Evening Star Newspaper, December 7, 1930, Page 37

Editorial Page —_— Part 2—8 Pages \ EDITORIAL SECTION he Sundmy Star, WASHINGTON, | Ty D. C, SUNDAY MORNING, DECEMBER 7, 1930. EXPEDIENCY STAND ON Present Outlook Makes It Easy for Democrats to Be Faces Problem. BY MARK SULLIVAN. HE purpose of the present article is to consider prohibition with respect to each of the two par- ties. In what is here said the future attitude of the two par- ties is considered from the standpoint of political expediency only. This does not mean, obviously, that political ex- pediency is the best standpoint. It does not mean, necessarily, that political ex- pediency will govern the future treat- ment of prohibition by either party. It is possible that the question will be set- tled—so far as it will ever be settled— by one party or the other taking a course that is bold and firm. It may be settled (again, so far as it can be settled at all in any permanent sense) by one party or the other arriving at | a course which is the fruit of wise com- | promise between extreme points of view. In short, the future course of one or both parties on prohibition may be de- termined by something more elevated than party expediency. When the pres- ent article deals with the subject from the point of view of political expediency alone, it does so merely for the sake of simplicity. The consideration of prohi- bition wholly in terms of party strategy, as here attempted, can be looked upon, it the reader chooses, as a “stunt.” November Election Results. Consider first the Republicans. Im- agine them to be attempting to chart a future course about prohibition. Im- agine them doing so with the principal or exclusive object of avoiding defeat in future elections. Finally, conceive that the only data they have to guide them, or at least the only thing they use to guide them, is past experience with prohibition as an issue. By “past experience” is meant the results of the recent November election. ‘The Republican who sets himself to this task will find himself facing a bleak prospect. Consider what hap- pened in the November election to Re- publicans running in elections in which prohibition was a main issue: In New York the Republican candi- date for Governor (and the Republican party organization as well) went all the way over to the wet position. This way of putting it is subject to some slight qualification, but it is not material. And the Republican candidate for Gov- ernor of New York, having gone all the way over to the wet position, was given the worst beating ever administered to any Republican who ever ran for Gov- ernor of that state. Mrs. McCormick’s Race. ‘That was experience No. 1. Turn now to another variety of attitude on prohi- bition and the result thereof. In Illinois Ruth McCormick went, one may say, half way over to the wet position. She had been a dry. (Inci- denteally, she had been a dry by convic- tion, and probably is yet.) In the pri- mary election within the rty Mrs. McCormick ran as a dry. n, between the primary which she had won and the election which she hoped to win, she made the halfway switch. There was to be in Illinois a State referendum on prohibition. Mrs. McCormick announced that in her atti- tude in the Senate, if elected thereto, she would be guided by the outcome of the referendum. That may be described as, roughly, a step halfway in the wet direction. Mrs. McCormick went halfway wet, adopted the middle course—and suf- fered the worst defeat ever administered to any Republican candidate for the Senate in Ilinois—the worst defeat, in- deed, ever administered to any Repub- Ilun’::;ndldlu for any State office in That was experience No. 2, lesson No. 3. _Consider now the third. In Massachusetts William M. Butler was a dry and a Republican. He wished to return to the United States Senate, where once he served. He announced 1f as a candidate, and in so an- nouncing he “stood pat” as a dry. He Tan as a dry—and he received almost the worst beating ever administered to any Republican candidate for the Sen- ate in Massachusetts. His defeat was not as bad as the one suffered by the Illinois Republican who went halfway wet, or the one suffered by the New York Republican who went all the way wet. But it was pretty bad. There, in those three cases, are about all the variations of position on prohj- bition that it is possible to take. Re- publicans in different States took all three—and in all three cases were de- feated. If you were a Republican poli- tician and if you were trying to figure out what stand on prohibition it is best to take and if you were trying to settle the mattter solely on the basis of party expediency—in that series of “ifs” what would you conclude? What is said above as to each of the elections named is, of course, very much abbreviated. As to each there were issues besides prohibition and som other conditions affecting the outcome. I think, however, that any politician or observer would say that in all three cases the attitude of the candidate on prohibition