Effects of a Groundswell

Effects of a Groundswell

(See front cover)

About the time Drys were joyfully celebrating the tenth anniversary of constitutional Prohibition last winter (TIME, Jan. 27) a new and uncharted groundswell of Wet sentiment became discernible to political mariners throughout the land. To many it seemed to be a distinct tide change. How high it would flow and what channels it would alter no man knew. Wet militancy increased. Prohibition speculation again became fashionable. A Senate investigating committee disclosed the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment as a husky adult organization, amply financed and operating with hopeful zest (TIME, April 28 et seq.). Under Wet pressure the House Judiciary Committee held hearings, the first in a decade, on the repeal of the 18th Amendment (TIME, Feb. 10 et seg.). With a fresh Wet Movement obviously on, the Literary Digest conducted a nation-wide poll on Prohibition which showed that out of 4,806,464 persons balloting, only 1,464,098 favored existing Dry conditions whereas 3,342,366 wanted some sort of Change.

During the summer came primary elections which in some degree reflected this movement. Longtime Drys began to weasel and talk of referendum while Wets plucked up new courage to speak out more boldly. The easy rapidity with which a Dry could become an extreme Wet was shown when Montana's Senator Wheeler did an overnight flip-flop on the issue.

"Poor Year For Wobblers." Last week the primaries were all over. Congressional nominees were bracing themselves for the November election. Claims of Wet gains in Congress filled the air. The Association Against the Prohibition Amendment reported that it had spent the whacking sum of $385,392 in the first five months of this year, was prepared to make a million-dollar outlay in its 1930 campaign to foster the movement for a Change. The Anti-Saloon League, taking the defensive, declared: "The Wets have forced the issue [now] more clearly drawn than at any time since the coming of Prohibition. It is a poor year for wobblers."

Wanted:? With political lines forming on the issue, just what Change the Wets wanted remained as badly muddled as ever. They were yet unable to unite their full strength on a unanimous program. Definitions of what made a Wet were lacking beyond the generalization that he favored a more liberal Prohibition policy. At one end of the anti-Prohibition fighting line stood those who favored outright repeal of the 18th Amendment and return of prohibitory powers, if any, to the States. Wet opinion shaded down through vague forms of modification and foxy redeterm-nations of "non-intoxicating" formulae to the timid "beer-&-light-wine" pleas at the other end of the line. Result: the Wet ranks moved forward obliquely, with one flank far in advance of the other.

No. 1 Republican Repealer. Prime example of the advance-flank Wet was furnished last June when New Jersey Republicans nominated Dwight Whitney Morrow, Ambassador to Mexico, for the U. S. Senate (TIME, June 30). Until he opened his primary campaign, Mr. Morrow had no public record on Prohibition. In his first address he declared for repeal of the 18th Amendment and return of the question to the States. Unlike numerous Wet demagogs in both parties who feast publicly on the bones of Dry mistakes, he did not rant and roar against Prohibition. He discussed it with cool-headed dispassion and dignity. He tried to un- scramble morals from government, warned of the Federal Government as "an alien and even hostile power," counseled a new "reasonableness" between Wets and Drys.

The effect of Mr. Morrow's declaration was to make him the leading Republican Wet in this year's election. His program was not new. Democratic Governor Albert Cabell Ritchie of Maryland had been propounding it for years, while Alfred Emanuel Smith had advocated a slight variant of it in 1928. But Nominee Morrow brought to the discussion a certain large non-political prestige which others had lacked and which gave weight to his words. He added respectability to the Wet cause. As the first notable Republican to break through the party's Dry stand taken at Kansas City in 1928 his political stock rose so high during the summer that he was often mentioned as a Wet leader who might well contest the Republican Presidential nomination with Herbert Hoover two years hence.

But last week Repealer Morrow, on his way back to New Jersey to open his campaign there early next month, had dismissed Prohibition, momentarily at least, from his mind. Because his opponent Democratic Nominee Alexander Simpson is as Wet as he is, he planned not to argue the subject in his canvass. Nominee Simpson, a Wet of a different stripe, wanted to make it an issue.

Men & Machines. Just before he left Mexico City last week, Ambassador Morrow delivered a farewell address in which he said: "It is too often assumed that scientific inventions prevent misunderstanding. Machines, however, do not understand each other. Man may make a perfect machine but it will still depend upon man himself whether the machine shall be an instrument of understanding or misunderstanding."

Though Mr. Morrow was talking literally of machinery, his words were equally applicable to the effect of Prohibition on political machines, which understand themselves even less than each other. Party organizations in many a State are rent and torn by the liquor question. The Washington State Republican convention went abruptly Wet last May while the State's Republican Senator Wesley Livsey Jones was glittering most brightly as a Dry. The New York G. O. P., about to nominate a Governor, jiggled about last week in frantic uncertainty. Massachusetts Republicans last week concluded a fierce Wet-&-Dry primary fight (see page 15). Prohibition has badly tangled the affairs of Republicans in Illinois with Senatorial Nominee Ruth Hanna McCormick, hitherto Dry, now straddling a referendum (TIME, Sept. 1).

