OBNERAL LIBRARY THE SEARCHLIGHT ON CONGRESS March, 1927 Washington, D. C. 20c a Copy HOW MIDDLE WEST REGARDS THE COOLIDGE VETO By Knud Wefald Rules Reform for the House Volume XI The Industrial East Still "Demobilizing" Agri- To Find the Number 12 O UR new kind of survey of everything connected with politics and government progresses. Another month of work has gone into it. Certain very significant results are beginning to take shape. What one highly competent person thinks of this effort is revealed in the letter on page 3. Mr. Kerby is director of the Newspaper Information Service, a Scripps-Howard organization. Thinking men and women all over the world are likewise becoming deeply conscious that representative government is breaking down. Books could now be filled with outstanding expressions of that reluctant belief. We are endeavoring to find out exactly wherein the difficulties lie, and what remedies will be lastingly effective. There are two things that you can do to help: Put some money into the fund that is to be used to make this all-important survey; and Send us your ideas on the subject. Undoubtedly more constructive statesmanship could be assembled from among SEARCHLIGHT readers than is now represented in the national public service. Let us have your views of existing tendencies and conditions. This comes from Frank A. Day, who was the secretary and political mentor of the late John A. Johnson when the latter was Governor of Minnesota. Mr. Day is now a State Senator and editor of the Fairmount Daily Sentinel: "Victor Lawson, who sits beside me in the Senate, and Jim Carley, who sits back of me, both tell me I should send you $2 for THE SEARCHLIGHT. They both say they read it, and even if I am hard up as the devil, I owe that much toward the cause of good government, which you are aiding so splendidly in your publication on Congress." Dear Lynn: To Find the Missing Link in Government I am writing this letter to get down on paper some impressions which I have gathered from the several conferences we have had and the opportunity I have had to go over with you the preliminary analyses you have made looking toward the undertaking of a comprehensive survey of our political institutions and why our so-called democratic government is obviously breaking down. After thinking about the entire question a good deal, it seems to me perfectly obvious that you are proposing to embark upon a tremendously important project. In its final analysis it is no less than a scientific study of how our government can best be adapted to the ultimate end of human happiness. No thinking man or woman today can do anything else than admit frankly that our political machinery is not only utterly inadequate, but grotesquely misfit to meet the economic and political development of modern life. The American experiment in Republican government is breaking down. I hear this admitted and talked about on every side -by hard-boiled business men, by conservative men, as well as liberals and radicals of all shades of thought. The principle of democratic government is under attack from both the Right and Left-by Fascism in Italy and Leninism in Russia; and it is under attack because it is failing to function. Whenever any mechanism is failing to function so as to produce the results for which it is supposed to be designed, either one of two things must be done (1) it must be determined whether the failure is due merely to the necessity of replacement of badly functioning parts, or (2) whether the entire machine is obsolete or obsolescent to the point where it must be replaced by a modern mechanism. Having been familiar with your many years of work here in Washington, it seems to me that you have pretty thoroughly explored the possibility that mere tinkering with the mechanism might be the solution of the problem, and after going over the analysis which you have recently made, I am personally convinced that your conclusion that a major operation on our political system is needed, is correct. However, it is obvious that a comprehensive study is an essential prerequisite to any attempt to lay down the specifications for a new piece of machinery to replace the one which is now about to fall to pieces if we do not replace it. This survey must go completely back of our existing political institutions, and inquire into their origin and genesis; it must take nothing for granted; it must not assume that because any part of our governmental machinery exists and has existed, it is therefore right. You must place yourself in the position of a scientist confronted with an entirely new problem-the problem of building a governmental machine which will presumably function to attain the end of social welfare for the people of the United States. You must say to yourself that an end is to be attained by certain means-means calculated scientifically to produce that end. What are these means? How shall a governmental system be constructed, or how should it be constructed to attain the end sought? With that thought in mind, the inquiry goes back of what many of us have thought to be foundation stones of popular government. We must question the very Constitution itself, the principle of division of