position on water power, pointed editorially to Senator Norris and exclaimed: "There is a man!"

The pro-Hoover New York Journal (Hearst) defended Nominee Smith from the "Socialist" charge. Hearst Cartoonist T. E. Powers drew a cartoon called "Wall Street Socialists." An elephant with whiskers and a silk hat scowled at a brown-derbied donkey and said: "You're a Socialist!" The donkey retorted: "Me, a Socialist? Oh! Charlie, won't you loan me your whiskers?"

The elephant in the Powers cartoon was labeled "Hughes of G. 0. P." Charles Evans Hughes was Hooverism's spokes-man to deal with the Smith retort.

Spokesman Hughes spoke in Buffalo and a subtler piece of political pleading has seldom been heard. The Hughes presence, dignity, prestige and good form are almost unique in U. S. public life. Few other fig- ures could have administered so impressively the prefatory rebukes to the Brown Derby which Spokesman Hughes uttered. He charged Nominee Smith with indulging in "cheap ridicule," "diatribe," "absurd tirades." "He [Nominee Smith] has stooped too low to conquer. . . . One's sense of fairness is affronted," said Mr. Hughes. "He misrepresents the position of Mr. Hoover and attempts to distort the meaning of Mr. Hoover's fine presentation of the true liberalism. . . ."

Mr. Hughes explained: "What Mr. Hoover meant by 'State socialism' is plain enough. He used the term in its proper sense as applied to the Bismarckian philosophy of the centralization of government, dominating all the activities of the people. Whether Governor Smith knows what the term 'State socialism' means or not, he at once jumped for the martyr's crown."

Mr. Hughes had little trouble showing that the Smith proposal to put the States into the liquor business is, by definition, State socialism. The occasion did not require Spokesman Hughes to explain why taking private citizens out of the liquor business, by Federal law, was not equally Bismarckian.

Mr. Hughes sought to pinion Nominee Smith on Water Power by inquiring why "Government operation" had been omitted from the Boston speech. That was the teat, he said. "Government operation" would mean "State socialism." "Let Governor Smith clarify his position. . . . Does Governor Smith contend that the Government has the right, under the Constitution of the United States, to engage in the power business, irrespective of flood control, navigation, irrigation or scientific research or national defense?"

This last was the list of exceptions reserved by Nominee Hoover to cover such "local instances," and vexed political issues, as the Muscle Shoals project in Alabama and the Boulder Dam project on the Colorado River.

It was a keen political speech. Its most effective part by far was that overtone of Republican formality. To his earlier rebukes. Spokesman Hughes added: "The whole tone of Governor Smith's campaign has been far below what the country had a right to expect."