ELECTION OF U.S. PRESIDENT.

TO-MORROW’S CONTEST.

PARTIES AND POLICIES.

FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT. NEW YORK, SUNDAY. American expectations regarding the presidential election on Tuesday may be gauged by the betting in some places of 10 to 1 on Senator Harding, the Republican, and very general wagers ranging from 6 to 8 to 1 in favour of the same redoubtable champion. Of all the presidential fights for years past, there has been none in which the outcome is more generally conceded by experienced managers, and none in which there has been more strife, complications, and bitter personalities on both sides. The idea was prevalent for a long time that the main issue was to be the Peace Treaty and the League of Nations, but I am able to say, as the result of most careful inquiry and interviews with leaders of both sides, that in the last few weeks the respective “platforms”, whether Democratic or Republican, have been negligible.

What, then, is the issue to be decided tomorrow? One supreme outstanding issue is whether the external and internal policy of the United States shall be framed by the Republicans or the Democrats, coupled with a most determined effort on the part of a large number of electors to rid the country forever of what they call Wilsonism. In this contest the Treaty of Peace and the League of Nations, of course, figure prominently, but inasmuch as both parties are committed to all intents and purposes to ratify the Peace Treaty, subject to reservations, and the Republicans, although they do not like the proposed Covenant for the League of Nations, are pledged to an “Association of Nations”, the main question to be decided is whether the Republicans or the Democrats shall act as trustees and executors in carrying out the mandate of the American people.

THE REAL ISSUE.

The issue as put before the country to the Republicans for voting tomorrow is an American versus the Wilson League. The Wilsonian platform, they say, commits the Democratic party and its candidate to the Wilson League practically unamended and unreserved. In the present campaign the personalities of the candidates have not counted so much as the trend of thought they are assumed to represent and the parties aligned behind them. Both started their careers as reporters, both became editors, and in the distribution of the spoils of office neither would neglect the claims of old friends and fellow workers. That is as much the custom here as elsewhere, except that the spoils after the elections in America are much more numerous than in Europe. Governor Cox is the more magnetic of the two candidates, and Mr Harding is the more dignified. The latter’s friends talk of him as a politician of the Mckinley brand. In his speech of acceptance of the Republican nomination, at Marion on July 22, Sen Harding said, concerning the League of Nations:

“With a Senate advising, as the Constitution contemplates, I would hopefully approach the nations of Europe and of the Earth proposing an understanding which makes us a willing participant in the consecration of the nations to a new relationship to commit the moral forces of the world, America included, to peace and international justice, still leaving America free, independent, and self-reliant, but offering friendship to all the world.”

As against the position assumed by Mr Harding on the League, Governor Cox said bluntly: “I am in favour of going in,” but he would “willingly accept a reservation stating explicitly that the United States assumes no obligation to use its military or naval forces to defend or assist any other member of the League unless provided for and authorised by Congress in each case.”