In the Senate [Reprint 2016 ed.] 9781512805260

Citation preview

IN THE SENATE

GEORGE WHARTON

PEPPER

IN THE SENATE By

George Wharton Pepper

1930 Philadelphia U N I V E R S I T Y OF PENNSYLVANIA PRESS London: Humphrey Milford: Oxford University Press

Copyright 1930 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA PRESS Printed, in the United States of America

CONTENTS CHAPTER

PAGE

I

A NEW SENATOR

3

II

THE SENATE A T WORK

18

III

LEARNING T H E JOB

32

IV

HOLDING THE JOB

49

V

THE W H I T E HOUSE FROM CAPITOL HILL

65

VI

THE C O M M I T T E E SYSTEM

80

VII

THE FILIBUSTER

97

VIII THE WORLD COURT IX

INTERNATIONAL

106

CONFER-

ENCES

121

X

LOSING THE JOB

131

XI

PRINCIPLES IN POLITICS

137

V

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Some of the material published in this volume has heretofore appeared in the Saturday Evening Post, some of it in The Forum and some of it in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. I wish to acknowledge the courtesy of the publishers of these periodicals, who have permitted the use of this material in the present volume. G. W . P.

IN THE SENATE

I

A NEW SENATOR

B

O I E S P E N R O S E w a s dead. T h e f a m o u s Republican l e a d e r w h o had represented Pennsylvania in the U n i t e d States Senate f o r almost a q u a r t e r of a century, w h o h a d served effectively as chairman of the Finance Committee and f o r y e a r s dominated the turbulent politics of his state, had answered the final roll call. In the w o r l d of Pennsylvania politics the question during the first f e w days of 1 9 2 2 w a s : " W h o will succeed h i m ? " T h e decision rested with the late W i l l i a m C . Sproul, g o v e r n o r of the state, on w h o m it d e v o l v e d to appoint a successor to serve until a f t e r the people indicated their choice in the election of N o v e m b e r , 1 9 2 2 . A m o n g all the names p r o p o s e d at the time to fill the seat l e f t v a c a n t by our departed giant, my own, to my k n o w l e d g e , w a s never included. T h e idea w a s first suggested to me by G o v e r n o r Sproul himself on the evening of W e d n e s d a y , J a n u a r y 4, 1 9 2 2 . I had returned to my Philadelphia l a w office late that a f t e r n o o n f r o m a legal conference in T r e n t o n . W a i t i n g on my desk I f o u n d , a m o n g other m e m o r a n d a , a request to telephone the g o v ernor immediately at the U n i o n L e a g u e . H e w a s eager, the message read, to discuss an urgent m a t t e r with me. I complied, and as a result of my call we m a d e an appointment to meet that evening at nine o'clock. M y contacts with G o v e r n o r Sproul had been many and f r i e n d l y . F o r a y e a r I had sat as one of his appointees 3

4

IN THE

SENATE

on the Pennsylvania Commission on Constitutional Amendment and Revision, and on several occasions he had honored me by asking my advice on matters affecting his administration and its problems. A t this time I thought perhaps another such problem had arisen and that he wanted to discuss it with me. I felt, in fact, that I could anticipate the problem. T h e governor, I knew, was being strongly urged to resign from his office with a gentlemen's agreement that Lieutenant-Governor Edward E . Beidleman, on assuming the chair, would appoint him to the United States Senate. T h e possibility of some such arrangement had been widely discussed in the newspapers. Despite, however, the governor's undoubted qualifications for the office, it was my personal opinion that the suggested course would be an unworthy one for him to follow. I assumed that it was on this point he desired to consult me, and as I walked from my office down Walnut Street toward the secluded and dignified Philadelphia Club where our appointment was to be kept, I considered the best way to give him such unwelcome advice in an acceptable fashion. Finally, after much thought, I decided to say that he was in the position of a man trusted with the awarding of a valuable prize and that the last thing he could honorably do was to select himself as beneficiary. I reached the club a few minutes before him and sat mentally framing the form of my proposed advice as the governor entered. Scarcely had I risen to greet him when he asked abruptly, "George, how would you like to go to the United States S e n a t e ? " T h e question, propounded in such a way, tended instantly to confirm my expectations. H o w would I like

A NEfV

SENATOR

5

to go to the U n i t e d States Senate? H o w would any man like to g o ? I t was, I felt convinced, purely a rhetorical question, which meant in f a c t : " I f you were I, how would you like to be a s e n a t o r ? " So I parried. " T h a t , " I replied, "depends on your title to the office." " W e l l , if I were to appoint you, w h a t would be the m a t t e r with your clear title?" asked the governor. " B u t , " I protested, "we're talking about you, not me." " N o t at all," said the governor. " I ' m quite serious in what I say. I have given up all idea of taking that place myself and I want to offer it to you." N a t u r a l l y I was as much taken by surprise as any man could be who had never t h o u g h t of himself in such a connection. A f t e r a moment's silence I asked if this was the tender of an interim appointment, merely to keep the seat warm until a popular election had determined Penrose's successor. "Certainly n o t , " the governor assured me. " I should expect you to enter the primaries and, if nominated and elected, to serve a full t e r m . " I then asked f o r time to consider the proposal, and a f t e r f u r t h e r discussion agreed to give my final decision the following a f t e r n o o n at f o u r o'clock. Little more was said. I walked to my home and discussed the proffered honor with M r s . Pepper, who, though plainly averse to any change which necessitated leaving our home and our family contacts, said at once that she would concur cheerfully in any decision I reached. T h e next day I consulted a few intimate friends whose judgment I trusted. A m o n g them were Justice William I. Schaffer and Chief Justice R o b e r t von Mosch-

6

IN THE

SENATE

zisker, both of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. T h e y did much to help me reach a decision. "You have m a d e , " the latter said in effect, " m a n y addresses concerning the responsibility of all citizens to perf o r m their share of public service and civic duty. Your statements, I am sure, were quite sincere. I t seems to me now t h a t the significant question is whether o r not you will make those declarations g o o d . " M y law p a r t n e r s expressed a willingness to carry on the office organization and enable me to maintain a modified relation to it, notwithstanding the fact t h a t the proposal involved serious professional responsibilities f o r them. T h e appointment would take me out of the working force. During my term in office the firm could not accept retainers f r o m clients whose claims were adverse to those of the Federal Government, as, f o r example, tax settlements and refunds, questions under the contract labor law and others of similar nature. T h e r e was also the strong probability that certain important clients, accustomed to depend on my personal service, would slip away. All this could mean loss of income to the firm. In my own case, of course, the pecuniary consequences promised to be very serious. M y family and I were, and still are, dependent on my earnings. I faced the necessity of cutting down a handsome professional income, maintaining a home in Washington as well as in Philadelphia and accepting a salary which was not only small in itself but, as a f t e r w a r d turned out to be the case, was more than absorbed in meeting the clerical and administrative expenses of my Senate office. All these phases of the problem I considered thoroughly in the short time permitted me, and just b e f o r e f o u r o'clock on T h u r s d a y afternoon I called on Gover-

A NEW

SENATOR

7

n o r Sproul at his P h i l a d e l p h i a office and a s k e d if he w e r e still o f the s a m e mind. " M o r e t h a n e v e r , " t h e g o v e r n o r assured me h e a r t i l y . " I m i g h t as well tell you t h a t I h a v e m a d e confidential

inquiries on t h e

attitude

of

various

i n f o r m e d and politically i m p o r t a n t men t h r o u g h o u t state toward your appointment,

and h a v e h a d a

the most

f a v o r a b l e r e c e p t i o n . T h e offer is still open. W h a t is y o u r decision ? " " I a c c e p t , " I said, and f o u r days l a t e r I h a d t h e int e r e s t i n g e x p e r i e n c e o f finding m y s e l f p r e s i d i n g o v e r the Senate of the United States. Senator Albert B . Cummins, o f I o w a , then p r e s i d e n t p r o t e m . , h a d h o n o r e d m e by inviting me t o t a k e the c h a i r t e m p o r a r i l y on my first day in t h a t b o d y . T h e r e w e r e , o f course, c e r t a i n p r e s c r i b e d and necess a r y f o r m a l i t i e s t o be f o l l o w e d b e t w e e n t h e t i m e o f my oral

acceptance

and my a c t u a l

induction

as a

United

States Senator. W e arranged that my commission

enti-

tling me t o s e r v e until a f t e r a c a n d i d a t e h a d been c h o s e n by the people should be p r e s e n t e d t o me f o r m a l l y

the

f o l l o w i n g M o n d a y , J a n u a r y ninth, in G o v e r n o r S p r o u l ' s P h i l a d e l p h i a office. T h e c e r e m o n y o f p r e s e n t a t i o n w a s quite simple. G o v ernor

Sproul

invited t w o m e n w h o w e r e his

personal

f r i e n d s as well as my o w n — C h i e f J u s t i c e von M o s c h z i s k e r and W . Pennsylvania

W.

Atterbury,

Railroad. At

then v i c e - p r e s i d e n t t h e conclusion

of

mony, newspapermen photographed the group.

of

the

the cere-

Typical

o f political m e t h o d s is t h e f a c t t h a t even this c e r e m o n y w a s utilized t o my d i s a d v a n t a g e in the p r i m a r y c a m p a i g n held a few m o n t h s l a t e r . O p p o n e n t s d i s t r i b u t e d copies o f the p h o t o g r a p h widely, with t h e o b j e c t o f p r o v i n g t h a t I w a s a tool

of

the

Pennsylvania

Railroad

and of

the

IN THE

8

SENATE

v e s t e d interests. T h e f a c t t h a t I h a d never, in m y e n t i r e professional career, represented that company, and had o p p o s e d it in t h e only t w o o f my cases in w h i c h it w a s i n v o l v e d w a s i g n o r e d . P o l i t i c a l l y , o f course, t h e selection o f t h a t g r o u p and the p h o t o g r a p h s could be d e s c r i b e d a s b l u n d e r s . I t w a s n o t surprising t h a t I should t h e n h a v e been u n a w a r e o f the possibility o f such a r e a c t i o n .

As

f a r as the g o v e r n o r was concerned, he not i n f r e q u e n t l y a c t e d on the impulse to g a t h e r his friends a r o u n d him w i t h o u t considering h o w the incident might b e m i s i n t e r p r e t e d , a h a b i t which w a s one o f his m o s t

attractive

characteristics. A t t h a t time I h a d no e x p e r i e n c e which, in a t e c h n i c a l sense, could be called political. I h a d held no public office and I h a d n e v e r w o r k e d my w a y t h r o u g h a p a r t y o r g a n i zation

in the m a n n e r r e g a r d e d by r e g u l a r s

requisite

to

office-holding.