government function into legislative, executive and judicial branches. In other words, it seems to me necessary that you place yourself in the position in which men found themselves when the Articles of Confederation were found not to be yielding results, and certain men took it upon themselves to frame a new scheme of government. Why did they construct a Constitution as they did? Where did the ideas embodied in it come from? What were they intended to do? How have they succeeded and how have they failed? What would have been the presumable result if different ideas had been embodied? Do we need a Constitution at all? If not, why not? If so, why so? There surely is within the confines of the United States a group of people who see the necessity of approaching a solution of our political ills from the scientific angle, rather than the emotional. They have, fortunately, in you, an instrument sharpened to their purpose. You have deliberately dedicated your life to a study of the problems of government; you are willing to continue to make that contribution. I feel confident, therefore, that the problem can be met of financing an intensive study, preliminary to some kind of a national conference on the subject, that can draw together patriotic men and women who see the danger that confronts us from drifting, and can take the material which you will gather and the conclusions which you will reach, and form of them a practical and fundamental program of action. If there is any help that I can give, command me. (Signed) FREDERICK M. KERBY. Many have asked how they could help. The blank below is the answer. Our great need is money with which to do this work. THE SEARCHLIGHT, Lenox Bldg., Washington, D. C. I want to help your survey to discover "The Missing Link in Government" and enclose $. Name Address City..... State. A Penrose Your Government at Washington There is pending before the Pennsylvania legislature a bill to appropriate $30,000 of public money for a memorial to the late Boise Penrose. Mr. Penrose, it will be remembered, was for many years a U. S. Senator from that State. In a larger sense, he was the brains of Old Guard Republicanism throughout the nation. It was Boise Penrose, primarily, who set up the Harding-Coolidge dynasty. The old Senate triumvirate-Penrose, Lodge and Smoot are generally given credit for that "accomplishment," but Mr. Penrose far excelled the other two as a manipulator. In fact, he has had few equals in political cunning since the republic was born. When he died, an era of Republican blundering quickly developed. For his own commonwealth, Mr. Penrose constructed a most powerful political machine which operated smoothly and without friction so long as he remained to direct its functioning. But he passed on, and mere amateurs took charge. Such results as the Vare scandal were inevitable. Mr. Penrose was no ordinary party dictator. He demonstrated a capacity beyond that of any boss of his time. It would be entirely proper for the Republican legislature of Pennsylvania to provide a monument in commemoration of that superior genius. It would be even more appropriate for the present bi-partisan forces of Congress to nationalize such a tribute to the memory of a master whose political ability is now so badly needed. Perhaps the most striking illustration of the Penrose political sagacity is to be found in "Dave" Reed, now a Senator from the keyNot Like stone state. Of course there is no su analogy; that is precisely the point of greatest interest: Boise Penrose and "Dave" Reed are so completely different. It is not fair to the memory of Penrose to speculate concerning the course he would have taken in connection with the Vare scandal, because with him in the saddle there would probably have been no Vare scandal. But, assuming such an issue, certainly Mr. Penrose would not have acted as Mr. Reed did. To be specific, the attitude of "Dave" Reed toward "the slush fund" committee headed by the other Reed, "Jim," of Missouri, exemplifies the situation as to present Pennsylvania Senatorial intellectuality. When "Jim" Reed asked the Senate for a reauthorization of the unfinished work of that committee, a part of it being to investigate more fully into the Vare scandal, "Dave" Reed would not permit the matter to come to a vote. He filibustered, and thus prevented a decision. He "killed" it. Mr. Penrose would not have done that. A Senator much less sagacious than Mr. Penrose would not have done that. In fact the conduct of Mr. Reed, of Pennsylvania, seems so utterly foolish, even from the Old Guard point of view, that it is difficult to conceive such short-sightedness in any Senator. If "Dave" Reed had not obstructed "Jim" Reed in this foolish and futile fashion, the slush fund committee would have gone about its A Foolish task at once. Perhaps the whole epiFilibuster sode, so far as Pennsylvania corruption is concerned, would have been over in a few months. But "Dave" appeared to give no thought to inevitable consequences. At any rate, he succeeded in postponing the day of reckoning. Instead of accelerating the inquiry, as common sense would seem to dictate, he delayed it to a degree that will brings its revelations into the very