AMERICA WARNED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21329, 2 November 1932, Page 11

AMERICA WARNED

FUTURE AT STAKE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Ml*. HOOVER CHEERED DEMOCRATS ATTACKED " DESTRUCTIVE " POLICY By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright (Received November 1, 5.5 p.m.) NEW YORK. Oct. 31 In an effort to win New York's 47 electoral votes for the Presidential election to be held on November 8, Mr. Hoover came to the city to-night after brief halts throughout the day in the industrial sections of Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. There he had again emphasised the necessity for high tariffs. Speaking in Madison Square. Garden. New York City, the President told a cheering crowd of 22,000 people that the election of the Democrat candidate, Mr. Franklin Roosevelt, would " destroy Iho very foundations of America's economic and social system," whereas liis (Mr. Hoover's) Administration had overcome depression through strict adherence to traditional principles. Mr. Hoover spoke encouragingly of the improvements in employment and in business. He said a victory for the Democrats would mean lowering the tariff and the complete stagnation of industry. It was necessary to call upon the mounted police to handle the thousands of people who were unable to enter the garden. A small Communist protest meeting was quickly dispersed. ELECTION ISSUE RETURN TO LIQUOR DEMOCRATS' ADVOCACY CHICAGO, Oct. co Australians and New Zealanders might yearn to know what is the outstanding issue in the United States Presidential election. They would read it in the bannerline across the top of the front page of this morning's Chicago Tribune, in letters five inches high. It is in five words: "J am for beer—Roosevelt." Tariffs have had their innings. Depressions have been worked to death. Today, the campaign has gone right back to where Mr. Al. Smith started it, and the one question now is: "Are wo going to have beer or not?" So certain are we that we am going to have our beer that the breweries are being "rebrewriated" and refurnished with the appropriate brewing furniture. Democrat spell-binders arc presenting to tho thirsty electorate figures that show that the Government's income from beer in the first year will be 790,000.000 dollars (at par £158,000.000), or practically enough to wipe out the deficit with which the Government is faced. When so much attention is being paid to liquor, it is not surprising that the quality of the campaign speeches is not particularly high. Mr. Roosevelt and Republicans Mr. Franklin Roosevelt, himself, in his tour of the southern States this week, is inclined to pay more aUention to less liquid questions. The "Four Horsemen" of decadent Republicanism he named as Destruction, Delay, Deceit and Despair. He hangs them all round Mr. Hoover's neck, and accuses the President of being the high priest of pure and unadulterated pessimism. Mr. Roosevelt made great fun of the Republican platform statement about liquor, saying it was intended to look wet to the wets, and dry to the drys, but had ended by being cfvy to tho wets, and wet to the drys. During the past week, however, Mr. Hoover has surprised tho country with the increasing power of his public addresses. He has quit being the reserved and dignified Chief Executive, and has become a fighting candidate for office. He is still as plodding a speaker as ever made a dull speech more dull, but, just the same, he has made a great impression, especially with his Detroit speech, where ho went after Mr. Roosevelt without mercy. Mr. Hoover Expected to Lose Putting what Mr. Hoover said in a nutshell, it was that his actual in-hand plan of rehabilitation should bo contrasted with Mr. Roosevelt's indefinite promise of something new in reconstructive effort; that his known stand in opposition to the war veterans' bonus and for Governmental economy should be compared with Mr. Roosevelt's equivocal position on the bonus and his fantastic plan for national economy, and that the Democrats' pledges against extravagance should bo considered in relation to the facts of the extraordinarily costly Democrat legislation in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. Tho big question, of course, is whether Mr. Hoover has begun soon enough to catch up to his breezy, smiling, adroit and attractive adversary. Journalists who have travelled with both candidates, and who have made their own political tours of observation, almost as a unit say that Mr. Roosevelt is too far ahead. They assert, without qualifying their statement, that Mr. Hoover cannot catch him.