Under ordinary circumstances, we would not devote an editorial to the discussion of a senatorial nomination in the East, since such nominations are not of national importance.

However, the nomination last week of Dwight Morrow, American Ambassador to Mexico, for senator on the Republican ticket, was obtained by so large a majority as to make us believe that it has enough national significance to be of especial interest to our readers.

We will consider this nomination from two points of view. From the point of view of prohibition, Morrow represents the standpoint of the wets. He believes that the Volstead Act should be repealed and that the prohibition question should be settled and controlled by each state and not by Washington. This would be the most liberal and fair procedure.

The majority of the people of New Jersey are wet, so that the nomination of Mr. Morrow is not surprising. The surprising thing is that Morrow took this liberal stand so openly.

It must be understood that Morrow is not a shady politician, an opportunist; he is a business partner in the Morgan banking firm--one of the world's largest financial enterprises. Morrow left the Morgans when he was appointed Ambassador to Mexico.....

From the point of view of capitalism, Morrow not only represents capital but also the government at Washington. Until now both capital and the federal government have been identified with prohibition, both insisting upon its enforcement. Furthermore, accusations have been made to the effect that prohibition was the work of the Protestant churches and capital--the Rockefellers, the Kresges, the Fords and the Morgans. This accusation was not entirely groundless, 3but now that Morrow has taken a stand against prohibition, this old theory is upset.

Today, even capital and the government at Washington realize that prohibition, in its present form, is full of errors and must be changed.

The nomination of Morrow is interesting too from the point of view of the radical workers. New Jersey has been the battleground of communists and radical workers for years.

Unemployment is at its peak in the United States, and the stock markets have never been so hard hit as in the last few months. The population, used to prosperity and plenty, complains about the depression and there is no relief in sight.

Morrow, the typical capitalist, ran for office in spite of these unfavorable circumstances.

This was the time for the workers to bare their fangs and for radical agitators to reap a rich harvest. But what happened? Morrow won by a tremendous margin.

He was not elected by bankers and industrialists, but by hundreds of thousands of workers.

The argument against the election of Morrow--that Wall Street is the center of capital and that Hoover's government will gain another adherent if Morrow becomes senator--was justified. Yet, it was useless to reiterate this to the people.

The people, the citizens of New Jersey, placed their confidence in Morrow's liberalism and even in these crucial times they did not turn to Moscow or to socialist Europe for a solution of their problems.....

It is evident that the American people do not believe in experimentation, in 5theories, but choose the prosperity and work opportunity that liberal capital offers in a democracy.....

In our opinion, based on our analysis of this problem, Morrow's victory means, on one hand, that prohibition is on the wane and, on the other, that the American working element does not want revolution, rainbow-hued promises and "isms," but butter on their bread, bungalows, autos, and radios, which means that the American worker wants an opportunity to work at reasonably high wages.