Though

my

as a

pre-

appointment

elicited enthusiastic c o m m e n d a t i o n f r o m a l a r g e circle o f f r i e n d s , and f a v o r a b l e c o m m e n t f r o m a still l a r g e r circle o f a c q u a i n t a n c e s , it was viewed with s o m e t h i n g a p p r o a c h ing disgust by m a n y o f the men in c o n t r o l o f t h e R e p u b l i can o r g a n i z a t i o n . I n t h e light o f the experience which I n o w h a v e behind me, I can fully a p p r e c i a t e t h e p o i n t o f view o f those s t a l w a r t s w h o w e r e o u t r a g e d by m y app o i n t m e n t . T h e r e is, in f a c t , even m o r e to be s a i d

for

t h e i r attitude t h a n t h e r e is f o r the o p p o s i t i o n

the

of

W e s t P o i n t e r t o the c o m m i s s i o n i n g o f a civilian w h o s e m i l i t a r y t r a i n i n g h a s been i r r e g u l a r . T o t h e m , m y political t r a i n i n g w a s n o t only i r r e g u l a r ; it was n o n e x i s t e n t . I n t h e i r opinion I h a d given no service f o r t h e g r e a t r e w a r d I w a s accepting. M y l e a d e r s h i p in the fight outside t h e S e n a t e against unconditional acceptance o f t h e

League

o f N a t i o n s , my service on t h e C o m m i s s i o n on

Consti-

A NEW

SENATOR

9

tutional Amendment and Revision, my efforts in 1 9 1 5 and 1 9 1 6 f o r national preparedness, my activities as chairman of the Pennsylvania Council of National D e fense meant nothing to them. Unlike the majority of them, I had not w o r k e d my way up by serving on w a r d , city or state committees, assuming the responsibility of w a r d or division leadership, sitting in city council or in the state legislature. I had never been in a position to dispense patronage and thus build around me a following of loyal dependents, ready f o r delivery to any candidate. T h e man I was succeeding had worked his way to his high position through the successive stages of party promotion, and until the day of his death continued to maintain contact with his city w a r d while dealing effectively with g r e a t national and international questions. Senator W i l l i a m E . C r o w , the other incumbent, was a distinguished and powe r f u l leader, who at twenty-five had been secretary of his county committee and f r o m that starting point had moved onward and upward to the chairmanship of the Republican State Committee and to a seat in the U n i t e d States Senate. But I was, to the regulars, an outsider, a novice, an untrained beneficiary of rewards which I had never won. T h e r e was, as I h a v e said, much in f a v o r of their viewpoint. Certainly, h a d I been able to boast the type of experience which they regarded as a prerequisite, I should have avoided many errors in political s t r a t e g y which I was later, with more or less justice, accused of c o m m i t t i n g — e r r o r s which reacted to my disadvantage. M a n y commendatory newspaper editorials and public utterances pointed out this absence of political background as a point in my f a v o r . T h a t kind of indorsement, however, though helpful in many ways, served to

10

IN THE

SENATE

accentuate the distrust f e l t by r e g u l a r o r g a n i z a t i o n w o r k e r s . It put me in the c a t e g o r y of opponents of the organization, and s t a r t e d me on m y political career looking like an enemy within the ranks. T h i s became evident when, a f e w days a f t e r my appointment, I received a visit f r o m the late State S e n a t o r E d w i n H . V a r e , l e a d e r of the P h i l a d e l p h i a o r g a n i z a t i o n , and his b r o t h e r W i l l i a m S. V a r e , then representative, a f t e r w a r d U n i t e d States Senator-elect, who d e f e a t e d me in the p r i m a r i e s of M a y , 1 9 2 6 . A f t e r a bit of f o r m a l and desultory conversation they asked bluntly f o r a statement of my attitude t o w a r d the o r g a n i z a t i o n . I w a s similarly f r a n k in m y reply. " I a m , " I assured them, " a p a r t y man, a strict Republican, and a believer in the effectiveness of intelligent and conscientiously administered o r g a n i z a tion, w h e t h e r in industry or politics." T h a t , it seemed, w a s hardly enough, and we turned to the topic which is uppermost in e v e r y political leader's mind—namely, patronage. " W h i l e , " I a d d e d , " I will in no w a y surrender my independence of action on matters affecting either votes or appointments, it will be my policy to consult the organization leader in any county f r o m which an appointment to F e d e r a l office is contemplated b e f o r e giving my indorsement." T o this, h o w e v e r , I made a specific exception. I t w a s that in cases affecting the appointment of F e d e r a l judges political considerations should not enter. I t has a l w a y s been m y settled conviction that judicial office must be entirely f r e e of politics. L o n g b e f o r e my appointment I had indorsed C h a r l e s L . M c K e e h a n f o r the F e d e r a l bench in the E a s t e r n District of Pennsylvania. I knew he had no hope of o r g a n i z a t i o n support, but I told my

A NEW

SENATOR

11

callers bluntly t h a t I m e a n t t o s u p p o r t h i m . R e c o g n i z i n g my position, they acquiesced, and, a p p a r e n t l y as an evidence t h a t t h e t a l k h a d been s a t i s f a c t o r y , S e n a t o r V a r e reached

into his vest p o c k e t ,

silently h a n d e d it to me. I t

drew

flashed

forth

a cigar

and

upon m y m i n d t h a t

h e r e was the political equivalent o f t h e t e n d e r o f t h e pipe o f peace, and I accepted it in t h a t

spirit.

A f t e r a f e w m o r e minutes o f casual c o n v e r s a t i o n my visitors d e p a r t e d . B u t t h e r e was a p a r t i n g s h o t — o r possibly a w a r n i n g . A t the d o o r w a y S e n a t o r E d V a r e p a u s e d for a moment. "Senator,"

he

said

to m e — s o m e w h a t

ominously,

I

f e l t — " t h i s isn't a p e r s o n a l m a t t e r . B u t we a r e o r g a n i z a tion men first and last, and t h e r e ' s s o m e t h i n g I think you should k n o w . I t is t h a t with o u r p o w e r o v e r the o r g a n i z a tion we can send anybody we w a n t t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S e n a t e — a n y b o d y . " H e was not b o a s t i n g . H e w a s s t a t i n g w h a t he b e l i e v e d to be a simple, i n c o n t r o v e r t i b l e

fact.

A n d I c a n n o t say t h a t he w a s w r o n g . T h e quality o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n s u p p o r t thus offered b e c a m e m o r e evident a few w e e k s l a t e r , w h e n R e p r e s e n t a t i v e W i l l i a m S. V a r e g a v e a d i n n e r in my h o n o r in W a s h i n g t o n . A t the t a b l e w e r e a s s e m b l e d n o t only m e m b e r s o f the P e n n s y l v a n i a d e l e g a t i o n a n d s t a t e

political

l e a d e r s but s e v e r a l n o t a b l e m e m b e r s o f C o n g r e s s other

states,

among

them

that

distinguished

from

veteran,

U n c l e J o e C a n n o n , and M a r t i n B . M a d d e n , o f Illinois, chairman o f the important H o u s e Appropriations

Com-

m i t t e e . T o m e , the m o s t significent a d d r e s s o f t h e evening w a s m a d e by S e n a t o r E d V a r e . A s a c c u r a t e l y as possible, I q u o t e an e x t r a c t f r o m m e m o r y : " O f c o u r s e , " said t h e P h i l a d e l p h i a l e a d e r a f t e r r e f e r ring

to

the

circumstances

of

my

appointment—"of

12

IN THE

SENATE

c o u r s e , m y b r o t h e r Bill w a s m y choice f o r this place. I t h i n k h e h a s t h e best qualifications a n d d e s e r v e d t h e a p p o i n t m e n t . But we h a v e t h o u g h t it all o v e r , a n d since t h e g o v e r n o r h a s seen fit t o n a m e s o m e b o d y else, w e ' v e decided u n d e r all t h e circumstances t o be f o r P e p p e r . " I t w a s a sincere a n d h o n e s t s t a t e m e n t , n o t spoiled by conventional compliments to a new appointee or tinged w i t h u n r e a l s e n t i m e n t . N a t u r a l l y it l e f t m e w i t h t h e s t r o n g , and l a t e r justified, i m p r e s s i o n t h a t I m i g h t h a v e t o r e c k o n with t h e V a r e o r g a n i z a t i o n in t h e f u t u r e . W a s h i n g t o n a n d C a p i t o l H i l l w e r e m o r e o r less f a m i l iar terrain to me. M y previous contacts with the Capitol h a d been of t h r e e k i n d s : F i r s t , as a m e m b e r of t h e b a r of t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ; second, as counsel f o r G i f f o r d P i n c h o t in t h e f a m o u s B a l l i n g e r Pinchot controversy over national resources during the T a f t A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ; t h i r d , as a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of P e n n s y l v a n i a in m a t t e r s connected w i t h t h e n a t i o n a l d e f e n s e d u r i n g t h e w a r . I h a d also e s t a b l i s h e d r e l a t i o n s w i t h a l a r g e n u m b e r of m e n in t h e S e n a t e at t h e t i m e of t h e n a t i o n - w i d e c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r r a t i f i c a t i o n of t h e V e r sailles T r e a t y a n d p r o p o s a l s t h a t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s bec o m e a m e m b e r of t h e L e a g u e of N a t i o n s . I h a d k n o w n p e r s o n a l l y every P r e s i d e n t f r o m C l e v e l a n d on, e n j o y i n g p e r s o n a l f r i e n d s h i p with b o t h R o o s e v e l t a n d T a f t . I n view of these c o n t a c t s it could n o t be said t h a t I w a s u n f a m i l i a r w i t h the n a v i g a t i o n of t h e ship of s t a t e . B u t n o w I w a s to leave the p r o m e n a d e deck to p e n e t r a t e i n t o t h e m y s t e r i e s of the engine r o o m . T h e value of m y f r i e n d s h i p s in t h e S e n a t e at once bec a m e e v i d e n t . I t is t h e custom f o r t h e s i t t i n g colleague t o e s c o r t a new m e m b e r t o the d e s k t o t a k e t h e o a t h of office. Because of S e n a t o r C r o w ' s s e r i o u s illness a n d

A NEW

SENATOR

13

necessary absence, G o v e r n o r Sproul had requested Senator W a l t e r E . E d g e , of N e w J e r s e y , to act as my sponsor. A t the last minute, however, the late Senator H e n r y Cabot L o d g e , of Massachusetts, Republican floor leader, was good enough to volunteer to p e r f o r m this service himself. S e n a t o r E d g e yielded to him in obedience to that canon of seniority which explains so much that happens in the Senate. A f t e r the ceremony I found myself the member of a body which contained more diverse types than any group o f comparable size that I have ever known. N o two o f the ninety-six senators resembled each other, even remotely. L o o k i n g backward, I find myself thinking first o f those who, because of death or political disaster, are no longer in the chamber. Senator Lodge, justly entitled to be known as the Scholar in Politics, was a reservoir of exact information on subjects relating to senatorial precedents and traditions as well as on English and American history and the intricate workings o f the machinery o f government. I have never met a man more familiar than he with the whole range of English literature. T h e Senate restaurant has an inner room where senators only are admitted, and in this room are several tables to which certain men gravitate in obedience to some unwritten law o f political affinity. O v e r one of these tables S e n a t o r L o d g e presided, and I found myself accorded a place at it along with such men as George H . M o s e s , o f N e w H a m p s h i r e ; W i l l i a m P . Dillingham, o f V e r m o n t ; F r a n k B . Brandegee, of Connecticut; F r e d erick H a l e , o f M a i n e ; Medill M c C o r m i c k , o f Illinois; and J a m e s E . W a t s o n , o f Indiana. T h e group frequently varied, but at all these luncheon gatherings, in spite o f the frequent interruption o f quorum calls and summonses

14

IN

THE

SENATE

to vote on pending measures, Senator L o d g e ' s conversation on literary and historical topics was to me delightful. I remember r e f e r r i n g once to an impressive utterance by a Speaker of the H o u s e of C o m m o n s during the reign of Charles I that I had recently come across in a book. I had f o r g o t t e n the speaker's name. Senator L o d g e immediately supplied it and commented most interestingly upon his life and w o r k . On another occasion, when M a r got Asquith, during her tour of the United States, was entertained at a luncheon given by Senator M c C o r m i c k in his offices, S e n a t o r L o d g e and I were f e l l o w guests and sat on either side of her. She spoke of a Kentucky feud shooting then reported in the newspapers, and seemed both a m a z e d and shocked that such a f f a i r s could occur. I ventured to suggest that, as a woman of Scotch descent, she might recall similar feuds among the clansmen of her native land, and quoted briefly f r o m A y t o u n ' s Execution of M o n t r o s e , a ballad I had learned in childhood. T h e reference was u n f a m i l i a r to her, but Senator L o d g e not only capped the quotation but carried it on through many lines with verbal accuracy and g r e a t appreciation. On the floor Senator L o d g e always spoke to the point, and o f t e n with force. One does not remember him, on the whole, however, as a g r e a t debater. N o member of the Senate in my time approached in eloquence J o h n S h a r p W i l l i a m s , of Mississippi, w h o declined reelection when his last term expired in 1 9 2 3 . W h e n conditions were to his liking Senator W i l l i a m s occasionally burst into speech which f o r clarity of thought, purity of diction and cogency of presentation entitle him to rank high among A m e r i c a n orators. H i s sarcasm, when roused, could be devastating, as many senators who crossed him well recall.

