Mcallen Daily Press

Stewart Says-
Farley May Really
Be Aiming at
Vice Presidency

By CHARLES P. STEWART
Central Press Columnist

IT ISN'T quite clear whether James A. Farley is campaigning for the Democratic presidential or vice presidential nomination. At least, nominally it's the presidential nomination that he's after.

However, plenty of politicians say they think it's the vice presidential nomination he genuinely is trying to get.

Not, of course, that anybody imagines he won't accept first place if he's named for it, but lots of good guessers are of the opinion that he doesn't really believe the party will pick him to head its ticket.

His candidacy, either way, places him in the position of a Rooseveltian anti-third termer. If he's presidentially selected, Roosevelt necessarily is foreclosed against. And, as a New Yorker, he can't be vice presidentially chosen if the present White House tenant, also a New Yorker, gets a third bid.

Washington's favorite betting is that Jim's honest-to-goodness aim is to get onto the ticket as the tail to a Cordell Hull or a John N. Garner kite. It generally is assumed that he'd prefer Hull, because it's surmised that he regards the latter as more of a probability than Garner. He'd be a pretty good second to either one. He wouldn't combine so logically with any more pronounced a New Dealer than one of these two. Ever Burton K. Wheeler, while anti New Dealerish in spots, is much too liberal to go well with Jim.

And, from Jim's standpoint, Hull and Garner would be almost equally satisfactory "first-placers" because both are reasonably old. One or the other of them might die in office, letting Jim automatically slide into the vacancy.

Heaven forbid that anybody should suspect Jim of counting anything like that. Such things do happen, though.

Ernest K. Lindley, the columnist, certainly raised hades with his recent yarn to the effect that President Roosevelt had told an unnamed "stalwart Democratic statesman" that he (the president) wasn't a third term aspirant but that he didn't think Farley would do, on religious grounds.

After some days delay, Roosevelt, as we know, spoke of this story as "made up out of whole cloth." It amounted to classifying that spiel among "short and ugly words."

All right, we're expected to take what the president says as Gospel. Nevertheless, Ernest Lindley has been known, among White House correspondents, as particularly close to the president. He likewise is an exceptionally reliable chap. He stands pat. He insists that his account was correct. He hesitates a trifle at applying the "short and ugly word" that the president implies, but that's what it amounts to.

Would Jim Hear It?

Now, let's not, for a minute, suggest that President Roosevelt wasn't quite right in terming that Lindley interview a phoney.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, that the president had had some such chat with a "stalwart Democrat" as Ernest describes. Isn't it possible that said "stalwart" would have leaked it to Jim Farley as well as to Ernest?

And wouldn't it have been calculated to make Jim sore?

True, the "stalwart" may have been the Ananias. He may have made the entire yarn up out of "whole cloth"—telling it to Jim Farley and Ernest Lindley alike.

Yet, if that's what he did, his scheme worked middling well. He pulled off an excellent line of publicity for whatever target he may be shooting at.

There are Democratic stalwarts and stalwarts. Some are New Deal stalwarts and some are "antis." If an "anti" hit on this scheme to split the party, he had a bright idea.

Ernest Lindley has the key to the thing. Let him tell the source of his alleged information. But an ethical newspaperman can't do that.