was a determining influ- ence. In short, it is safe to assume that any politician would concede that Wwhat is above said about the elections 4n three large States is at least tenable. Hastings an Exception. ‘There was just one other election, in & very small State, from which s Re- publican, trying to chart his party's future course on prohibition, might get some comfort and some light. In the tiny state of Delaware a Republican and a dry, Daniel O. Hastings, ran for re-election as United States Senator. He ran as a dry—he “stood pat.” And he won. He won against an opponent who was Democratic ang wet. If there is any other State in which a Republi- can dry ran for as high an office as Senator or Governor against a Demo- <ratic wer and succeeded in winning, the writer of this article cannot recall tre case. Clearly this result in little Delaware may have some meaning. Delaware is the home State of the very wet chair- man of the Democratic National Com- mittee, John J. Raskob. It is the State of the du Pont family, members of which are the leading figures in the £=a0eiztion Opposed to Prohibition. In #hort, Delaware would seem to be a State in which it should be difficult for a Republican dry to win. Nevertheless, this Republican dry, Senator Hastings, did win. One would suspect that Re- publican leaders and dry Republican candidates for office in future elections would look into this Delaware fight and try to find out from Senator Hastings Just how he did it. ‘The exception of little Delaware is, however, almost immaterial to what is here set down. The broad pects taking one attitude or another about prohibition. Somebody will cite, as an exception, New Jersey and Dwight Morrow. It is true that Dwight Morrow ran for Sena- tor as & Republican wet (“wet” in the sense that he disapproves the ith And it s true | South, as a rule, will stay Democratic MAY FIX PROHIBITION Wet, but G. O. P. that Mr. Morrow won by & quite sizable | majority. While some other considera- | tions affected the outcome, the case of | Mr. Morrow and New Jersey is an ex- ception. As such it may have some effect on Republican thinking. It remains bleakly true, however, that the Republicans took the wet position in New York and lost; took the moist position in Illinois and lost, and took the dry position in Massachusetis and ost. If you were a Republican trying to chart a course on prohibition, based on party expediency, what would you do? Perhaps you might conclude that there must be some better basis than party expediency for determining a party's position on & great public question. Perhaps one would conclude that the best thing for the Republicans would be to stand firm on some tenable prin- ciple or work out a plan for dealing with liquor based on reason, experience and wisdom. ‘There was once a shrewd old Senator from the South who used to say, “In politics, when there isn't any better way, do the right thing.” Turn now to the Democrats. For them the path is easy. At least, it is easy up to a certain point. The path for the Democrats is easy up to and after election—and if difficulties post- pone themselves until after an election party leaders do not ordinarily worry. In the recent November election the Democrats took the wet position in practically every State outside the Solid South, excepting Montana. There may be one or two other Western States in which the Democrats did not take the wet position. In any event and all events the exceptions are immaterial. The Democrats in all the large States, in all the decisive States, in all the States that are vital in a presidential election, took a wet position and won. The Democrats were wet in Massa- chusetts and elected a Senator and Governor. They were wet in Connec- ticut and elected a Democratic Gover- nor for the first time in some eighteen years. They were wet in New York and elected their candidate for Governor by the largest majority ever given a candidate for that office; for the first time in 40 years or more they carried that part of New York State that lies outside of New York City. True, the Democrats were wet in New Jersey and did not elect their Senator, but in tl State the Republican candidate for Sena- tor also was wet. The Democrats were wet in Pennsylvania and came within what amounts in that State to a squeak of electing a Democratic Governor—and 1f they had it would have been the first e in 40 years. The Democrats were wet in Maryland and re-elected their candidate for Governor, Albert Ritchie, to what will amount in the aggregate to_the longest continuous tenure ever held by any Governor of any American State. Democrats in Ohio were wet to the extent of nominating a wet candi- date for Senator and elected him. Democrats were wet in Illinois and elected & Senator. | Inference Is to Be Wet. In short, by inference from the re- cent election, the course for the Demo- crats 15 to be wet. True the Demo- cratic party in the South is dry, prob- ably dry as ever. But in the large East- ern and Northern States that determine