A NEW SEN J TOR

15

A unique figure in the chamber at that time w a s the veteran Knute N e l s o n , of M i n n e s o t a , then in his eightieth year. W h e n I w a s presented to him a f t e r entering the Senate, he d r e w me aside to tell me t h a t he well remembered a relative of mine w h o had a p p e a r e d b e f o r e the committee holding hearings in the B a l l i n g e r - P i n c h o t case, of which he w a s chairman, and had o f t e n w a n t e d to see that man again to a p o l o g i z e f o r w h a t he l a t e r felt w a s rudeness in interrupting his a r g u m e n t . I told him I w a s the man he had in mind but that there w a s nothing to apologize f o r . H e insisted, h o w e v e r , on m a k i n g the belated a p o l o g y and we d e v e l o p e d a f r i e n d s h i p which continued until his death. M e d i l l M c C o r m i c k , politically experienced, mentally brilliant and by nature t h o r o u g h l y equipped f o r the w o r k of the Senate, w a s another whose f r i e n d s h i p became to me a cherished possession. H i s untimely death f o l l o w i n g upon his d e f e a t in the Illinois primaries in 1 9 2 4 a d d e d one m o r e to the long list of U n i t e d States senators w h o during my time went to their deaths with hearts broken by political reverses. F r a n k B . B r a n d e g e e , of Connecticut, with one of the keenest minds in the Senate, w a s at his best in the committee r o o m or in conference. H i s p o w e r of analysis w a s a m a z ing, and the d r y N e w E n g l a n d h u m o r with which he ree n f o r c e d his points m a d e him a man to f e a r , if you d i f f e r e d with him and w e r e susceptible to s h a f t s of ridicule. T h e s e men and m a n y other v a l u a b l e public servants like J a m e s W . W a d s w o r t h , J r . , of N e w Y o r k ; C a r t e r G l a s s , of V i r g i n i a , and D a v i d A . R e e d , l a t e r m y colleague f r o m P e n n s y l v a n i a , n e v e r lost sight of the issue b e f o r e the Senate or suffered themselves to m a k e voluble speeches f o r the sake of impressing constituents at home.

16

IN THE

SENATE

T h e r e were, however, men in the Senate t h e n — a n d I observe that there are still s u c h — o f whom this cannot be said. T o a lawyer fresh from the courtroom nothing could be more amazing than the absence o f any compelling rule of relevancy or o f any felt obligation to stick to the point b e f o r e the Senate. I shall never f o r g e t the bewilderment with which I first listened to hours o f talk on subjects not related to any m a t t e r on which the Senate was about to act, the speaker being obviously satisfied to gain applause f r o m the galleries or to pose in the pages o f the Congressional R e c o r d as the champion o f some cause which he thought would be popular at home. Fairly early I learned to distinguish between senators who went about their legislative labors as if no spectators were present and those who seemed to derive their greatest satisfaction f r o m the presence of a listening throng. Some members o f the latter class, on entering the chamber, immediately raised their eyes to the gallery, apt to be occupied by a number of the most attractive women in W a s h i n g t o n , and appeared to be either elated or depressed by the result of their searching scrutiny. T h e habit invariably recalled my rowing days and the coach's injunction, " E y e s in the b o a t ! " addressed to those of the crew who were fond of casting glances at feminine figures along the bank. Although I was not unfamiliar with senatorial methods and responsibility, I learned with amazement the tremendous amount of work apart f r o m activities in the chamber and in committee which falls on the shoulders o f a senator, and, at times, to the lot o f the much-criticized U p p e r H o u s e as a whole. I soon learned that the very nature of the Senate makes inevitable such criticism from those who overlook the fact that occasional

A NEW

SENATOR

17

obstruction may be outweighed by continued performance. T o realize why this should be it is necessary to understand the constitution, the personnnel and the peculiar duties and responsibilities o f the U n i t e d States Senate itself.

II T H E

SENATE AT

WORK

H E U n i t e d States Senate is a body of men, two f r o m each sovereign state, who are charged with several important duties. A m o n g these is the duty of acting as a check upon the President and upon the H o u s e of Representatives. T h e Senate is a court for the trial of impeachments; but happily it is seldom necessary to discharge this function. T h e Senate can originate most kinds of legislation; but all that it can d o in that r e g a r d can also be done by the H o u s e . Its function as a check upon executive and legislative action is its most distinctive function. T h i s means that the Senate can seldom enjoy popularity. T o reject a treaty or a nomination submitted by a popular President is an ungracious task. T o obstruct or d e f e a t legislative measures a p p r o v e d by the most numerous branch of the C o n g r e s s is to invite widespread criticism and protest. I f , however, senators fail to think f o r themselves or fail to carry their thought into action, they are not giving the Constitution of the United States a square deal. T h e i r independent thought and action are essential to its integrity. A body which can thus assert itself in pretty much every important transaction of government is necessarily an influential body. E v e n if never loved and seldom liked it must always be reckoned with. T h e constitutional functions of the Senate were intended by the f r a m e r s to be p e r f o r m e d by men of m a r k e d characteristics. T h e y were 18

THE SENATE

AT

WORK

19

t o be few in n u m b e r . T h e y w e r e t o r e p r e s e n t the s t a t e s , as such. T h e y w e r e t o h a v e l o n g t e r m s . T h e y w e r e t o be such men as a l e g i s l a t u r e

might

choose,

even

if

they

w e r e not " g o o d m i x e r s " and w o u l d f a r e b a d l y in a popul a r i t y c o n t e s t . I t was a l t o g e t h e r in k e e p i n g with this conception tendency

that to

senators take

as individuals

themselves

rather

should

develop

seriously.

a

Unre-

stricted d e b a t e n e c e s s a r i l y h a d its p l a c e in such a scheme. E v e n the use o f unlimited d e b a t e as a m e a n s o f o b s t r u c tion was n a t u r a l e n o u g h in a b o d y w h o s e v e r y existence was a standing invitation to

self-assertion.

P r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e checks on a c t i o n a r e o f t e n unpopul a r t h e r e has a l w a y s been a p o p u l a r t e n d e n c y t o d e n a t u r e the Senate. T h i s momentum.

tendency

"Senator,"

has recently

said

with w h o m I once c h a t t e d ,

an

old

acquired

Capitol

"it's strange

much

employee

how

customs

h a v e c h a n g e d a r o u n d this p l a c e . Y o u and I a r e t a l k i n g like f r i e n d s ; y e t when I

first

came to the Capitol

any

e m p l o y e e w h o s p o k e t o a S e n a t o r w i t h o u t b e i n g spoken t o w o u l d h a v e been laid off f o r a m o n t h w i t h o u t "In

those d a y s , " he a d d e d , " t h e l e a d e r s o f the

pay." Senate

w e r e v e r y c h o o s y as t o which o f t h e i r c o l l e a g u e s

they

w o u l d ride with in an e l e v a t o r . " S e n a t o r s a r e still f e w in n u m b e r . T h e y still h a v e six-year t e r m s . B u t they m u s t now be the kind o f men w h o can win in a

state-wide

p r i m a r y and in a g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n . M o r e o v e r , t h e i r p r o c e d u r e is e x p e c t e d t o be such as t o f a c i l i t a t e action and t o m a k e o b s t r u c t i o n i m p o s s i b l e . T h e S e n a t e o f today b e s t p l e a s e s the c o u n t r y w h e n it c o n v e r t s i t s e l f into an addit i o n a l cylinder in the executive and l e g i s l a t i v e engine o r b e c o m e s an a c c e l e r a t o r i n s t e a d o f a b r a k e . M a n y o f t h e c r i t i c s w h o p r o t e s t a g a i n s t d e l i b e r a t e a c t i o n on the p a r t

20

IN THE

SENATE

of t h e S e n a t e a r e n o t i n t e r e s t e d in b r a k e s . T h e y w a n t t o s t e p o n the gas. I n recent y e a r s t h e r e h a s b e e n w i d e discussion of p r o p o s a l s to a m e n d t h e rules of t h e S e n a t e in t h e i n t e r e s t of l i m i t i n g t h e d e b a t e a n d s u p p r e s s i n g t h e filibuster. T o t h a t discussion I m a d e d u r i n g m y t e r m a s m a l l c o n t r i b u t i o n . I t is m y own conviction t h a t if t h e S e n a t e as n o w comp o s e d c a n n o t be t r u s t e d t o use t h e filibuster in such a w a y as t o k e e p t h e c o u n t r y ' s r e s p e c t a n d confidence, t h e n t h e best t h i n g t o d o is t o m a k e a s e r i o u s e f f o r t a t i n t e r n a l r e f o r m . If t h e p e o p l e of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s w a n t , o r t h i n k they w a n t , s e n a t o r s m e r e l y t o b e six-year congressm e n s i t t i n g in a s e p a r a t e r o o m a n d if t h e y w a n t , o r t h i n k they w a n t , the S e n a t e m e r e l y t o r u b b e r - s t a m p t r e a t i e s a n d n o m i n a t i o n s a n d t o r e g i s t e r a p p r o v a l of H o u s e legisl a t i o n , this is some evidence t h a t s e n a t o r s by t h e i r conduct h a v e f a i l e d t o j u s t i f y t h e o r i g i n a l c o n c e p t i o n of t h e S e n a t e . If t h e p e o p l e a r e i m p a t i e n t w i t h s e n a t o r i a l selfa s s e r t i o n , t h e i r i m p a t i e n c e m a y b e d u e , a t l e a s t in p a r t , t o p a s t abuses of s e n a t o r i a l p r e r o g a t i v e . All this h a s t o d o with t h e S e n a t e in its c o n s t i t u t i o n a l aspect. A v i s i t o r in t h e S e n a t e g a l l e r y is n o t a p t , h o w ever, t o be m u c h c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h i s p h a s e of t h e subject. H e is, p e r h a p s , m e r e l y a n i d l e r g a z i n g d o w n u p o n t h e C h a m b e r as his like in b i g cities a r e w o n t t o g a z e by t h e h o u r a t m e n w o r k i n g in t h e e x c a v a t i o n f o r a b i g building. O r h e m a y be in t h e m o o d of t h e s p e c t a t o r a t t h e p l a y o r b e f o r e t h e screen o r u p o n t h e b l e a c h e r s . H e m a y be a b e w i l d e r e d s t u d e n t s t r i v i n g t o f o l l o w a n incoh e r e n t p r o f e s s o r . O c c a s i o n a l l y h e ( o r s h e ) is a t h o r o u g h l y i n f o r m e d and highly s o p h i s t i c a t e d o b s e r v e r of all t h a t h a p p e n s . F o r all kinds of v i s i t o r s t h e S e n a t e C h a m b e r seems to possess a p e r e n n i a l f a s c i n a t i o n .