heart of the next campaign. Moreover, by his opposition, "Dave" has greatly intensified the fight against the seating of Vare. He himself helped greatly to dramatize the unsavory mess. And in addition to piling up unnecessary election difficulty for all Guarders, "Dave" has undoubtedly contributed more than any supporter could have done toward the acceptance of William B. Wilson as the Senator from Pennsylvania. Before "Dave" Reed embarked upon his deathdefying filibuster, there was little possibility that the contest between Wilson and Vare could result in a verdict for the former. Now, however, thanks to Dave's ill-advised effort, there is at least a real probability of that result. The investigation so far made seems to indicate much illegality and corruption, particularly in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh precincts. The Wilson contest petition contends that there were a sufficient number of ballots cast for him and counted for Vare to give Wilson a majority. An inspection of the ballots, which "Dave" Reed succeeded in delaying, will certainly disclose some of the truth as to this. Apparently enough is already known concerning irregularities in "the Vare centers" to justify the rejection of more than enough votes to eliminate his margin. It is at least a safe prediction that the Wilson contest will be successful, if all the Democratic Senators endorse his claims. Even though Blease, Bruce and a few others among the Democrats were to vote with the Old Guard against Wilson, enough independent Republican support should be forthcoming among Senators like Norris, Howell, Brookhart, Shipstead, Nye, Frazier, La Follette, Blaine, Johnson, McMasters, Norbeck, Borah and Couzens to make a just decision. In the next Senate there will be forty-eight Republicans, forth-seven Democrats and one Farmer-Labor member. This narThe Senate row division makes the "organizaOrganization tion" very much a matter of doubt. Of course if the Democrats were all liberal the issue would not be problematical; it would undoubtedly result disastrously to the Old Guard. The first factor to be considered is that of the Vare and Smith cases. Both of these newly elected Senators will probably be denied their seats, because of alleged campaign corruption. Moreover, it seems unlikely that either will be permitted to take the oath of office pending a decision as to their qualifications. Were that to happen the Republicans, plus Shipstead, the Farmer-Labor Senator, could just equal the whole number of Democrats, which would give Vice President Dawes the deciding vote on organization. But there is no assurance that Mr. Shipstead will thus affiliate. And numerous other independentsNorris, Howell, Brookhart, Frazier, Nye, La Follette, Blaine, McMaster, Norbeck, Johnson, Couzens and Borah-may not be inclined to favor a reactionary control of the committees. On the other hand Democratic Senators include several who are quite likely to leave their party and join the Old Guard. Congressman Cellar, of New York, took his colleagues to task for failing to pass the Norris amendment to outlaw "lame ducks." In real"Lame ity, the reason for this failure lies in the Ducks" fact that the House leaders would not permit its consideration. The proposal would undoubtedly have had a big majority, if brought to a vote. Mr. Cellar had this to say: "Mr. Speaker, a lame duck is usually a wild bird that has been wounded and brought down to earth by the hunter. Ofttimes the shot lames the wild duck and the very lameness in time tames it. All wildness is gone and the bird becomes very docile. "There is another species of 'lame duck,' and that is the Senator or Representative who has been brought down to defeat by the constituents in the election but who continues on for four months with full power of voting in the congressional short session. They are political lame ducks. They are very tractible, very docile, and usually under the promise of a job will vote any way demanded of them. "The Sixty-ninth Congress has terminated. The short session thereof which has just been ended, contained a considerable number of Senators and Representatives who were defeated at the polls in November, 1926, but whose terms did not expire until March 4 of this year. Despite their defeat, they served in the winter, or short session. Although not wanted by their constituents, a hackneyed and worn-out provision of our Constitution forces those same constituents to be represented by men that they have unseated. Usually little service is rendered by these 'lame ducks,' or rather 'sore ducks'; more often it is disservice. Surely, their head is not in their work. They are disgruntled and dissatisfied, and their tempers are usually bad. The remedy for this wretched system is the adoption by Congress and the States of the so-called Norris amendment to the Constitution, which reads: SECTION 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 24th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives on the 4th day of January in the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin. SEC. 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the 4th day of January, unless they shall by law appoint another day." |