presidential elections, the Democrats went wet—and won. To go wet is not | only the lesson of the November elec- tion for the Democrats. That lesson co- incides with the strongly held purpose of the present national Democratic managers, especially National Chairman John J. Raskob. But it will be said that the Demo- crats will have difficulty going wet, that they will encounter cleavage, that the South will resist. It is true the South is and will be dry. It is less true, | Is Diplomacy Changing? sues Should Be Noted Frenchman Declares That Qutward Aspects Are Different, but Substance Remains the Same. BY JAMES HAMILTON LEWIS, United States Senator-Elect from Tilinols. As Told to Paul R. Leach. OU ask if I concur with the members of the House and Sen- | ate who say they will abide by any agreement made by party leaders on all sides to support the President in everything during the short session which has just opened, merely because the President asks. ‘Those party leaders of the minority, in their agreement, say they “will reserve the right to themselves to overturn what they feel is wrong” at the first moment available; “and this whether in the House or Senate or before the public.” Ycu say that question is prompted following my election as a Democrat by | some 700,000 plurality in a State that is normally 400,000 or more Republican, Bear in mind that when previously I represented the people of Illinois in the United States Senate I was elected by a State Legislature that was Republican in majority. Here is my answer: Special Conditions Rule. Much depends on the conditions which surround each conflict. Every- thing in politics is dependent upon the specific facts out of which an issue arises. The time has gone by, forever I hope, when any one particular party should feel it is obligated to obstruct the other political party in whatever it undertakes merely because of the dif- ference in the names of the organiza- tions. If our Government is a Government of the people, with the political policies guarded by the parties, then whatever is the welfare of the people should be given the first place in the considera- tion and action of public servants. This is true even though such might lessen the mere political party fortunes of some political combination or office- seeking organization. ‘When the American Government be- gan its construction of political form the question at issue was whether go ernment should take the model of roy- alty, whether the people were secondary and the select few made kingly, or whether the people should be the sov- ereigns and the official few to be only the selected servants. This was the contest in the first instance—the as- sumed government of royalty under leadership of Alexander Hamilton; the other of the sovereignty of the people under the leadership of Thomas Jeffer- son. The fear of each organization that every act by any of the opposing organ. ization of either leader was the prelimi. nary looking to installation of the sys- tem which each opposed against the other. That was the reason ' for ob- structing any and every move of the opposition. Some Ignoble Obstruction. With “this beginning, every issue raised by one party up to the time of the coming of the e on slavery would be opposed immediately the other, with no regard to the merits of the question, but with consideration only to the fact that it was suggested by that called “the opponent and the enemy.” This form of political ob- struction continued, to the detri ient of America and often times to the de- struction of political honor in America. Great events were defeated and noble designs were frustrated by opposition, and for no other reason than that the scheme issued from a source of political Drawn for The Sunday Star by Stockton Mulford. TODAY DIPLOMACY, AS WELL AS POLITICS, HAS TRAVELED OUTSIDE THE PRIVATE ROOMS OF STATESMEN, BY JULES COMBON, there were neither great nor small af-|the task of those who endeavor to mnkg‘ partly open. Gangs of youths and Veteran French Diplomat and President of | 18irs, but just affairs, and that s busi-| him listen to reason so as to avoid | workmen were walking about the platz the Ambassadors’ Conference. ness man often needed as much finesse | catastrophes. The war in 1870 and the | singing {Mflouc songs and uttering diplomacy” and “old diplo- | 204 _general kuowledge as a_statesman war in 1914 were both wanted and ac- | shouts. I pointed them out to Herr von 114 EW diplomacy” a; 1° i ‘N- carTying on negotiations. Lord Grey | claimed by public opinion, the former | Jagow and asked him to put a stop to m"lly ,“fne"p"“ °$h°t ""s’ | expressed the same principle in his|in France and the latter in Germany. | this noise and to see that the embassy "h“ ';Kn ’“'i‘:‘-m ‘m de | memoirs, and he said that the repre- | Since then public opinion has realized | was placed under police protection. He b ng o i e outside | sentatives of governments called one an- | the magnitude of its error, but it will | promised that this should be done. Only or