THE SENATE

AT WORK

21

Down in the excavation the individual senators, each according to his temperament, are obviously more or less sensible of the presence of this cloud of witnesses. T h o s e who have the capacity to entertain the gallery are constantly tempted to p e r f o r m . T h o s e who lack this capacity are frankly contemptuous of their p e r f o r m i n g colleagues. All this is obvious even to the casual observer. I t is, however, by no means easy for him to perceive what is back of it all. I f a spirited debate is in progress or if a record vote is being taken it is simple enough. I f , however, a solitary senator is monotonously reading a speech to empty chairs, the visitor wonders, not why the chairs are empty, but how the speaker has the nerve to persevere. T h e visitor should reflect that the speaker's reward comes a f t e r the magic of the official stenographers and of the G o v e r n m e n t Printing Office has turned out a neat pamphlet containing his words of wisdom. T h e pamplet is then secured by him in quantity and at very moderate cost and is franked through the mail to the senator's more or less appreciative constituency. T h i s , he hopes, will picture him as commanding the applause of a listening Senate. T h e r e are three possibilities in the incident. I t may help his chances of re-election. I t may prove a costly political blunder. I t may merely augment that mountain o f unread printed m a t t e r which hopeful advertisers and long-suffering tax payers are always cooperating to pile up. I f a proposed Act o f Congress is under discussion, the visitor may feel sure t h a t the measure has already had a long preliminary history. E i t h e r a member o f the H o u s e or a senator has had an idea. I t was the child of his own intellect or he has agreed to father the intellectual offspring o f another. T h a t other may be the head of

22

IN THE

SENATE

an executive d e p a r t m e n t o f the f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t e a g e r f o r n e e d e d legislation, o r an i m p o r t a n t g r o u p o f

con-

s t i t u e n t s who readily identify t h e i r desires with the public g o o d , o r the i n d e f a t i g a b l e executive s e c r e t a r y o f a singlet r a c k o r g a n i z a t i o n which has reduced its h o b b y t o legisl a t i v e f o r m and h a s given the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o r s e n a t o r n o p e a c e till he h a s consented t o s t a r t t h e bill on its legislative journey. B e f o r e r e a c h i n g the S e n a t e c a l e n d a r t h e m e a s u r e , if it be a H o u s e bill, must, o f course, h a v e p a s s e d the H o u s e a n d must h a v e been " m e s s a g e d " t o the S e n a t e by the dignified H o u s e C l e r k w h o suddenly a p p e a r s at the d o o r w a y o p p o s i t e the c h a i r o f t h e P r e s i d e n t o f the a n d as suddenly d i s a p p e a r s

Senate

a f t e r being r e c o g n i z e d

by

t h e chair, announcing h i m s e l f as the b e a r e r o f a m e s s a g e a n d h a n d i n g the document to t h e equally

ceremonious

S e n a t e C l e r k . T h e same f o r m a l i t y is o b s e r v e d when a s e c r e t a r y o f the P r e s i d e n t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a p p e a r s . I t is g o o d f o r m f o r the occupant o f the c h a i r t o

rise

w h e n he r e c o g n i z e s the clerk o r t h e s e c r e t a r y , thus showing f o r m a l c o u r t e s y t o the o t h e r H o u s e o r t o the C h i e f E x e c u t i v e . W h e t h e r it is a H o u s e bill o r a S e n a t e bill t h a t is under d e b a t e , it must h a v e been r e f e r r e d t o the a p p r o p r i a t e S e n a t e c o m m i t t e e w h e r e its p e r i o d o f incubation

m a y h a v e been

tranquil

or

turbulent,

brief

or

p r o l o n g e d . O n c e r e p o r t e d out by o r d e r o f the c o m m i t t e e , it h a s

a p p e a r e d upon the S e n a t e c a l e n d a r .

Optimistic

f r i e n d s accordingly l o o k f o r p r o m p t p a s s a g e . T h e m o r e sophisticated shake their heads. T h e r e are many more bills on t h e c a l e n d a r t h a n can be c o n s i d e r e d and a c t e d u p o n . S o m e system o f p r i o r i t i e s must be r e s o r t e d to. T h e majority

party,

responsible

for

the

organization

and

f u n c t i o n i n g o f the S e n a t e , must, t h r o u g h its s t e e r i n g com-

THE SENATE

AT WORK

23

m i t t e e , r e p o r t a suggested o r d e r o f i m m e d i a c y and imp o r t a n c e . T h e bill which o u r v i s i t o r is o b s e r v i n g

must

h a v e c o m m e n d e d itself t o the s t e e r i n g c o m m i t t e e , o r else the S e n a t e i t s e l f , by a m a j o r i t y v o t e o r by u n a n i m o u s consent, m u s t have a g r e e d to begin its c o n s i d e r a t i o n . A t any r a t e it is now b e f o r e the S e n a t e and speeches f o r and a g a i n s t it a r e being m a d e . P e r h a p s t h e bill is one f a v o r e d by a m a j o r i t y o f t h e S e n a t e . P e r h a p s it h a s been c o n s i d e r e d in p a r t y c o n f e r ence by R e p u b l i c a n s e n a t o r s o r by D e m o c r a t i c s e n a t o r s . P o s s i b l y t h e R e p u b l i c a n s h a v e d e t e r m i n e d t o support it and the D e m o c r a t s to oppose it. T h e hopes o f the p a r ents o f t h e m e a s u r e now run h i g h ; the s u p p o r t e r s

are

c l e a r l y in the m a j o r i t y ; the bill will surely pass. A g a i n the m o r e s o p h i s t i c a t e d smile at t h e i r assurance, f o r t h e y have p e r h a p s scented a m i n o r i t y

filibuster.

This

means

that a resolute minority have agreed among themselves to t a l k t h e bill t o d e a t h . O u r v i s i t o r is stunned by t h e w a r n i n g t h a t t h e bill is likely n e v e r to reach a v o t e . " B u t I t h o u g h t , " he exclaims in a s t o n i s h m e n t , G e n e r a l D a w e s h a d killed t h e

filibuster."

"that

I t is explained

t o him t h a t t h e f o r m e r V i c e - P r e s i d e n t had m e r e l y v o i c e d a long-lived p o p u l a r c o m p l a i n t and t h a t , so f a r , a g r e a t m a j o r i t y o f s e n a t o r s have expressed lack o f

sympathy

with the p r o p o s a l t o c h a n g e t h e rules. I t is f u r t h e r exp l a i n e d t h a t , if a change is actually a t t e m p t e d , the

fili-

b u s t e r m a y b e invoked t o save its own l i f e . W h i l e t h e v i s i t o r waits with interest to see w h e t h e r o r not a

filibuster

worth

while

against the bill will develop, it m a y be to

remind

him

of

the

vast

amount

w o r k which h a s been done upon the pending

of

measure

by t h e c o m m i t t e e which h a s h a d it in h a n d . I t will be l i t t l e s h o r t o f t r a g i c if all this w o r k goes f o r

nothing.

24

IN THE

SENATE

T h e s e committees are the agencies through which the Senate does its hardest work. W h e n the Senate convenes each day at noon many committees have been meeting during the morning hours. Sometimes the meetings continue while the Senate is in session. Sometimes there are evening committee meetings. T h e r e are often open hearings. Sub-committees are appointed to consider and report to the whole committee upon particular measures. T h e r e is sometimes filibustering at the committee meetings as the result o f the determination o f a minority to prevent a favorable report from the committee to the Senate. T h e committee chairmanships are positions o f influence. T h e y are by custom allotted to senators of the m a j o r i t y party by the joint operation o f the principle of seniority of service and the rule that no senator shall be chairman of more than one committee at a time. T h e seniority principle is often challenged. H e r e , as always, it would be better, if possible, to substitute an ideal system which should always result in the choice of the best man. T h e practical question, however, is whether the frictionless operation of seniority is not on the whole to be preferred to a free-for-all contest in which success might readily perch on the banner o f a lovable incompetent or of a liberal maker o f political promises. W h i l e the debate proceeds the visitor may notice that the senators present treat their colleagues with varying degree of respect. H e may be led to inquire what makes a senator influential. Influential senators derive their influence f r o m several sources. T h e most productive o f these sources, however, is undoubtedly faithful and intelligent attention to committee work. T h e man who knows his subject commands the attention and respect

THE

SENATE

AT

WORK

25

of his c o l l e a g u e s w h e t h e r he h a s o r h a s n o t t h e q u a l i t i e s t h a t make the headliner. A w o r k i n g s e n a t o r ' s m o s t difficult p r o b l e m is t o u t i l i z e s c r a p s of t i m e a n d t o r e m a i n serene a m i d c o n s t a n t i n t e r r u p t i o n s . O n e m e m b e r h a s e x p r e s s e d it by s a y i n g t h a t a s e n a t o r is e x p e c t e d t o d o s i m u l t a n e o u s l y t h e w o r k of a college p r o f e s s o r a n d of a bell-hop. V i s i t o r s f r o m o n e ' s o w n s t a t e a r e n u m e r o u s , if t h e s t a t e is l a r g e a n d n e a r at h a n d . T h e y a r e , a n d o u g h t t o be, w e l c o m e ; f o r , a f t e r all, t h e visit is a c o m p l i m e n t t o t h e s e n a t o r . W h e n a senat o r l e a v e s t h e floor u p o n r e c e i v i n g a v i s i t o r ' s c a r d he m a y find t h a t t h e call is p u r e l y social, o r t h a t t h e v i s i t o r c o v e t s a s e a t in t h e S e n a t o r s ' G a l l e r y , o r is t h e b e a r e r of a n i n v i t a t i o n t o s p e a k at a b a n q u e t , o r d e s i r e s t o p r e s s f o r a c t i o n on a p e n d i n g bill, o r is willing t o m a k e t h e s u p r e m e sacrifice involved in a c c e p t i n g a s a l a r i e d j o b . O f t e n t h e v i s i t o r is t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , p a i d o r u n p a i d , of a n o r g a n i z a t i o n which exists t o p r o m o t e o r t o o b s t r u c t a p a r t i c u l a r m e a s u r e . T h e n u m b e r of o r g a n i z a t i o n s of this s o r t is v e r y g r e a t . T h e y m a i n t a i n a s t e a d y and, occasionally, an effective p r e s s u r e u p o n t h o s e w h o m t h e y select as h o p e f u l p r o s p e c t s . C a l l s t o t h e l o n g - d i s t a n c e t e l e p h o n e o r t o t h e c l o a k - r o o m come m a n y t i m e s a d a y . So d o r e q u e s t s f r o m n e w s p a p e r m e n to r e p a i r t o t h e a p p o i n t e d t r y s t i n g place o u t s i d e t h e C h a m b e r a n d t h e r e a n s w e r i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s r e s p e c t i n g a p e n d i n g bill, a p r o p o s e d speech, a r u m o r e d a p p o i n t m e n t o r t h e r e a s o n f o r a visit, p a i d o r t o be p a i d , to a cabinet officer o r to t h e W h i t e H o u s e . T h e r e a r e d a y s w h e n it is literally i m p o s sible t o r e m a i n in o n e ' s place in t h e Senate f o r as m a n y as five consecutive minutes. A r e p r e s e n t a t i v e is a p r i v i l e g e d v i s i t o r a n d it is a n a g r e e a b l e p a r t of a s e n a t o r ' s d u t y t o discuss w i t h him s o m e p e n d i n g m e a s u r e in w h i c h

26

IN THE

SENATE

both are interested, or some matter of political concern in the state f r o m which both of them come. Colleagues stop as they pass one's chair to make a request or drop a summons to the cloak-room f o r consultation. W h e n there is a momentary lull in the interruptions the Presiding Officer m a y request a senator to take the chair f o r a while, in order that he himself may keep an engagement. In addition to the committee meetings there are the party conferences to be attended. T o these are invited all senators who are recognized as being in good standing in the party in question. T h e test of eligibility f o r conference applied by Republicans at the last session while I w a s a member was the attitude of individual senators t o w a r d the party candidates in the presidential campaign. Because they had worked against the nominees of the N a t i o n a l Convention in 1 9 2 4 , no invitations to conference and no new committee privileges were accorded at the following session of Congress to Senators L a Follette (the e l d e r ) , L a d d , B r o o k h a r t and F r a z i e r . Such disciplinary action, however necessary, is of course t e m p o r a r y in its consequences. A f t e r time had closed some wounds and death had claimed two of the f o u r men affected by the action, the others were reinstated. Such meetings are either caucuses or mere conferences. I f a caucus, it is understood that all who participate will subsequently act on the floor of the Senate in accordance with the majority vote in the caucus. B y the action of a conference nobody is bound. T h e Democratic senators make l a r g e use of the caucus. Meetings of Republican senators are nothing more than conferences. T h e r e is too much independence of thought and action among Republicans to permit of the use of the caucus by them. T h e r e are the usual differences of opinion respecting the