Half Wet, Half Dry. Ohio furnished the strangest political contradiction over Prohibition. Fortnight ago Republicans convened at Columbus to write a platform on which Dry Senator Roscoe Conkling McCulloch could stand for reelection. Delegates from Wet urban centres were frankly frightened at the strength developed by Robert Johns Bulkley, Demo- cratic Senatorial Nominee, a "repeal-and-return" Wet. Maurice Maschke, Cleveland boss, Ohio's Republican National Committeeman, fearful lest Nominee Bulkley should break through in Cleveland, Toledo, Youngstown et al and work Republican disaster, urged a Wet referendum plank of sorts upon the convention. But Wet resolutions were quashed (18 to 3) in committee. The platform weasled the issue with the routine slogan for "Law Enforcement," and the party, half Wet, half Dry, prepared nervously for the State canvass.

Last week Ohio's Democracy appeared in the same Prohibition motley when Nominee Bulkley faced his party's convention at Columbus, flayed the 18th Amendment and the Anti-Saloon League ("It is no more needed today than an anti-slavery society") and expressed surprising satisfaction with a platform that weasled on Prohibition as obviously as did the Republicans. His Wet candidacy was endorsed "without a reservation" by the party's bone-Dry gubernatorial nominee, George White.

Kinds of Wetness. Persons rather than policies define the degrees of Wetness. The vociferous militant Wet is represented by such Senators as Maryland's Tydings, Wisconsin's Elaine, such Congressmen as New York's LaGuardia, Michigan's Clancy. Pennsylvania's Congressman James Montgomery Beck typifies the Constitutional Wet who often subordinates his legal convictions to party loyalty. Silent Wets biding their time to strike a blow are Speaker of the House Nicholas Longworth, Connecticut's Senator Bingham, Pennsylvania's Congressman Graham. New York's Senator Copeland represents the Wet from political expedience who is at heart a Dry. Representative Hamilton Fish Jr. of New York personifies the long-time weasler who slips softly into 4% beer. Referendum Wets awaiting a home vote to guide them are Iowa's Senator Steck, Michigan's Senator Couzens.

Kinds of Dryness. Over the fence are the Drys, as heterogeneous a group as the Wets. Their one common ground is approval of the 18th Amendment. A minority are Drys by conviction, a majority by political expediency. Their ranks range from the Constitutional Dryness of Idaho's Senator Borah through the drinking Dryness of South Carolina's Senator Blease to the cynically fickle Dryness of New Hampshire's Senator Moses. Utah's Senator Smoot represents the religious Dry, Ohio's Senator Fess the Wet turned Dry who is ready to turn Wet again if necessary to hold his job. Washington's Senator Jones typifies the Dry who suddenly finds it politically wise to favor submitting to the States the repeal of the 18th Amendment, provided his State so orders.

Weaslers. Sitting on the fence itself are the weaslers whose catchpenny slogan is "Law Enforcement." They actively avoid a binding stand on the basic question as long as possible. A referendum weasler is Senator Metcalf who puts off a declaration of his position until he sees how his Rhode Island votes this year. The "neutral" weasler who says he has not yet "made up his mind" is New Mexico's Senator Cutting. The Dry who has weasled himself to the top of the fence but dares not yet jump down into the Wet field is Pennsylvania's Senator Reed.

71st House. Any proposal for a Prohibition change would, as all the world knows, be badly beaten in the House and Senate of the 71st Congress at its next (lameduck) session. Superintendent McBride of the Anti-Saloon League estimates that the present House has 329 Drys to 106 Wets. The latter figure is high; it includes the eight House vacancies and several weaslers. If by some parliamentary miracle the mildest Wet proposal such as the manufacture of 2.75% beer should be got before the House next winter, it might win about 90 votes, the maximum Wet strength.-- Outright repeal would get 50 votes or less. The full Dry strength of the House today (including lame ducks) averages about 317 members some of whom were washed into office by the Anti-Wet Hoover vote of 1928. Known weaslers total 20. (Examples: California's Lea, Rhode Island's Aldrich, Virginia's Montague.)

71st Senate. The same kind of Wet proposal in the present Senate would secure about 18 votes while 75 Drys could be mustered against it. Seven of these 75 votes, however, are not stable. That number of Senators has indicated that they would reconsider their Dry positions if their States ordered them to on referendum (Montana's Walsh, Washington's Jones and Dill, Nevada's Oddie, North Carolina's Overman, North Dakota's Nye, Texas' Sheppard). Three Senators frankly weasel (see above).