the decoralive aspect of |other “excellency,” but that the game never admit its own responsibility. It|a few hours later, however, a crowd | diplomacy. The !ubmhche remains the | woulq be just the same if they were will accuse the diplomatists. collected outside the British Embassy same as ever, because human nature | Tom, Dick and Harry. On the morning of August 3, 1914,/and broke the windows with stones. does not me;- because nations will al- | * Politics, including those of the inter-| Herr von Jagow, secretary of state for ‘ The Emperor sent one of his officers to Yays have only one way of settling their | national order, have not traveled out- | foreign affairs, came to the embassy |my colleague, Sir Edward Goschen, to differences, and because the word of an |side of the private rooms of statesmen. | in Berlin and announced that Germany | express his regret, and I am sure that honest man will always be the best in- | The man in the street plays his part in j had broken with us, and that I should | Herr von Jagow was much affected by strument that a government can use 10 | them; he imparts to them his passions, |recelve my passport in the afternoon.|this attack. No government ever se- make its views prevail. his instincts, his prejudices and his| We were in my study, which looked on | cured such ¢ M. Thiers once remarked to me that|ignorance; and this does not facilitate ' the Pariser Piatz. The windows were structionists. tinued this systam of political warfare to the dismay of the patriotic and to th. loss of peace and happiness for years following that war. By doing| that we prevented early national re-| though to some degree true, that the | South will resist the party in the Na- | tion as a whole going wet. The South- | ern resistance, however, will not be for- | midable enough and will not be pressed hard enough to prevent the party as a | whole from being wet. Hardly any one | doubts that the Democratic party in | the next presidential campaign will be | wet; certainly wet enough to satisfy | those wet voters who gave Democratic | Franklin Roosevelt such an immense majority in November. Party expe- diency—and all that is said in this par- | ticular article is based on party expedi- ency only—dictates the wet position for the Democrats. The fact is the Democrats on the prohibition issue are able to straddle comfortably. This is because the re- spective elements in the party are dis- tant from each other geographically. The Democratic wets are substantialiy all in the North; the Democratic drys substantially all in the South. Because the South tends to go Democratic for reasons and tradition older and deeper than prohibition, it follows that the ven though the party nationally goes wet. There may be some exceptions to this statement. One hears it asserted with strong emphasis that if the Demo- | | cratic party nationally goes wet, Texas, | for example. ~in.resegtment, will go Re- | publican That remains to be seen. The net of it all is that from the point | of view of party expediency, the course | of the Democrats is to go wet. Cer-| tainly no politician and no observer ex- pects to see the Democrats in 1932 election take the dry position. ‘The Democratic wets in the North and the Democratic drys in the South can march shoulder to shoulder behind a wet candidate for the presidency on | & wet platform. They can march shoulder to shoulder right up to the election. They can march shoulder to | shoulder right through the election. If | the conditions are as favorable in other | respects and in all respects, they can win the election without any interfer- ing fatal cleavage on prohibition. But | immediately after winning, if they | should win, their troubles begin, their cleavage will come to the surface explo- sively. Party Would Split. Suppose the Democrats in 1932 elect a Democratic President, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House. Sup- pose they take possession of their king- dom. Suppose Congress meets. Imagine, for supposition’s sake, that the Democrats have as many as 260 out of a total of 435 members of the Lower House. On a day early in their tenure of power those 260 Democratic members of the Lower House would meet in a room for the purpose of determining party policy. Into that caucus room throw the juestion of prohibition. Instantly the ocrats will divide almost squarely in two. Out of 260 members of the Lower House, roughly, half, about 130, would be drys coming f: be almost wholly from such cities and urban dis- tricts as New York, Boston, Cleveland, Chicago and the densely populated sec- tions of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey and other Northern States. Party expediency suggests that the Democrats be wet union and quick harmony amidst fellow | citizens. Up to the administration of Grover Cleveland this practice of deliberate po- litical obstruction continued from either | party against the other. The E‘m‘s‘ operated under the improper license | that it was both the privilege and the | duty of the