THE

SENATE

AT

WORK

27

value of conferences. During my membership the Republican leader, Senator Curtis, was a believer in conference and made liberal and effective use of this method of promoting teamwork. Some senators (like Senator B o r a h , f o r instance) derived little satisfaction f r o m conferences and seldom attended. T h e senator's office is his work-shop. T o each senator rooms are assigned in the Senate Office Building. T h e assigning body is the Committee on Rules, which applies the seniority principle in allotting rooms of v a r y i n g degrees of desirability. E a c h committee chairmanship carries an additional room, or suite of rooms, and these committee rooms are f o r the most part in the Capitol. T h e manner in which the senator's office is run is, of course, determined by his previous training and by the volume of his business. T h e office of a senator f r o m a large state is besieged daily by callers. Pennsylvania, f o r example, with its more than 9,000,000 inhabitants demands much. Its interests are varied and great. Industrial, commercial, mining, financial, railroad, shipping, agricultural, labor, professional, educational and other fields of human endeavor are important factors in its relations with the F e d e r a l Government. Its proximity to the District of Columbia helps to bring a closer contact. T h e office of a senator f r o m Pennsylvania or other similarly l a r g e state must handle a great volume of business. D u r i n g the period that a Congress was in session my mail ranged f r o m three hundred and fifty to five hundred letters daily, and on occasion mounted to a thousand or more. T h e s e letters called f o r some f o r m of r e p l y — i n f o r m a t i o n to be supplied or service rendered. M y offices were almost constantly filled with visitors, the

IN THE

28

SENATE

m a j o r i t y c o m i n g t o discuss i m p o r t a n t m a t t e r s . T h e local and long-distance telephones w e r e in c o n s t a n t use. The

senatorial

office thus b e c o m e s

something

of

a

c l e a r i n g house. T a r i f f perplexities, t a x a t i o n p r o b l e m s and r e v e n u e c o m p l i c a t i o n s come t o it continuously. T h e busy m a n u f a c t u r e r o r m e r c h a n t , intent upon his own c r e a t i v e efforts, can afford to give but little o f his t i m e to the study o f d e p a r t m e n t a l

practices.

In t h e e m e r g e n c y

he

t u r n s to his s e n a t o r s . So, t o o , it b e c o m e s a d u t y to aid f o r m e r soldiers in t h e i r dealings with t h e V e t e r a n s ' B u r e a u . I n a like way, a s e n a t o r is c o n s u l t e d a b o u t special c a s e s in the i m m i g r a t i o n office and in t h e issuing o f passp o r t s . I t is quite s a f e t o say t h a t a s e n a t o r ' s office is b r o u g h t daily into touch with every b r a n c h and d e p a r t m e n t o f the G o v e r n m e n t . I recall a request once m a d e f o r my c o o p e r a t i o n

in h a v i n g a b r a n c h

revenue

office

e s t a b l i s h e d in the town o f R e d L i o n , Y o r k C o u n t y . F e w p e r s o n s , even in P e n n s y l v a n i a , knew t h a t the c o m m u n i t y w a s then and is still one o f the l a r g e s t c i g a r - m a n u f a c t u r ing c e n t e r s in the U n i t e d S t a t e s , the v o l u m e o f business running into millions o f d o l l a r s annually. W h e n t h e f a c t s w e r e b r o u g h t t o the a t t e n t i o n o f the T r e a s u r y

Depart-

m e n t the b r a n c h office was p r o m p t l y e s t a b l i s h e d . A p p o i n t m e n t s t o places in the F e d e r a l service, furnishing d a t a and i n f o r m a t i o n on a multitude o f s u b j e c t s , a n d t h e courtesies t h a t can be extended t o c o n s t i t u e n t s visiting the capital on business o r pleasure are p a r t o f the routine. T h e y are aside f r o m the s u b j e c t o f l a w m a k i n g . M a n y o f t h e things a s e n a t o r ' s office h a n d l e s h a v e

no

official connection with the business o f g o v e r n m e n t . N o t a f e w are o f a deeply p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r , t o u c h i n g the j o y s and s o r r o w s o f human existence. S o h e a v y is the volume o f such business t h a t the ad-

THE SENATE

29

AT WORK

j o u r n m e n t o f C o n g r e s s p e r m i t s but a slight r e d u c t i o n in t h e staff. D u r i n g m y incumbency pressing m a t t e r s c a l l e d m e t o t h e n a t i o n a l c a p i t a l at l e a s t once each w e e k d u r i n g t h e recesses, a n d e v e r y day I w a s in touch with t h e office by telephone. N o r d o the l e g i s l a t i v e duties c o m e t o a close w h e n t h e g a v e l sounds the end o f a session. C o m m i t t e e w o r k g o e s on. T h e r e a r e inquiries and h e a r i n g s and the g a t h e r i n g o f i n f o r m a t i o n upon which the new C o n g r e s s can

act.

T h e r e a r e a p p e a l s f o r p a r d o n s , and requests f o r p a r o l e s . T h e r e a r e confidential c o m m u n i c a t i o n s with t h e e x e c u t i v e b r a n c h o f t h e G o v e r n m e n t . O n e o f the i n t e r e s t i n g p h a s e s o f a s e n a t o r ' s l i f e is this o p p o r t u n i t y f o r c o n t a c t with t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e C a b i n e t and o f the D i p l o m a t i c

Corps

and with the P r e s i d e n t . A p a r t f r o m visits paid with constituents w h o h a v e v a r i o u s r e a s o n s f o r calling, t h e r e a r e m a n y o c c a s i o n s f o r visits o f a m o r e o r less f o r m a l s o r t . T h e P r e s i d e n t is w o n t to consult the s e n a t o r f r o m a s t a t e in which an a p p o i n t m e n t to office is about t o be m a d e , i f it h a p p e n s t h a t t h e s e n a t o r is o f his p a r t y . A

senator

d e s i r i n g t o p r e s s a constituent upon the P r e s i d e n t ' s a t t e n tion with a view t o a p p o i n t m e n t calls on the

President

f o r t h a t p u r p o s e . O c c a s i o n a l l y the P r e s i d e n t sends

for

t h e m e m b e r s o f a c o m m i t t e e with a view t o c o n f e r e n c e . T h e r e a r e i n f o r m a l b r e a k f a s t s at the W h i t e H o u s e

to

which g r o u p s o f s e n a t o r s and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a r e invited. A t s t a t e d i n t e r v a l s t h e r e are f o r m a l evening r e c e p t i o n s . S e n a t o r s differ in the f r e q u e n c y o f t h e i r calls upon t h e P r e s i d e n t . S p e a k i n g generally,

it is a serious

handicap

f o r a s e n a t o r t o g e t the r e p u t a t i o n o f c o n s t a n t l y r u n n i n g t o the P r e s i d e n t with his p r o b l e m s o r o f wishing t o pose as one o f his confidential advisers. H e is r e g a r d e d much a s w o u l d be a college student w h o a f t e r class t r i e s

to

30

IN THE

SENATE

cultivate relations with the professor in the hope that thereby his chances o f academic salvation will i e better. In the case o f a shrewd observer like President Coolidge, such conduct undoubtedly appealed to his sense o f humor and was most unlikely to achieve the senatorial purpose. W h i l e the two houses o f Congress are entirely distinct in organization and operation, there are frequent contacts between a senator and members o f the H o u s e o f Representatives. T h e senator may be f r o m time to time a conferee on the part of the Senate respecting the legislation as to which the houses are in disagreement. H e may have occasion to consult the chairman or members of the House committee corresponding to his own. H e may be the chairman of a joint committee of the two houses. T h e representatives from his own state have close personal and official relations with him both in connection with political m a t t e r s at home and legislation pending in Congress. A state is fortunate when the relations between its senators and its congressmen are such that together they do teamwork in its interest. O f course a most agreeable part o f the senator's life is his daily association with his colleagues. T h e r e is enough o f the boy left in even the oldest senator to give to the Senate something of the quality of a class in school. T h e r e are a very few enmities, some temporary estrangements, many lasting friendships and a genuine esprit de corps. In my own case the day's work was made delightful by association with a colleague whose companionship was stimulating and whose friendship was a thing to be prized. Senators can take one another's measure with something like exactness. T h e respect o f the Senate is a priceless possession. T h e contempt of the Senate would be a terrible thing to face. D e a t h and political dis-

THE SENATE

AT WORK

31

aster have made wide breaches lately in the senatorial circle. In not a few instances the sense o f personal loss has been so keen as to leave life f o r the time being gray and sombre f o r those who remain. Differing in ability as in other things, it yet soon becomes evident in each case how a senator happened to arrive. T h e r e are very few political accidents in the Senate. T h e average of ability is undoubtedly high, as a member may ascertain for himself if he goes into serious conference with his colleagues or ventures into a debate insufficiently prepared. It is impossible to make a just comparison between senators of today and those who loom large in Senate history. I t is much like the attempt to measure modern lawyers against the legal giants o f the past. W e select a few g r e a t names and f o r g e t abundant mediocrity. T w o things are certain. One is t h a t the problems with which senators must nowadays wrestle have not decreased in number or complexity. T h e o t h e r is that the senators to whom these problems are presented must divide their time between the task o f solution and the political work essential to success in open primaries and in state-wide elections. T h e result is that senators are much more closely in touch with the life o f their constituents and more responsive to their will. W h e t h e r in the end this makes f o r b e t t e r government and sounder statesmanship is a question which each citizen must answer according to his conviction. A t present it is a purely academic question. Certain it is, however, t h a t the Senate is no longer M t . Olympus; but it is also true that Pennsylvania Avenue is a very different t h o r o u g h f a r e f r o m M a i n Street.

