PROHIBITION: The G. O. P. Divides

Zeus may well have been thinking of something else when Pallas Athene, mature and fully armed, was born from his ponderous brow. Certainly when Chairman Simeon Davison Fess of the Republican National Committee thought and said: “The party will remain Dry or it will be split” (TIME, Nov. 17) he was not contemplating the creation of a mature, warlike body of Wet Republicans which almost simultaneously appeared. Perhaps instead Mr. Fess was thinking in terms of the Methodist Board of Temperance, Prohibition & Public Morals statement fortnight ago: “Any catering to the Wets, any toleration of a suggestion of modification, would light fires of bitter resentment in the hearts of the men and women who trooped to the polls … in 1928.”

Onetime Senator James Wolcott Wadsworth Jr. of New York was the plume in the Wet Athene’s helmet last week. He cried: “Senator Fess . . . cannot see what is going on in this country. Tears dim his sight. . . . Does the Senator think we can carry Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Illinois and a half-dozen other States whose people spoke last week on this question . . . [and] hope to cajole repeal-Republicans, millions of good men & women, into an attitude of complacency concerning the thing they regard as vital?”

President Nicholas Murray Butler of Columbia University, for years the man who has written Wet planks for the Republican platform and for years seen them thrown out, declared: “Senator Fess . . . adds that ‘if the Republican party stands for repeal, it might as well say good-day.’ . . . My reply is that if the Republican party does not stand for repeal it might as well say goodnight. . . . The elections of November 1930 are the handwriting on the wall.”

Representatives Fred Albert Britten of Illinois and Leonidas Carstarphen Dyer of Missouri also cried out against Mr. Fess’s leadership. The Wet Republican press re acted even more sharply, and certain arch-Republican editors captioned editorials FESS OUGHT TO GO and THE BLIND SENATOR FROM OHIO. Hearst papers quoted an unnamed Republican leader as saying: “If this split continues there will be a Nationalist party in 1932.”

Fuss-budgety Senator Fess seemed embarrassed. After taking time to discuss and think over his statement, he last week told newsgatherers that he had made it as an individual, not as party spokesman. He said also that his mind was open to modification recommendations from the Wickersham Commission. But he did not retract his theory that the party must not weasel on Prohibition, that it must be Dry.

Wet Bloc. Democratic Representative John Charles Linthicum of Maryland, long leader of the small group of avowed Wets in the House, saw his opportunity in the split which Chairman Fess, in trying to avert, had created. Rushing to Washington, Congressman Linthicum indited invitations to all 71st House members to attend a Wet Bloc organization meeting early in December. Of Chairman Fess’s statement he said: “It means a Demo cratic victory beyond a doubt.” Mr. Linthicum put Repeal above party, insisting: “Regardless of party platforms, the fight to elect Wet members . . . will continue. . . . We have just begun to fight.” Sage, he did not envisage Repeal as possible before the 73d Congress, but declared “constructive Wet activity” might achieve much in the 72nd Congress, “when we will have at least 140 repealist votes to say nothing of the men . . . who are now wavering. . . . We can safely tell our people that light wines & beer are not far in the offing . . . especially if Mr. Hoover’s commission indicates that the present form of Prohibition is unsuccessful.” To his support came Republican Congressman James Montgomery Beck of Pennsylvania, declaring: “The 72nd Congress, which in my opinion will be more closely divided on the Wet & Dry issue than the election returns would indicate . . . [should] refuse to waste public moneys by attempting to enforce the unenforceable.”

The Commission. With rumors rampant that it would recommend light wines & beer, that it would advise calling a Constitutional convention for considering Repeal, and above all that it was hastening its deliberations so as to present a report to the opening session of Congress on Dec. 1, the Wickersham Commission, object of concern to both Chairman Fess and Leader Linthicum. last week surprised Prohibition Director Amos Walter Wright Woodcock by summoning him. After hearing what he had to say, the Commission abruptly adjourned for ten days. This unexpected action forthwith was explained as an Administration measure to prevent Prohibition debate in the next Congressional session before the necessary supply-bills are passed. Later, it became known that the commissioners had rejected unanimously all proposals for both Repeal and 4% beer. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union, convened at Houston, Tex., shouted “Praise God!”

Politics. Meanwhile no sign came from the White House to indicate how President Hoover felt about Prohibition and his party’s course thereon. It was obvious, however, that Prohibition loomed even larger for 1932 than it had in the past month. Observers even commented that Mr. Hoover’s aloofness from the controversy might jeopardize his renomination. Editorialists played with conceptions of what he should have done. The Republican New York Evening Post stated: “We could wish that the President had a little more iron in his soul. . . . Suppose the headlines this afternoon should read: PRESIDENT ASKS FESS TO RESIGN.” The same paper blamed Postmaster General Brown, Mr. Hoover’s political adviser. Earlier in the week the Evening Post had editorialized concerning the Fess utterance: “Party chiefs don’t do that sort of thing. It is contrary to the plain obligations of their office.” The potent New York Herald Tribune snorted: “. . . These gentlemen [Fess. Hoover, et al.] have learned nothing and forgotten nothing as the result of the recent election. . . . The spirit of bolting is easier to arouse than to calm.”