Washington, March 21, 1934.

POSTMASTER GENERAL FARLEY'S call to all Democratic National committeemen or committeewomen to resign from the posts if they hold public office will have, as a matter of practical politics, little if any effect on the operations of the Democratic Party.

While it is true that there has been a recent drive to divorce public officials from their positions on the National Committee, on the theory that the affiliation is not in the public interest, the politicians smile at the move as being a more or less perfunctory compliance with the demands of the hour but as affecting not at all the methods of office-holders in controlling local affairs and appointments.

Many political bosses have never served on National Committees nor have they accepted public office, but their power was just as extensive. It does not matter who is National Committeeman but what force lies behind the individual who holds the post. In the present instance, James A. Farley will be just as powerful when he resigns as chairman of the Democratic National Committee as if he had stayed in command. It is the Administration in office which says, as a rule, what shall be done in party councils. Meetings of the Democratic National Committee will be dominated by President Roosevelt. What he says about future platforms or conventions will be heeded.

National Committee Unnecessary

Indeed, there is very little for the Democratic National Committee as a body to do for the next four years. Under the custom established in the past, the President is usually asked to run again. The theory is that if he makes a good record, he deserves re-nomination. If he doesn't, then nobody else can make as good a defense of his policies as can the incumbent. So with a re-nomination virtually reassured for Mr. Roosevelt, the only job ahead is for the National Headquarters and its publicity to be effectively maintained. This is something which can be handled easily nowadays because the party headquarters is in Washington and it is permanently set up--something which the party owes to the efficiency of John J. Raskob, who never could understand why the National headquarters should be anywhere else but in Washington and why it should be demobilized between campaigns.

The only other purpose which National Committeemen serve is to keep the local party organizations intact. But this can be done as well if not better by Democrats who are actually in office than by National Committeemen who reside in their states and do not have day-by-day contact with the administration. If it were necessary to line up delegates for a National Convention, which it probably will not be necessary to do in 1936, the office-holder has an even better opportunity than a National Committeeman to see that the wishes of the Administration are carried out. For the man in office has more prestige and influence and inferentially can promise rewards. He is on the inside looking out instead of being on the outside looking in.

Possibly a New Era

Just why there should be so much hullabaloo about resignations from the National Committee is hard to see unless it represents the beginning of a real era of virtue in American politics in which people in office shall be completely dissociated from party politics. It is hard to believe that an administration which has given so many public offices to party workers and political chieftains, in disregard of the principle of merit which for many years has been the hope of the better Government forces in America, has any such idealistic purpose in view. But in this respect the Democrats are merely following in the footsteps of the Republicans Neither party has ever let go of the power to control local politics through the use of the Federal machinery of appointment and what is known as Federal "pull."

The only thing that is new is the attempt of the Roosevelt administration to put a holier-than-thou smokescreen over the machinations of party politicians whose belief in the spoils system is as firmly entrenched as it ever has been.