III LEARNING THE JOB

T

H E C h e r o k e e Strip is the g r i m designation of those seats in the Senate, on the D e m o c r a t i c side of the aisle, not filled by the minority p a r t y and assigned to the Republican o v e r f l o w . A s the newest member I w a s , by some mysterious process not then understood by me, given a seat on the back r o w of the C h e r o k e e Strip, with H o l m O. B u r s u m , of N e w M e x i c o ; C h a r l e s A . R a w s o n , of I o w a ; and Samuel M . S h o r t r i d g e , of C a l i f o r n i a . T h i s was a point of v a n t a g e f r o m which to make my initial survey of my colleagues and to observe the sometimes confusing operation of the senate rules. T h e most conspicuous figure a m o n g the senators in my immediate neighborhood at that time w a s T h o m a s E . W a t s o n , of G e o r g i a , a curious combination of the cold practicality of the politician and the w a r m emotionalism of the poet. In contrast to some of his brilliant and sometimes ruthless political m a n e u v e r s and attacks on Republican leaders or policies, I remember hearing him deliver in the Senate a two-minute eulogy of a child f r o m his state w h o had accidentally been burned to death in W a s h i n g t o n . It w a s as exquisite and touching a tribute as it is possible to imagine. It is interesting to recall that when he died in 1 9 2 2 , and Senator W a l t e r F . G e o r g e had been elected to succeed him, the g o v e r n o r of G e o r g i a , as an act of courtesy to a much-esteemed w o m a n of that state, appointed M r s . Rebecca L . F e l t o n , w h o took the oath of office, m a d e an 32

LEARNING

THE

JOB

33

address of greeting to the Senate, and sat f o r a day as a senator o f the U n i t e d States. T h e events o f the next few months a f t e r this is written will determine whether another woman, Ruth H a n n a M c C o r m i c k , having achieved nomination by an impressive m a j o r i t y in the primary, will be the first o f her sex to sit in the U p p e r H o u s e o f Congress in virtue o f popular election. On a line between me and the chair o f the presiding officer sat Senator P a t H a r r i s o n , of Mississippi. M y first impression of him was t h a t he had a wicked tongue, which fairly earned him the designation of " p a r t y scold." In time I revised my judgment, however, and decided that there was f a r more humor than malice in the attacks upon the m a j o r i t y party which he launched so frequently as to acquire a reputation not unlike that o f the bad boy o f the school. Calvin Coolidge, then Vice-President o f the U n i t e d States, was most conscientious in the discharge of his constitutional functions as President of the Senate. One of P a t H a r r i s o n ' s favorite indoor sports was to rise and comment, with sarcasm tinctured with good humor, upon some act or utterance o f the VicePresident as reported in the morning papers. As I recall it, an act more frequently than an utterance furnished the basis f o r the H a r r i s o n thrusts, f o r the habit o f saying nothing superfluous was not one which M r . Coolidge acquired f o r the first time upon his elevation to the presidency. A m o n g my D e m o c r a t i c neighbors were Senators J a m e s A . R e e d of Missouri, and Τ . H . C a r a w a y o f A r k a n s a s . B o t h these brilliant and able senators seemed to derive the keenest satisfaction f r o m the discomfort o f those whom they singled out f o r attack. R e e d ' s destructive agency in verbal onslaughts might be described as chemi-

34

IN THE

SENATE

cal. I t was as if he had thrown acid upon his victim, whereas Caraway's method might be compared to the use, with unerring aim, o f a long-lashed whip. H e could sting any part o f his victim's person which was exposed. Both men were as liable to launch their attacks on members of their own party with whom they happened to disagree on a pending measure as on one of the opposition. I remember one case in which, replying to a speech made by a D e m o c r a t i c senator in opposition to the confirmation of a presidential appointment, S e n a t o r Caraway made a most bitter attack, but later, on the request of the victim, consented to expunge his r e m a r k s f r o m the pages of the Congressional Record. Senator H a r r i s o n and I were both baseball fans and soon learned that there was at least one subject on which we could agree. A f t e r a heated session in the Senate it was a refreshing experience to accompany him to a ball game and root f o r the W a s h i n g t o n team. W e both took a keen interest in the baseball nines organized by the senate pages, and I recall at least one game in which he and I were selected to choose and lead the opposing teams. T h e able and experienced floor leader of the minority party during a part of my term in office was Senator Oscar W . Underwood, of A l a b a m a . A new senator could not do b e t t e r than note with care both his bearing toward colleagues in the course of debate and his intelligent method o f approach to the question under consideration. H i s retirement from the Senate meant the loss o f one o f its most effective members, and his subsequent death seemed to me a national misfortune. Looking into the faces o f my Republican colleagues across the aisle, I had a good opportunity to study them

LEARNING

THE

JOB

35

in b o t h a c t i o n and r e p o s e . S e n a t o r L o d g e , a t t h a t t i m e floor

l e a d e r , w a s diligent in t h e d i s c h a r g e o f his duties

and quick t o l o c k h o r n s with the D e m o c r a t s on any issue which s e e m e d t o him o f m a j o r i m p o r t a n c e . H e w a s , howe v e r , inclined t o i g n o r e , with s o m e t h i n g like i n t e l l e c t u a l contempt, those thrusts of debaters attempting to make political c a p i t a l out o f the discussion which a y o u n g e r and m o r e v i g o r o u s l e a d e r would h a v e been quick t o resent.

Indeed,

my

observation

was

that

the

policy

of

silent c o n t e m p t t o w a r d u t t e r a n c e s t h a t w e r e r e a l l y cont e m p t i b l e w a s c a r r i e d by the o l d e r R e p u b l i c a n

senators

t o o f a r f o r t h e g o o d o f the p a r t y . I t was, t h e r e f o r e , with peculiar s a t i s f a c t i o n t h a t I w a t c h e d the i n c r e a s i n g confidence with which, league,

Senator

a f t e r his

Reed

of

induction,

my j u n i o r

Pennsylvania,

not

col-

merely

repulsed a t t a c k s o f this s o r t but c a r r i e d the w a r

into

the e n e m y ' s c o u n t r y and effectively e x p l o d e d b o m b s on t h e D e m o c r a t i c side o f the aisle. C h a r l e s C u r t i s , o f K a n s a s , l a t e r elected V i c e - P r e s i d e n t o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s , was then R e p u b l i c a n whip o f the S e n a t e , w h o s e duties w e r e t o insure a t t e n d a n c e o f

col-

leagues o f his own p a r t y when i m p o r t a n t v o t e s w e r e to be t a k e n , and in g e n e r a l t o d i s c o u r a g e s t r a g g l i n g maintain morale. A f t e r Senator Lodge's death Curtis became Republican

floor

and

Senator

l e a d e r , and in t h a t ca-

pacity d i s p l a y e d a r e m a r k a b l e t a l e n t f o r

accomplishing

g o o d results f o r his p a r t y by w h a t in i n t e r n a t i o n a l p a r lance a r e t e r m e d " c o n v e r s a t i o n s " with the o t h e r

side.

H e w a s unusually a d e p t at m a k i n g deals. Before

my

appointment

and subsequent

election

to

m e m b e r s h i p , I was, o f course, f a m i l i a r with t h e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S e n a t e as " t h e why desirable

things d o n ' t h a p p e n . "

There may

reason have

36

IN THE

SENATE

been times when, impatient over the obstruction of imp o r t a n t legislation, I subscribed to t h a t definition. I soon learned, however, to admire the soundness of judgment which h a d prompted the fathers of the nation to take wisdom f r o m history and assure the safety and perpetuity of this nation by creating such a balance wheel or regulatory device as the Senate represents. Senators, it soon becomes evident to the man who joins their company, should serve the nation as a whole, while at the same time conserving the special or peculiar interests of their own states. T h e problem f o r a senator who wants to serve the nation as well as the state is one which only a few solve successfully. A f t e r studying f o r a long time his footprints on the Senate sands, I reached the conclusion that Boies Penrose had been one of these few. T h i s problem, as I have suggested, may be discussed in terms of contrast between a delegate and a representative. T h e representative ideal is one t h a t commends itself strongly to onlookers who do not themselves hold elective office. T h e contemporary multiplication of groups of citizens organized for all sorts of purposes affected by Federal legislation tends to make it increasingly difficult f o r the ideal to be realized by anyone who wants to prolong his public career. Unless a man does the will of these organized groups he successively incurs the resentment of each, and these accumulated resentments can become greater factors in a political campaign than the unorganized good will of those who have applauded a senator's independence. T h e senator who regards and not the delegate of his of course, bound to respect winds of public opinion. If

himself as the representative state and his constituency is, party policies, but not mere he believes that what is f o r

LEARNING

THE

JOB

37

t h e m o m e n t t h e p o p u l a r side of t h e question is the w r o n g side, he is f r e e t o e x p r e s s h i m s e l f , a n d t a k e w h a t e v e r m a y be t h e political consequence of his action. I t is a g r e a t m i s t a k e f o r a n y o n e to s u p p o s e t h a t p a r t y l o y a l t y l e a v e s no r o o m f o r f r e e d o m of political action. I n t h e first place, only a small p e r c e n t a g e of t h e q u e s t i o n s w h i c h a s e n a t o r is called u p o n to decide involve q u e s t i o n s of p a r t y policy. A n d in the second place, as t o these f e w , h e f r e e l y decided in a d v a n c e t o accept t h e p a r t y v i e w p o i n t by c o n s e n t i n g t o s t a n d as t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e p a r t y . I n m y o w n case I a d o p t e d t h e principles of t h e R e p u b l i can P a r t y as t h e r e s u l t of c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a f t e r c a s t i n g m y first v o t e f o r G r o v e r C l e v e l a n d . I w a s n o t " b o r n and b r e d " a Republican. M y g r a n d f a t h e r , G e o r g e Mifflin W h a r t o n , w h o s e influence w a s d o m i n a n t in t h e h o u s e h o l d d u r i n g my b o y h o o d , w a s a D e m o c r a t a n d , d u r ing m o s t of his a d u l t life, o n e of t h e intellectual l e a d e r s of t h e p a r t y as well as of t h e b a r in P e n n s y l v a n i a . T h e p a r t y w i t h which I chose t o associate myself a f t e r m y first v o t e h a s h e l d m y l o y a l t y e v e r since, a n d , of c o u r s e , r e p r e s e n t e d t h e political principles which w h e n I a c c e p t e d t h e a p p o i n t m e n t t o t h e S e n a t e I r e g a r d e d as m o s t efficacious f o r t h e g o v e r n m e n t of o u r c o u n t r y . W h a t e v e r m i g h t be the conception of t h e i r office ent e r t a i n e d by p a r t i c i p a n t s in a d e b a t e , it s o o n b e c a m e e v i d e n t t o m e t h a t t h e s c a t t e r i n g fire of d e b a t e o n t h e floor of t h e S e n a t e d u r i n g t h e course of an a t t a c k on l e g i s l a t i v e p r o b l e m s w a s m o r e noisy t h a n effective. T h e c o m m i t t e e r o o m , I soon r e a l i z e d , is t h e real b a t t l e g r o u n d in w h i c h t h e s t r u g g l e o v e r legislation t a k e s place. T h e m e a s u r e of a s e n a t o r ' s g r e a t e s t u s e f u l n e s s m u s t be t a k e n w h e n he is in c o m m i t t e e , a l t h o u g h t h e p o p u l a r v e r d i c t is a p t t o be d e t e r m i n e d by his p e r f o r m a n c e s in t h e o p e n

IN THE

38

SENATE

S e n a t e . O f t h e s t a n d i n g c o m m i t t e e s o f the S e n a t e , a f e w a r e r e g a r d e d as m a j o r c o m m i t t e e s , a m o n g t h e m F i n a n c e , Foreign

Relations,

Judiciary,

Interstate

Commerce,

P r i v i l e g e s and E l e c t i o n s , and R u l e s . T h e r e is a l s o a C o m mittee

on

Committees

whose

function

it is t o

decide

which s e n a t o r s shall be assigned t o t h e v a r i o u s c o m m i t tees. T h e w o r k i n g s o f this c o m m i t t e e , like t h a t o f t h e C o m m i t t e e on R u l e s — w h i c h dispenses the q u a i n t system o f S e n a t e p a t r o n a g e — a r e t o s o m e extent

subterranean.

