U.S.A. PRESIDENCY

Hokitika Guardian, 31 October 1928, Page 6

U.S.A. PRESIDENCY

SMITH’S CAMPAIGN

(United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright).

NEW YORK, Oct. 29

Prohibition as an issue in the Presidential Campaign seemed to have exhausted the possibility of any new aspects being faced under Governor Smith’s full exposition of his views, but a chance statement by the Democratic Party’s nominee, in answer to the ex-See retaty of State, Mr Hughes’s assertion that it was a “sham battle” has disclosed a further fact.

It is claimed) that despite Governor Smith’s “wet” views, he, as President could not produce any basic change in the law or the constitution, and this was said to salve the consciences of those members of theDemocratic Party who, despite “dry” views, have still supported Smith; but the latter, in answering Mi' Hughes, declares that the President of the-United States can do a onsiderable amount towards furthering the Dry Law Repeal Movement and that, as President, he intends to do so.”

Observers declare that the “dry” Democrats will now desert Governor Smith in droves, but, interestingly enough Governor Sinith himself seems to he but little frightened of this prospect. Governor Smith spoke at Baltimore last night and there he intensified his arguments against Prohibition. He denounced the Anti-Saloon League, which withdrew its support from Senator Morris for supporting Governor Smith. 1 Governor Smith added: “I can think of no greater force for evil than that organisation, which threatens disaster to the public statesman who does not submit to its dictation.”

OBSERVERS PUZZLED

NEW YORK, Oct. 99

Continuing his reference to nrohibition, Governor Smith said: “The Volsted Law is not an article of religious faith! You cannot make a new sin by law. It was not inscribed on tablets or stone that were handed down by Mncfis—it is no sin!” The observers cannot agree, on the point as to whether Governor Smith i® wise or unwise politically in his declaration on the liquor question. The more cautious commentators, however, point to several important facts. The total votes cast in the 1924 election wore twenty-nine millions. It is now estimated that the enrolment for . the coming election may he between fortythree to forty-five millions. New York State, for instance, reports a twentv-five per cent increase in the enrolment.

Tt is estimated on the basis of these figures, that thirty-five million persons may vote. The augmented electorate is,, not only due to the national increase in population. The new* voters are principally women, and this “silent vote” puzzles everyone. . It may produce the surprise of the election, sweeping aside every present surface indication that the trend of sentiment is for Hoover.

There is a surprising feature in a statement that is made by Mr Work that the Republicans will be victorious in wheat and maize States. Mr Work lists ten of the Commonwealths west of the Mississippi, but strangely he fails to mention North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri and Wisconsin.

Politician!?’ st atom nets are usually most exclusive in their claims of victory, but this pointed omission of these four, States,, two of which pave Progressives strong .support, in lf> 9 -L seems an amazing admission that the Democrats have entrenched themselves there.

Moreover, New York'State, with its important forty-five electoral votes, and its .Democratic cities and Republican agricultural areas is considered a doubtful State, as also are Massachur setts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Jersey which are normally Republican. These great eastern seaboard States with their crowded urban and suburban centres seem to find a great appeal in Governor Smith’s policies. It is in the foregoing facts that the seed of the unexpected may be sprouting and this leads careful observers to refrain from dogmatism as concerns the result o.f the election.