New Senate. The summer's primaries foreshadow changes at election time which may bring the 72nd Congress a little closer to the known state of public opinion. Wets in the Senate lost, Drys gained by the substitution of Wallace White for Arthur Gould as Maine's Senator. Dry strength will probably be further increased by the election of a Dry Republican over a sitting Wet Democrat in Iowa. Wets will lose none of their present strength as the result of contests in Kentucky and West Virginia, where Drys are sure winners, or in New Hampshire, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Dakota where Drys are likely winners. Where Wets stand a middling good chance to gain are in Illinois (McCormick v Lewis), Montana (Walsh v Galen), Massachusetts (Butler v Coolidge), Ohio (Bulkley v McCulloch), Oklahoma (Gore v Pine), Delaware (Hastings v Bayard), Colorado (Shaw v Costigan), Wyoming (Carey v Schwartz).

Recapitulation of the next Senate: Maximum Drys. 82 Maximum Wets. .30 Minimum Drys. .66 Minimum Wets. .14

A switch of the seven "referendum" Drys would run the tip-top Wet strength up to 37.

Probable Number of Drys 73

Probable Number of Wets 21

Weaslers 2

72nd House. Voluntary flip-flops by Dry members or their defeat in the primaries have already materially augmented the Wet strength in the next House. If the Wets succeed in retaining in the November election every seat they now hold, their winnings in the primaries will assure them a vote of 109 members--an increase of 19--exclusive of any fresh victories in the election itself.

Wet Winning to Date are as follows:

In Wisconsin, Wets turned out Drys in the 7th & 8th District (see page 15) and two Wets were nominated for the vacancy in the 6th. Gain: 3.

In Illinois, Representative Michaelson, Dry, whose leaky liquor trunk at Key West made news (TIME, Nov. 4), was ousted by a Wet nominee. Gain: 1.

In Massachusetts, Dry Representative Stobbs of the 4th District retired and both parties nominated Wets for his seat. Gain: 1.

In Michigan, two famed Drys, Hudson of the 6th District and Cramton of the 7th, were ousted by Wets. Gain: 2.

In New York, Dry Congressman Dempsey was defeated by a Wet in the 40th District. Two Wets were nominated in the 25th District when Dry Representative Wainwright retired. Representative Fish shifted to beer while Representative Hancock (35th District) and Cooke (41st District) changed from Dry to Wet to save their political skins in the primary. Gain: 5.

In Ohio, Dry Representative Chalmers (gth District) was beaten by Wet Republican White while the Democratic Nominee was also Wet. Gain: 1.

In Pennsylvania, the retirement of Dry Representative Watres in the nth District resulted in the nomination of a sure Wet successor. Gain: 1.

In Washington, Dry Representative Miller was replaced by a Wet Republican Nominee who has Wet Democratic opposition. Gain: 1.

In Nebraska, Malcolm Baldrige, Wet Republican, beat Dry Representative Sears. Gain: 1.

In New Jersey, Wets were nominated by both parties for the seat of Dry Congressman Franklin Fort. Gain: 1.

In Tennessee, a Wet Democrat was nominated over a Dry incumbent in the Memphis District. Gain: 1.

In Connecticut, a Wet was sure to be elected to the seat vacated by Dry Representative Fenn. Gain 1.

The Dry majority in the House starts with 150 votes from Southern and Midwest States where for a Representative to go Wet prematurely is political suicide. The probable re-election of Dry sitting members who got safely through the primaries will run their voting strength up to 285. Twenty-four congressional districts will witness election contests in which the Wet & Dry issue will more or less figure: Delaware i; Illinois 5; Indiana 1; Iowa 1; Maryland 1; Massachusetts 3; Ohio 4; Oregon 1; Rhode Island 3; Virginia 1; New Jersey 3. Any Wet winnings in these contests will increase that bloc's strength above 109. At least 17 members have gotten through the primaries and will likely be re-elected by weasling.

Recapitulation for the 72nd House:

Drys 285

Wets 109

Contests 24

Weaslers 17

Total 435

Superintendent McBride has claimed a Dry strength of 325 in the next House. To substantiate this claim his organization must win each & every one of the 24 contests and, in addition, defeat 16 of the 90 sitting Wet members.

The Significance. For ten years Dry majorities in Congress have been discouragingly large to Wets who could seem to make no appreciable headway in reducing them. This year, for the first time in a decade. Wets have made sufficient gain in the primaries, with more in prospect in the election, to feel that a turning tide of public sentiment is at last in their favor. Well aware are they cf the fact that their muster roll in the 72nd Congress will by no means be large enough to effect any sort of major change in Prohibition policy. But the eyes of their leaders are looking for results not in the 72nd Congress but in some Congress to follow, perhaps ten Congresses from now. Men like Nominee Morrow expect no sudden revulsion of public opinion on this issue but rather a gradual grinding down, seat by seat, such as the primaries of 1930 have already shown to be in progress, of the Dry Congressional Majority.

*This and subsequent Congressional figures derived by TIME from a national survey made for TIME during the past summer by the United Press.

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