A s a g e n e r a l thing the new s e n a t o r finds h i m s e l f assigned t o c o m m i t t e e s w i t h o u t a v e r y c l e a r idea as t o h o w t h e result was a c c o m p l i s h e d . I f he lacks a spirit o f s e l f - a s s e r tion, he m a y go t h r o u g h his e n t i r e s e n a t o r i a l t e r m accepting w i t h o u t d e m u r such a s s i g n m e n t s as a r e h a n d e d h i m . I f he h a s t h e requisite d e t e r m i n a t i o n

to

to

advance

h i m s e l f in c o m m i t t e e service, he can a c c o m p l i s h much by persistent pressure on the C o m m i t t e e

on

Committees,

and he m a y accomplish still m o r e by p r o t e s t i n g in p a r t y c o n f e r e n c e a g a i n s t decisions by t h e c o m m i t t e e which he h a s not succeeded in influencing in any o t h e r way. L o o k ing b a c k w a r d upon my own a s s i g n m e n t c o m m i t t e e on F o r e i g n

t o the

major

R e l a t i o n s , which c a m e a f t e r

al-

m o s t t w o y e a r s o f S e n a t e service, I a m inclined t o t h i n k it resulted less f r o m such qualifications as I m a y

have

possessed t h a n f r o m the effective insistence o f m y colleague, S e n a t o r R e e d , t h a t I should be assigned t o this position at the same time t h a t he b e c a m e a m e m b e r o f the i m p o r t a n t F i n a n c e C o m m i t t e e . B e c a u s e these m a j o r c o m m i t t e e s can e x e r c i s e so i m p o r t a n t an influence on domestic l e g i s l a t i o n and i n t e r n a t i o n a l affairs, responsible p a r t y m a n a g e r s would be derelict if they did n o t scrutinize anxiously t h e qualities o f ambitious applicant f o r an a s s i g n m e n t . S o m e

every

indication

LEARNING

THE

JOB

39

o f what must have preceded the decision to allot me a place on the Committee on F o r e i g n Relations was disclosed by Senator Brandegee when I expressed to him my satisfaction at having become in this connection a colleague o f his. " W e ' l l be glad to have you with us, S e n a t o r , " he replied, " i f you'll remember always, while on the committee, to rely on your brains instead o f your emotions." A s every citizen knows, the complex rules and methods of procedure which frequently puzzle visitors to the Senate or other legislative body are really necessary to achieve the highest efficiency. Obviously it would be impossible f o r the Senate sitting as a body to consider or act upon bills in bulk. T o o much confusion would result; too little progress could be made. Hence the system o f establishing committees to which the various bills are referred. Sometimes the measures remain in committee to die with the closing o f Congress. I recall a most picturesque description of this fate once supplied by S e n a t o r M a g n u s J o h n s o n , former F a r m e r - L a b o r senator f r o m M i n n e s o t a . I had asked him casually how his measures were progressing. " W e l l , S e n a t o r , " he replied, with that touch o f homely humor which was characteristic of him, " I have a lot of ground-hogs in their holes, but I can't drive them o u t . " P e r h a p s I can best illustrate the devious course of an idea in the process of being translated into law and the influences operating upon senators responsible f o r its passage or defeat, by describing the tariff bill passed during my first few months in office, a process which will undoubtedly be repeated as each new administration comes into power. B e f o r e a senator is called upon to take official cogni-

40

IN THE

SENATE

zance o f the tariff bill, the measure has passed through a stormy voyage in the H o u s e . M o s t o f the industries affected by the schedule have declared their attitude at hearings b e f o r e the H o u s e Committee, in organized propaganda through the press or elsewhere, and by direct pressure upon individual representatives. H a v i n g passed the H o u s e , the measure has come to the Senate and has been at once r e f e r r e d to the Finance Committee, individual members o f which, with a self-assertion characteristic o f the Senate, contrive to let it be known that they propose to rewrite the bill. W h a t this really means is that the struggle over each schedule begins again, and the H o u s e battle is fought once more, complicated by the injection into the tariff controversy o f any extraneous considerations which happen to be present in the minds o f senators. T h e s e , by irrelevant amendment, can always be brought into the pending controversy. In this way the tariff problem, complicated enough in itself, can be rendered altogether insoluble by a proposed amendment referring to agricultural finance, naval preparedness o r international relations. M a n y such amendments are offered merely f o r the favorable effect produced upon the constituents o f a senator who happen to be interested in the subject-matter o f an amendment, and with f r a n k recognition on the part o f the proposer t h a t the amendment can never prevail in the Senate, or, if it does, that it will be thrown overboard when the conference committee between the two Houses finally addresses itself to the task o f scraping barnacles off the b o t t o m o f the bill and cleaning it up so t h a t it can glide through as a legitimate tariff measure. W h e n the tariff bill is b e f o r e the Senate Finance Committee and hearings are in progress, a senator's day is a

LEARNING

THE

JOB

41

busy o n e ; p a r t i c u l a r l y if h e r e p r e s e n t s a l a r g e i n d u s t r i a l s t a t e . U p o n r e a c h i n g his office e a r l y in t h e m o r n i n g h e finds w a i t i n g in t h e a n t e r o o m v a r i o u s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e i n d u s t r i e s vitally i n t e r e s t e d in t h e s c h e d u l e s t o w h i c h t h e c o m m i t t e e will in sequence g i v e its a t t e n t i o n . A m o n g t h e v i s i t o r s t h e s e n a t o r e x p e c t s t o find p r e s i d e n t s o r o t h e r executive officers of i n d u s t r i a l c o r p o r a t i o n s . I n m o s t instances these m e n will b e f r o m his o w n s t a t e , unless, b e c a u s e of p r o f e s s i o n a l r e p u t a t i o n o r o t h e r b a s i s of confidence, his assistance is s o u g h t by c o n c e r n s d o i n g business e l s e w h e r e . H e finds, also, t h e s e c r e t a r i e s o r o t h e r a g e n t s of g r o u p s of m a n u f a c t u r e r s w h o h a v e o r g a n i z e d in o r d e r t o exert c u m u l a t i v e p r e s s u r e . H e m a y find t h e r e s i d e n t W a s h i n g t o n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of a b s e n t i n d u s t r i a l ists, w h o e i t h e r is o r p r e t e n d s t o be a p r o f o u n d e c o n o m i s t willing t o s h a r e his k n o w l e d g e w i t h t h e s e n a t o r in t h e i n t e r e s t of s a v i n g A m e r i c a n i n d u s t r y , o r a p e r s o n w h o e x u d e s m y s t e r y a n d gives t h e s e n a t o r t o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t h e h a s a subtle influence o v e r t h e v o t e s of e n o u g h m e m b e r s of H o u s e a n d S e n a t e t o e n a b l e h i m t o a c c o m p l i s h t h e p a r t i c u l a r p u r p o s e w h i c h he h a s in v i e w . T h i s t y p e of v i s i t o r usually r e f e r s c a s u a l l y t o s e n a t o r s , c a b i n e t m e m b e r s a n d o t h e r s in official W a s h i n g t o n b y t h e i r first n a m e s . H i s u n s p o k e n s u g g e s t i o n is t h a t t h e p a r t y on t h e b a n d w a g o n is all m a d e u p a n d t h a t o u t of his b o u n t e o u s g o o d n a t u r e he is simply o f f e r i n g t h e s e n a t o r a chance t o get aboard. I t is n a t u r a l e n o u g h t h a t t h e c o m p r e h e n s i v e t e r m " l o b b y i s t " should be p o p u l a r l y a p p l i e d t o all these visit o r s . I n p o i n t of f a c t , h o w e v e r , t h e n a t u r e of t h e i r seve r a l activities is d i v e r s e . F r o m t h e m a n w h o intelligently p r e s e n t s t h e f a c t s in r e g a r d to his i n d u s t r i a l p r o b l e m s t h e s e n a t o r g e t s invalu-

42

IN THE

SENATE

able help. H e soon learns to distrust the political economy o f the visitor with the professorial air, and he quickly identifies as a nuisance the mysterious individual, who fails to fool him, no matter how completely he may have hoodwinked the concern that is unwisely paying his W a s h i n g t o n expense account. I f the senator has a thorough understanding of the problems involved, he treats each schedule as an object of separate study. B y persistent questioning he ascertains the facts and finally disinters the real issue, on the one hand, between those who desire to increase the existing duty and those who desire to keep it as it is; and, on the other hand, between those who desire to reduce it and those who desire to t r a n s f e r the commodity to the free list. I t is a great mistake to suppose that there is anything like unanimity in regard to raising or lowering duties, even among those who are popularly regarded as representatives o f the industries with a common interest in tariff protection. In Pennsylvania, f o r example, immense quantities of tobacco are grown. T h i s tobacco is f o r the most part of the quality used in the filler in the manufacture of cigars, whereas the leaf used as a wrapper may be imported from Sumatra or elsewhere. In Connecticut the shade-grown tobacco produces acceptable wrappers, with the consequence that the Republican tobacco growers in Pennsylvania would like to see the foreign wrappers on the free list, and the Republican tobacco g r o w e r s in Connecticut would not object to a prohibitory rate placed upon them. T h e same Republican senator sitting as a member of the Finance Committee and holding the closest relations with a senator f r o m Pennsylvania and a senator from Connecticut receives through one ear, then through the other, conflicting suggestions

LEARNING

THE

JOB

43

which must be reconciled somewhere in the space between. On several occasions, for example, it became my duty to bring Pennsylvania tobacco growers into contact with the extremely able senator from Connecticut, George P. M c L e a n , who, as a member o f the Finance Committee, performed with fairness the difficult task of finding a compromise rate as between the claims of his own constituents and the tobacco growers of other states. N o r is it merely between diverse interests of this sort that the tariff problem becomes acute; there is also the struggle between Eastern seaboard manufacturers w h o use a raw material produced abroad and the producers of that same raw material which happens to be found, let us say, on the Pacific Coast. T h e Eastern man would like to see that particular material on the free list, because he shrinks from paying the increased cost resulting from the transcontinental freight r a t e ; whereas the Pacific Coast producer wishes to use the tariff schedule in such a way as to run up the cost of the foreign articles and thus compel the Eastern manufacturer to buy his product with the freight rate added to the price. T h e s e and a thousand other considerations of which the general public takes little account are the factors which make the framing of a tariff act so difficult today and may, in time, render tariff making impossible. Sooner or later the senator becomes aware of an issue more subtle and more serious than any of those discussed above. H e begins to perceive that in the fight over the tariff bill the real struggle is one between the E a s t and the W e s t , and that the senators from the western states are desirous of overcoming the advantage of position enjoyed by long established industries, by bringing about some constructive advantage for the W e s t where this is

44

IN THE

SENATE

possible o r by dealing destructive body blows a t eastern industry when they find they cannot serve constituents in any other way. T h e next stage in the process of tariff-bill enactment is reached when the senator determines w h a t his own stand shall be on the schedules under immediate consideration. If he is not a member of the Finance C o m m i t t e e , he is, nevertheless, on request, accorded the privilege of appearance b e f o r e t h a t body to present such a r g u m e n t s as he chooses to advance. T h e hearing accorded him is either respectful or perfunctory, according to t h e measure of his ability to make a real contribution to t h e solution of the committee's problem. T h e p o p u l a r impression t h a t , merely because he is a colleague of the committee members, he can exercise an occult and decisive influence upon t h e m is, of course, a mistake, if f o r no b e t t e r reason t h a n t h a t a great number of o t h e r colleagues are simultaneously exercising the same occult influence in opposite directions. W h e n the committee finally r e p o r t s the bill back to the Senate, a w o r k of herculean p r o p o r t i o n s h a s been accomplished, and the w o n d e r is, not t h a t the m e a s u r e contains so much to criticize but that, in view of the volume and complexity of the task, the thing should have been accomplished at all. Once upon the floor of the Senate f o r debate, some of the contentions unsuccessfully m a d e b e f o r e the committee are revived. T h e s e are sometimes presented in speeches which differ strangely in tone f r o m the way in which the m a t t e r h a d been calmly and p e r s u a s i v e l y — t h o u g h unsuccessfully—presented in the committee room. T h e unsuccessful senator m a y now stand disclosed as an assailant who attacks the action of the committee not merely upon its merits but f o r the edi-