one ever to defeat the other, | all without regard to what the under- taking might be or when and where presented. It was not until the administration of Theodore Roosevelt that one ele- ment of the Democracy and one of Republicanism began to harmonize to the common object of the thing that was sought in behalf of the Republic. It began in the bill presented by Preui- dent Roosevelt known as the “railroad bill.” It looked toward some modifica- tion of the system of railway freight persecution, particularly by the East practiced upon the West. The Presi- dent found himself opposed by the Democrats and the Republicans of the East. He turned to his old arch-politi- cal foe, Senator Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina, who, with Senator Bailey of Texas, was given charge of the bill by the President. Certain Dem- ocrats and Republicans joined in the opposition to this transfer of sponsor- ship. Measures on Their Merits. Thereupon there arose an organiza- tion of Democrats known as the “Re- formed Democracy.” After I had en- tered public life as a member of Con- gress I assumed to define this group as the “Advanced Democracy.” We joined with that element of the Republicans called then “Insurgents,” later *“Pro- gressives.” Here began for ‘the first time that co-operation as to measures on their merits without regard to the source of their origin and despite the designation of the party source. Western Republicans returned the gesture in the Wilson administration and supported Mr. Wilson on certain measures on the same basis that the Democrats had supported Roosevelt. It was generally felt th.t we had passed the point where ever again prejudice of party names would prevent the con- sideration and adoption of measures possessing merit and carrying with them promises of public welfare. We are now in the era where citizens should ever be secure in the knowledge thit whatever is presented by the lead- ers of each political party when it is for the benefit of the citizen at large and the country generally should be adopted as the right of the citizen and the just property of the le. When a President of the United States is elected for a period of four years upon political principles projected by him, I insist that he has a right to have those principles put into control and the people have a right of having them tested fairly and fully. Opposition Is Weighed. I deny that it is ever the duty of a political party leader to oppose the action of the President only because the President is of another political me. I assert that such opposition, merely be- cause the proposal comes from the President named by the :‘ppo.lnl party, the duty of New Boss of the Pampas Gen. Jose Felix Uriburu, Aristocrat, Plans to Put Rule Back in Hands of People EDWARD TOMLINSON. BY | ¢ I, SENOR. He usually has a 1 puchero for lunch. The Presi- dent is not a heavy eater.” Not a heavy eater? “Usually | a puchero!” | An Argentine puchero is a dish by the side of which a normal planked steak is but an infant in swaddling clothes and the average hotel-bred New Eng- land boiled dinner a mere knicknack. It is a boiled inventory of the corner grocery and the community meat market. | “Puchero & la Criolla” ordinarily | includes two or three potatoes, a slice of pumpkin, vegetable marrow (or a | half of a squash), a medium-sized head of cabbage, corn on the cob (in season), string beans, green peas, celery, carrots, a double portion of steamed rice, salt| bacon, a slice or two of beef and a! couple of links of sausage—all this | served steaming hot on a large platter. | And if you are a sensitive foreigner, when the waiter proudly presents it for | your inspection you feel like a well known author who upon his first visit to New York ordered a half dozen lobsters for lunch. But to say that Lieut. Gen. Jose Felix Uriburu, the new ruler of Argentina, “usually has a puchero for lunch” might be another way of suggesting that he is a true Argentine, but not a native of Buenos Alres. All Argentina Likes It. ‘The puchero is a traditional national dish, common alike on the table of the aristocrat or peasant whose ancestry is of native provincial (interior) origin. Although the immigrant and foreigner find it about the tastiest thing ever, it is really the dish of the old-family Ar- | gentine. | Uriburu’s family goes back to the very | earliest days of the Spanish colonial pe- riod, and if all its members were brought together in a single group it would make a formidable community, because the Uriburus are as, say, the Browns of the United States. He is not only Argen- tine, but Criolla—that is, born in the far interior and of Spanish colonial parentage. He is not a port man, a porteno, a time you may pay. But I expect to come here often, and from now on we | ‘shake,’ just as we used to do, to see who | s for the drinks.” Has Military Dignity. And yet by training and experience there is no more rigidly dignified mili- tary man in the hemisphere. Reared in the military_tradition, graduated from | Argentine’s West Point at the earliest| permissible age, he officered about the| country, then served as military attache with the embassies in Madrid, Santiago (Chile), Berlin and London, and after- ward returned to active service at home, gradually rising in rank until he be- came the ranking general of the finest and most efficiently organized army in South America. Not much is popularly known of the boyhood of Uriburu, but the fragmen- tary incidents his friends are able to recall reveal that even as a lad he was a person of ready decision, quick to act and conservative of speech—all the characteristics of the military mind. One of his classmates said: “You know, I have been trying to recollect those early years when we were in school here together in Buenos Aires, but there seems to be little to remember. He was not outstanding. He did not attract much attention. He was a very quiet fellow; had little to say. I always thought he was unusually serious for his age, and he kept his own counsel. At the same time, he was very much liked in spite of his reticence and seri- ous manner.” Courage Known in Boyhood. Another acquaintance of those days who was listening in'spoke up to say: “Ah, but do you not remember the time he defended the honor of his family? That was suggestive of the fighter he was to be. A boy much larger than himself made a slighting remark about the Uriburus. The moment he heard of it Uriburu confronted the discour- teous fellow and demanded an immedi- ate apology. When it was not offered at once the offender became an enemy and ';'3\'"1 :lll lnlhntllnegus.‘ hltfi}'u one of the future general's first battles, But wealth, aristocracy, ancestry or|and he won an overwhelming victory, what not, the man who in a meteoric | ;nnquuhln: uk\f e:;n;ty s'zml:"u}y;_. But movement—in a single day—chased | he never mention gt from power one President who had once| A half century passed. The honor been the nation’s idol and stood over|and good name of his country were in another while he wrote his own resig- | Peril—or so he thought—and Uriburu nation in long hand, is & true demo-|3§ain acted with the same precision and :.r‘lt and as an old schoolmate of his An eyewitness has told of his cool- ness and bold behavior when he took the Presidential Palace on the day of the revolution. Although it was not known until later, immediately the revolutionary army entered the city the palace guards and employes—sol- diers, police, clerks, attaches—topk leave. The acting president, with only & small group of faithful friends, had been deserted. | GEN. URIBURU—-THE STRONG MAN OF ARGENTINA. native of Buenos Aires. Salta is his home Province or State; it is in the north, the oldest section of the country. Strarge as it may seem, the far inland northwest of Argentina was settled be- fore the seaboard by adventurous Span- lards from across the Andes in Peru. Classed as Aristocrat. “He 1is of the gente bien” is the way a charming lady of the Buenos Aires American colony put it—which means that he is “of the t people,’ an aris- tocrat of the aristocrats, the ultra-con- servative class once called the ryling class.’ An uncle, Jose Evaristo Uriburu, was Vice President and succeeded to the presidency following the death of Presi- dent Louis Saenz Pena in the nineties. into power, expediency is less potent to serve. Southern drys may be insufficient in numbers to prevent the Democrats from going wet in the national convention and as respects the candidate for the presidency. Or the Southern drys may be too reluctant to “throw a monkey wrench” into a situation that seems to promise party success. The cohesive power of the expectation of victory is strong in all parties. But let no one doubt that the South is dry on princi- ple. And, when (and if) it comes to enacting legislation on prohibition the ‘He ees—how you call—good sport!” Uriburu is known among men in Buenos Aires as a real fellow. Some weeks after he took the government of the country into his own keeping and was able for the first time to relax for & spell, he visited his old club, the Cir- culo de Armas, a club of the aristocratic Argentines. Present were many of the is di & violation that public , 1o the It is the duty the people the benef had PATRIOTISM ABOVE PARTY IS ADVOCATED BY LEWIS Illinois Senator-Elect Says Political Is- Settled Strictly on Their Merits. where the proposition carries on fc:e a violation of the Constitution of a clear injury to the populace at lnfi and one that is against the welfare the Republic. But merely because one may differ as to how the proposition would ogruh economically or opposes the political benefit which could accrue to a politi« cal administration from the execution of the proposition, or because the oppo= sition may come from a th OpPOse ing the theory which brings forth the proposition—none of these justify the obstruction to the President and the defeat of his platform issue going into effect after his election. This must ever be remembered: If we are to carry on this Republic