Thinkers throughout the country are becoming increasingly disturbed by existing conditions and tendencies in our public life. There is a growing conviction that our institutions are ultimately in danger.

In an address, recently prepared, the writer made an attempt to provoke really serious thought on the subject. I have had an unusual opportunity to observe, at first hand, the character and operations of American politics. This experience, plus an unpartisan point of view, guided my pen.

A new idea is advanced, to which the reaction from political scientists has been remarkable. It has, as I hoped, stimulated real thinking.

In response to requests for its publication, this address is presented under the title, "The Missing Link in Public Affairs."

Only one aspect of the situation is especially stressed, that pertaining to dynastic politics, whereas reconstruction should include other departures from our orthodox conceptions. But there is here a sufficient discussion to suggest an entirely different condition of public affairs than that to which we have been accustomed.

Your criticism is invited. Certainly the best minds in America must now be focused upon the problem of proper public relationships.

THE SEARCHLIGHT ON CONGRESS WASHINGTON, D. C.

LENOX BUILDING

Subscription rate: $2.00 a year. Single copies 20 cents.

Entered as second-class matter May 26, 1919, at the Postoffice at Washington, D. C., under the Act of March 3, 1879.

are:

First, a widespread decadence of agriculture; and Second, a general political degeneracy.

The present session of Congress is squarely confronted with both of these epochal problems.

Pending Farm Peasantry

Every existing tendency points plainly to a coming condition of farm peasantry. Moreover, the movement is now so swift that, unless wise remedial measures are adopted at once, the next generation is likely to see agriculture enervated beyond revival.

After agrarian tenantry, it is but a short step to the elimination of other middle class elements. Then history will repeat itself: depression and dependency will multiply until there is explosion.

No nation can have real stability, nor any enduring prosperity, unless its rural population shares adequately in those blessings.

Apparently the Congress knows little of history, and less of economics. At least it is a certainty that the powers that be will not voluntarily undertake to rehabilitate American agriculture. If anything is done at this session, it will be because the administration has temporarily lost control of the policy-making branch of the government.

Senatorial Expulsions

Politically, undemocratic developments have reached a climax. A few years ago, there were a few isolated situations, such as those typified by Lorimer and Newberry. Now, by comparison, the condition thus dramatized has become too common to attract indignant attention.

That is the appalling fact-the commonness of campaign corruption. In fact, the overmastering power of slush funds is so prevalent as almost to lose its corruptive character in the minds of both politicians and public.

Several Senators are under fire.

The right of Senator Gould, of Maine, to sit in the Senate was challenged because of his alleged connection with the bribery of a Canadian official. Senator-elect Smith, of Illinois, accepted financial support beyond the amount condemned in the Newberry scandal. Accordingly he faces expulsion.

Likewise, Senator-elect Vare, of Pennsylvania, is charged with a corrupted election.

Probably two of these Senators will be ejected.

Then the game will go on. Others will get elected in quite the same way.

It will do no particular and permanent good to oust Vare: the real problem has to do with a cleansing and reconstruction of the political system which otherwise will soon be producing so many Vares that the Senate may be compelled to make a regular order of expulsions.

The Smith Case

Frank L. Smith, of Illinois, was elected last fall to replace Senator McKinley. Subsequently Mr. McKinley died, with a portion of his term unexpired.

As was perfectly logical, in view of the action of the Illinois electorate, Governor Small of that state appointed Col. Smith to fill the vacancy. Accordingly, Col. Smith appeared before the Senate, on January 19th, to take the oath of office.

Apparently, the Senate was in such a panicky state of mind as not to be able to think very clearly about the matter. At least that body quickly decided that Col. Smith should be barred at the door.

Excepting for the fact that the same individual was involved, there was not the slightest parallel between Col. Smith's right to a seat under the election and by the appointment. No irregularity, illegality or taint could possibly be attached to his credentials in the present session. Yet the Senate, by a vote of 48 to 33, refused to permit him to be seated as a Senator.

This roll call, which may not for years to come be regarded as its fundamental importance merits, was as follows:

To Deny Smith His Seat-Ashurst, Bayard, Bratton, Capper, Caraway, Copeland, Couzens, Dale, Dill, Edwards, Ferris, Fletcher, Frazier, George, Gerry, Glass, Goff, Harris, Harrison, Hawes, Heflin, Johnson, Jones, N. Mex.; Jones, Wash.; Kendrick, La Follette, McKellar, McNary, Mayfield, Neely, Norbeck, Norris, Nye, Pittman, Ransdell, Robinson, Ark.; Robinson, Ind.; Sheppard, Shipstead, Stephens, Stewart, Swanson, Trammell, Tyson, Walsh, Mass.; Walsh, Mont.; Wheeler, Willis-48.

