Chair Fight

Franklin Delano Roosevelt last week decided to take complete command of the Chicago convention which he confidently expects to nominate him for the Presidency a fortnight hence. His decision promptly embroiled his party in fresh squabbling and brought down upon his thin-thatched head a charge of bad faith.

Candidate Roosevelt began by announcing (through his manager) that his last-minute choice for permanent convention chairman was Montana's grey, grim Senator Thomas James Walsh, famed Oil Scandal investigator, who presided over the long-drawn convention of 1924.

Last April a Democratic group designated by the National Committee met in Chicago to arrange for the June convention. At the meeting Roosevelt men were about evenly arrayed against anti-Roosevelt men. To avert a schism a compromise was effected whereby Kentucky's Senator Barkley, a Roosevelt supporter, was "recommended" to the convention as temporary chairman and keynoter. Jouett Shouse, chairman of the Democratic Executive Committee at Washington headquarters, was "commended" as permanent chairman. A Raskobite, Mr. Shouse has spent the last three years keeping his party alive and active in opposing the Hoover Administration. To him more than to any other individual has been credited the Democratic success of the 1930 elections which gave the party the House. No friend of the Roosevelt faction, Mr. Shouse urged States to pick uninstructed delegations to the Chicago convention, insisted that he was personally neutral among the swarms of candidates.

Now, with the convention at hand. Candidate Roosevelt suddenly wanted to ditch Mr. Shouse as permanent chairman. The Governor's friends declared that Mr. Shouse had won support at the April meeting by trickery and misrepresentation, that he was hostile to the Roosevelt candidacy, had covertly worked against it and that, anyway, a "commendation," unlike a "recommendation," was not binding.

Boiling mad at what he considered a treacherous betrayal, Mr. Shouse explained that his "commendation" as permanent chairman came only after Governor Roosevelt had dictated over the long distance telephone his sanction of the Chicago compromise to Robert H. Jackson, New Hampshire National Committeeman and Roosevelt supporter. He cited Virginia's Harry Flood Byrd as a witness to all that occurred in Chicago and exhibited the "commendation" resolution in Mr. Jackson's handwriting. Declared Mr. Shouse:

"It may be there are authors or sponsors of resolutions who do not expect to be bound by the resolutions which they themselves dictate or submit. . . . My name will be presented to the convention for permanent chairman and the delegates will have an opportunity to vote me up or down, forming their own opinion-with the public-as to the good faith of Governor Roosevelt."

Roosevelt men did not attempt to deny the facts as stated by Mr. Shouse, though they realized they put their candidate in a bad light. The convention would open with a test of strength on the permanent chairmanship which a majority would decide. The Roosevelt managers were sure they would have that majority and were therefore primed to ride roughshod over all opposition.

But not all Democrats approved of such steamroller tactics. Alfred Emanuel Smith gave a luncheon for 14 of his principal supporters who vowed they would "back to the last ditch" Mr. Shouse's selection. James Middleton Cox, the party's 1920 nominee, sided with Mr. Shouse. Declared he: "The issue is unimportant since no principle is involved. Contention over essentials exhibits virility of character, over nonessentials, stupidity. . . . The rejection of Mr. Shouse would be nothing short of studied humiliation of a man who has given his time and talents in furtherance of the most essential reorganization of any political party in half a century."

Governor Roosevelt found himself pushed into another tight place last week by the charges preferred by Inquisitor Samuel Seabury against New York's Mayor Walker (TIME, June 13). The Governor had to decide whether or not to remove the Tammany Mayor from office for malfeasance and nonfeasance. He fumed & fumed because Counsel Seabury had released his charges to the Press. He inspired, through an anonymous spokesman, insinuations against the investigator's motives which set Manhattan editors tush-tushing. Though he declared he "resented" any speculation as to the part national politics would play in his decision in the Walker case, the fact that it would play a big part was plain.

The Roosevelt camp received another set-back last week when the 25 potent Scripps-Howard papers throughout the land frontpaged an editorial entitled "Give Us Alfred E. Smith." Excerpts: "Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt possess in common one dominating trait. Faced in a pinch with political consequences, they yield. Between the two it is a toss up. . . The nomination of Roosevelt is possible but not certain. Between Roosevelt and the White House there now stands a man endowed in the very highest degree with those qualities which both Hoover and Roosevelt lack and which the country so sorely needs.

That man is Alfred E. Smith. ... As Roosevelt generalizes, Smith is specific. As Roosevelt loves to delay, Smith loves action. Irresolution is ingrained in one; boldness in the other. ... In Franklin Roosevelt we have another Hoover. . . . The election of either Hoover or Roosevelt would be a blow from which this nation would not recover in a generation. . . . The times call for courage and action. We have those qualities in Smith."

"Roosevelt, if nominated, can't be elected," was a widespread sentiment upon which James A. Farley, the Governor's campaign manager, last week started to war. He predicted that at Chicago his candidate would get 691 votes on the first nominating ballot which would be increased to the necessary 770 by switches before the roll was completed. Leaping ahead to the election itself Manager Farley optimistically .declared:

"Governor Roosevelt stands a better chance in more States than any other of the names brought forward. ... I now predict that when nominated he will have no less than 345 votes [an elective majority: 266] when the electoral college assembles. This would still leave a very safe majority without the votes of New York, which I am convinced we will secure, and it also does not include the highly probable States of Illinois and Ohio."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.