to the full objects and purposes of its creation, where the people have directed certain policies be put into effect, this is a con= tract by the people with all public serve ants who have to do with execution or enforcement of such policies. It is the duty of such public servants to help execute and administer those policles which the people have voted the Presie dent to carry out—not because they come from the President as head of hig party, but because they come from those directed by the people to put them forth. Difference Is Economie. The difference now in the two great po’l‘ln;lcal xanmu is ongzk ‘economic. lese do not partake of any phase where either can be accused afyn ‘want of patriotism or lack of loyalty to either Government or citizenship in the adope tion and the advancement of the doce trines or policies of the other g On the other hand, wherever those o cles as professed carry with them prom- ises of some relief to the people from conditions against which the people proe test, this should be seized promptly the leaders of the parties and for' to successful triumph, and the Presi« dent given every support in carrying out these measures where they are in pure suit of his promise. The public servants owe this to the people and to the President. TWwo reasons are apparent. One i§ | that as public servants they owe it to the public in order to give them the best chance to secure what seek. The other is that to obstruct the President in carrying out policies and then to charge him with failure to execute them : -ntorm of hypocrisy, trickery and eceit, Such is not statesmanship or manship, but is a low order of m revenge that takes on the form of-an- cient brigandage. v President Given Chaiice. ‘Whoever is President has the right the opportunity of fully initiating ll:a completing the steps necessary for a trial of the policy on which he has pees :gmn dnend ‘;hlch the people have adopte under the theory and be! e ik e public L) to insist the servant shall do M: order to give them the fulfiliment of the reposed in him when they elected President on those measures. designation other than that of the ob- | fitn Following the Civil War, we still con- | ini sition can show how it had made every effort to see that the measure had been &ve';\ tullest opportunity to demonstrate elf. Must Avoid Pitfalls. This fact alone will justify a public conclusion of lack of virtue within measure and make the public the more ready to desert the old and turn to the new. We have reached the hour when free government must avoid the pitfalls into which now are sinking many new gov- ernments of the world. We must evade the obstruction against which old gov- ernments of the world are cracking and shattering their existence. In the United States we should ad as our whole maxim of service to people that in all measures of relief, the liberty of the person Jus- tice to government there mn be the fullest support by patriotism and orpo« sition by the least of partyism. (Copyright. 19300 B Japan Gains IOEI.Ellion During Past 10 Years Exact figures for the national popula= tion of Japan have not yet been tabue lated, but officlals in charge estimate tha the census will show a total of 90,= 000,000, which would represent & sube stantial increase over the 76,988,397 counted in the first national census taken 10 years ago. An army of near 250,000 census enumerators distribuf and collected the forms which were filled out by occupants of every house or other dwelling place. All these forms are expected to be in the hands of the Bureau of Statistics of the Min« try of Home Affairs by December 10, but it will probably be another month before the task of tabulating the results is completed to such an extent that more figures can be announced, and the full details will not be available for more than a year. In Tokio the census takers had some difficulty in Bollu:'.ln‘ information from the unemployed ani homeless, but virtually all these vage rants were eventually visited. Not & the country. Budapest Stops U. S. Students in Operations American medical students in Budae pest can no longer perform operations in the hospitals where they study, ac- cording to a new ruling by the mayor of Budapest. It is said that some of the students bribed hospital officials to get usus be intrusted only to specialists. The Americans, the story says, wanted this advanced experience, and were willing to pay for it. There have been no cl that any of the al tions were badly ormodl.e”gum erican studying surgery ] Guarantee the gilt edge of his aris- | four hundred, high officials and private % each M n . His army drawn up in the plaza, Uriburu took a half dozen |p, of his Southern Democratic drys will stand by the prohibition principle. (Copyright, 19309 tocracy is the fact that he and his nu- of whom upon or's. merous clan control & Dortion | Gotng the’ o staff_and_as_many of the wealth of the prmpas. lmnn.”-uvflb\n"hh- (Compjnued on Fourth Fage) | apposed %) Amy to Budapest from E%:mhntgwgu‘:m.muu nwdnunu.mundh-n