To Seat Smith—Bingham, Blease, Borah, Cameron, Curtis, Deneen, Edge, Ernst, Fess, Gooding, Gould, Greene, Hale, Keyes, Lenroot, McLean, Means, Metcalf, Oddie, Overman, Pepper, Phipps, Pine, Reed, Pa.; Sackett, Schall, Shortridge, Smith, Smoot, Steck, Wadsworth, Warren, Weller-33.

Not Voting-Broussard, Bruce, du Pont, Gillett, Harreld, Howell, King, McMaster, Moses, Reed, Mo.; Simmons, Stanfield, Underwood, Watson-14.

*

The debate lasted two days. It was bitter-and practically meaningless on both sides. It was largely an exhibition of hair-splitting, such as Senatorial legalists can supply at a moment's notice, with neither the pro nor con forces displaying any real

signs of a statesmanlike comprehension of the issues involved.

A long list of "precedents"-on both sides—was dragged into the discussion. In a way it was funny-this method of debate-arraying one lifeless line of precedents against another. When one Senator studiously trotted out some old, bewhiskered decision, pointing this way or that, some other studious Senator would trot out an even more dustcovered case that was devastatingly antithetical.

Actually, of course, as in the past, the Senate was politically-minded in the matter.

When the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Watson, was confronted with the accusation that he had once voted differently than he was then talking, he confessed:

"I am going to answer it in exactly the same way my friend from Kansas answered it. It is true that in the old days when the Senator from Kansas and I were Members of the House-and he went to the House 34 years ago and I went there 32 years ago— we sat there, and when contested election cases arose time and time again, just as the Senator from Kansas has stated-in the great majority of instances when the Democrats were in power-they brought in reports to unseat Republicans; and when the Republicans were in power they brought in reports to unseat Democrats; and every time they brought in a report to unseat a Democrat, by the eternal, I voted to support the committee. (Laughter.)"

The Senator from Kansas, Mr. Curtis, corroborated this by saying:

"Let me say here, Mr. President, that when I was a Member of the House years ago when the Republicans had a majority and a contested election case arose the majority assigned every possible reason to vote to turn out the Democrat, and when the Democrats had a majority they voted to turn out the Republican."

So it goes in the Senate of the United States.

Col. Smith was unfortunate in having his personal interests so involved at a time when the acceptance of a single member might swing the rich fruits of the Senate organization to one party or the other.

Naturally in such a situation most of the Democrats would easily hold convictions that conformed to better prospects of immediate party success, even at the cost of sacrificing their traditional attitude on the sovereign rights of the states.

Likewise, having nothing constructive to offer, and seeing advantage to their group in thus bombarding "corrupted elections," even when a Senator comes by appointment, it was easy for the Independents to have in mind the Col. Smith of the next

Congress rather than the Col. Smith whose credentials were not at all open to attack.

*

When Col. Smith appears to take the oath of office under his election credentials, then the Senate should determine whether or not those credentials have been legally and properly attained.

But, we repeat, expulsion would not even approach a remedy. That is our indictment of the Senate in all this connection: no Senator appears to propose anything that goes to the crux of the condition of which the Vare and Smith episodes are symtomatic.

Is it logical, or fair, to sanction an election system which is wide open to private campaign contributions and then punish a few of those individuals who win to public positions through the use of money?

What difference do "amounts" make, or sources of such support?

THE SEARCHLIGHT believes that the Senate acted completely in conflict with American institutions in refusing to concur in Col. Smith's appointment to that body.

Moreover, THE SEARCHLIGHT cannot get greatly excited over the prospect of expelling Col. Smith and Mr. Vare, when their claims under the election are presented.

We would throw up our hat, repeatedly, and cheer, mightily, if the Senate were now to initiate constructive legislation to remove all the causes of Varism and Newberryism.

Everything that is political about politics should be institutionalized and legalized. Above all else, everything that is legitimately and essentially related to elections should be paid for exclusively out of public funds.

But in this debate on Col. Smith's appointive right to sit in the Senate, there was no suggestion of such fundamental election reform. Nor in the pending controversy over the elections of Smith and Vare is there yet visible any adequate remedial proposals.

If some plant plague were destroying a farmer's crop, it would not be exactly statesmanlike for him to combat the evil by giving attention to each separate stalk of corn; yet that is fairly descriptive of the present Senate with respect to campaign corruption.

Oust Vare and Smith, they say! Oust Smith twice, even though the first explusion be entirely unjustified!

The beneficiaries of the system must go, one by one; but let the system remain unchanged and unchallenged!

As the Congress yields more and more to the