LEARNING fication

THE

JOB

45

o f s p e c t a t o r s in the g a l l e r i e s and o f r e a d e r s o f t h e

Congressional

R e c o r d , on the t h e o r y t h a t t h e

decision

o f the c o m m i t t e e w a s d e t e r m i n e d by all s o r t s o f p r o m i s e s discreditable

to

committee

members,

including

the

e v i t a b l e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t they a c t e d under o r d e r s

in-

from

W a l l S t r e e t . M y own e x p e r i e n c e h a s convinced me t h a t f a r m o r e effective, as f a r as c h a n g i n g the schedules is concerned, is t h e s e n a t o r w h o t a k e s the t r o u b l e t o reduce t h e question a t issue t o the f o r m o f a t e m p e r a t e , concise and c o g e n t b r i e f , a n d causes this to be distributed d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e a m o n g t h o s e s e n a t o r s on b o t h sides o f

the

c h a m b e r w h o h a v e n o t entirely f o r g o t t e n t h a t the c o u n t r y as a w h o l e h a s an interest in t h e pending c o n t r o v e r s y a n d t h a t it is n o t exclusively a p r i v a t e m a t t e r b e t w e e n

the

industries m o s t d i r e c t l y affected. N o t only in connection with tariff m a k i n g but in r e g a r d t o all l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t s e n a t o r is m o s t effective w h o b o t h u n d e r s t a n d s his s u b j e c t and r e f r a i n s f r o m wounding t h e susceptibilities o f c o l l e a g u e s w h o differ f r o m him. A bitt e r a t t a c k b y a w e l l - i n f o r m e d p a r t i s a n m a y delight

ap-

p l a u d i n g c o n s t i t u e n t s but it m a y alienate the v o t e s by which alone he can a t t a i n t h e result t h a t he and t h e y desire. N o t only on t h e floor o f the S e n a t e but in c o m m i t t e e as well, t h e r e must necessarily occur those b e t w e e n c o n t e n t i o n s which, when m a d e

adjustments

the s u b j e c t

of

criticism, are c o n d e m n e d as l o g r o l l i n g , and, when unders t o o d , a r e o f t e n seen to be l e g i t i m a t e and highly desirable compromises. A f t e r the S e n a t e h a s a c t e d on the bill as r e p o r t e d by t h e c o m m i t t e e , t h e m e a s u r e f o l l o w s the course

always

t a k e n by bills r e s p e c t i n g s o m e o f the f e a t u r e s o f w h i c h t h e H o u s e a n d S e n a t e differ. C o n f e r e e s are a p p o i n t e d by

46

IN THE

SENATE

each branch, and these invariably include the chairmen o f the appropriate committees and ranking Republican and Democratic members o f the same committees. T h e conferees meet in seclusion. N o outsiders are present. H o p e l e s s disagreement may result, but f a r m o r e often a report is agreed upon. T h i s report comes back to the two houses and, as a matter of high privilege, its consideration takes precedence over other business. W h e n the final vote is taken on the conference report the result is entirely satisfactory to nobody. T h o s e who see in the measure a preponderance of good, vote f o r enactment. T h o s e whose political conviction or local selfinterest requires them to do so cast their votes in the negative. A few men with a taste f o r the dramatic seize the opportunity to arise and, Ajax-like, to proclaim their fundamental faith in a protective theory, but their unwillingness to cast votes f o r the perverted and destructive measure which threatens the welfare o f masses o f Americans for the sordid advantage of all-powerful special interests. A f t e r the bill becomes a law through the signature o f the President, and after it has been in actual operation f o r a sufficient length of time, a senator may derive a certain amount of satisfaction from noting how, one by one, the forensic prophecies of disaster made in his hearing are falsified. Somehow or other, exports increase instead o f diminishing; the public treasury is replenished beyond the expectations o f most sanguine advocates o f the bill; the poor do not become appreciably poorer or the rich appreciably richer. A few industries suffer, a few are unduly benefited, and the country continues upon its career of prosperity. During the g r e a t e r part of the tariff discussion in

LEARNING

THE

JOB

47

1 9 2 2 , I w a s the only active senator f r o m Pennsylvania, f o r Senator C r o w , my senior colleague in the body, w a s seriously ill. T o me, his absence meant great responsibilities. I missed not only his personal cooperation on the floor and in committee but his profound knowledge of men and political situations in Pennsylvania which could have smoothed out many of the difficulties f a c e d by a new senator. H i s death at his home near Uniontown, on A u g u s t 2, 1 9 2 2 , was a tremendous loss to his state, as w a s eloquently testified by the great numbers of friends and admirers who came to mourn at his funeral. T h e appointment and, later, the election of D a v i d A . R e e d to fill the vacancy not only greatly strengthened Pennsylvania in the Senate but gave me a colleague whose energy, ability, courage and acumen won both my friendship and admiration. A n o t h e r question pending b e f o r e the Senate when I first entered arose f r o m the effort to deprive Senator T r u m a n H . N e w b e r r y , of Michigan, of his seat because of alleged excessive expenditures made by friends in his successful preprimary campaign. I found myself under h e a v y pressure, both through correspondence and personal interviews, f r o m those who saw in the pending question a welcome opportunity to protest against h e a v y political expenditures. A s I analyzed the situation f o r m y s e l f , I could not escape the conclusion that since the voters of M i c h i g a n had, at the general election, elected Senator N e w b e r r y a f t e r the preprimary expenditures had been made a campaign issue, it was not f o r the Senate to revise the judgment of his constituents. I cast my vote in accordance with this conclusion and with the painful realization that this was probably only the first of many cases in which votes cast in accordance with convictions

48

IN THE

SENATE

would arouse not merely criticism but virulent attack, and might even result in the breach of life-long friendships. W h a t I could not have been expected to foresee was that a question ultimately involving the same constitutional considerations would arise in connection with the seating of my own successor. T h e facts of the two cases were different, but had I been called upon to vote on a case similar on its constitutional side to that of M r . Vare's, I should have adhered to the theory which led me to vote as I did in the Newberry case.

IV HOLDING THE

JOB

H E R E are many ways of classifying senators. T h e r e are those who talk little and say much, and those who talk much and say little. T h e y may be g r a d e d with reference to the actual contributions they make to constructive legislation or according to the effectiveness of their opposition to w h a t others propose. But f r o m whatever angle senators are viewed, one conclusion always holds good. I t is that there remains a sound threefold classification: First, those who understand how to get the office and keep it; second, those who can discharge the duties of the office when they have it, and, third, the rare men who can do both these widely different things. I t did not take me long to discover how difficult it is to learn the technique of keeping an office, once attained. U n d e r a governor's appointment, I took my seat in midJ a n u a r y . Almost b e f o r e my ears had ceased to ring with the predictions of optimistic friends t h a t a senator f r o m Pennsylvania could, if he wished, remain in the Senate all his life, I detected the sound of a coming storm. I was not to be permitted, I heard, to receive, at the M a y primary, the Republican nomination f o r the unexpired term of Senator Penrose. I was to be pictured to the electorate as a man of privilege, knowing little of the life of Pennsylvania and nothing of the problems of the toiler. I was to be announced as the representative of special interests 49

50

IN

THE

SENATE

a n d t h e e n e m y of t h e w o r k i n g m a n . I m i g h t be s m a r t as a P h i l a d e l p h i a l a w y e r , b u t I was, t h e s t o r y r a n , n o t wise e n o u g h t o be a s e n a t o r f r o m P e n n s y l v a n i a . T h e advice of w a r m f r i e n d s w i t h political experience i m p r e s s e d u p o n m e t h e necessity of t a k i n g i m m e d i a t e s t e p s t o give t h e c o u n t y l e a d e r s a n d t h e v o t e r s a chance t o m e e t m e a n d d r a w t h e i r o w n conclusions. O v e r n i g h t t h e m a p of P e n n s y l v a n i a t o o k on, f o r me, an e n t i r e l y n e w significance. I h a d b e e n a c c u s t o m e d t o t h i n k of t h e s t a t e in t e r m s of judicial districts a n d c o u r t h o u s e s in which cases w e r e t o b e a r g u e d . I n w a r t i m e t h e sixty-seven counties a s s u m e d a n i n d i v i d u a l i t y which they h a d n e v e r h a d b e f o r e , b u t t h i s w a s f o r p u r p o s e s of n a t i o n a l d e f e n s e , t h e sale of L i b e r t y B o n d s , a n d the d i s s e m i n a t i o n of t h e t e a c h i n g s of t h e F o o d A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . N o w I w a s t o l e a r n , as m u s t e v e r y n e w - c o m e r in politics, h o w little I r e a l l y k n e w a b o u t t h e p e o p l e w h o c o n t r o l l e d t h e v o t e in t h e s e c o u n t i e s ; t o d i s c o v e r t h a t I w a s u n k n o w n , even by n a m e , t o m a n y of t h o s e w h o w e r e effectively e n g a g e d in p l y i n g locally t h e t r a d e of k i n g m a k e r . W i t h a d y i n g c o l l e a g u e , w i t h a tariff bill in t h e m a k i n g a n d w i t h S e n a t e t e c h n i q u e to l e a r n , it w a s out of t h e q u e s t i o n t h a t I s h o u l d t a k e the time to visit e v e r y c o u n t y of t h e s t a t e . W i s e a d v i s e r s i n d i c a t e d t h e s t r a t e g i c c e n t e r s a n d p u t m e in t o u c h w i t h u p s t a t e l e a d e r s , of w h o m I k n e w as little as t h e y k n e w a b o u t me. T h e n b e g a n a series of n i g h t j o u r n e y s f r o m W a s h i n g t o n t o d i s t a n t p o i n t s in P e n n s y l v a n i a , m e e t i n g s , on a r r i v a l , w i t h local c o m m i t t e e s hastily o r g a n i z e d t o g r e e t me, solemn c o n f e r e n c e s in t h e offices of m e n h i g h e r up, m a i d e n political speeches t o g r o u p s g a t h e r e d in c o u r t h o u s e s q u a r e s o r in a v a i l a b l e halls, a n d endless h a n d s h a k i n g in t h e lobbies of local h o t e l s as t h e f a i t h f u l w e r e m a r s h a l e d in i m p r e s s i v e

HOLDING

THE

JOB

51

a r r a y by those s q u a d l e a d e r s u p o n w h o s e activity t h e local effectiveness of the s t a t e R e p u b l i c a n o r g a n i z a t i o n depended. M e a n w h i l e an i m p r o m p t u c a m p a i g n c o m m i t t e e w a s being f o r m e d to support my candidacy. A valued friend a n d colleague at t h e P h i l a d e l p h i a b a r , w i t h political cont a c t s f a r m o r e n u m e r o u s t h a n mine, c o n s e n t e d t o act as chairman. M y lawyer friends and those with w h o m I h a d come in c o n t a c t in w a r t i m e b e c a m e i m p o r t a n t assets in effecting e m e r g e n c y o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h r o u g h o u t t h e s t a t e . M e e t i n g s w e r e scheduled, i t i n e r a r i e s a r r a n g e d , a n d I w a s notified of the e n g a g e m e n t s t h a t I m u s t m e e t . Since this w a s a p r i m a r y c a m p a i g n , I could n o t call on t h e R e p u b l i c a n S t a t e C o m m i t t e e o r its r e c o g n i z e d b r a n c h e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e counties f o r a s s i s t a n c e . L a t e r , in t h e g e n e r a l c a m p a i g n , a f t e r a c a n d i d a t e h a d been selected, this c o m m i t t e e , w i t h t h e w e i g h t of t h e s t a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n b e h i n d it, w o u l d f u n c t i o n . Y e t an o r g a n i z a t i o n of s o m e s o r t w a s necessary, f o r political ideas, like social a n d economic t r u t h s , r e q u i r e e l a b o r a t e o r g a n i z a tions t o p r o p a g a t e t h e m , a n d c a n d i d a t e s n e e d s i m i l a r s u p p o r t . T h e r e is a g r e a t difference b e t w e e n t h e a v e r a g e c i t i z e n ' s i m p r e s s i o n of a political election a n d t h e t h i n g s t h a t r e a l l y occur on a n d i m m e d i a t e l y b e f o r e election d a y . A r o u s i n g i n t e r e s t a m o n g v o t e r s a n d influencing t h e i r v o t e s r e q u i r e the e x p e n d i t u r e of b o t h t i m e a n d m o n e y . S o m e o n e m u s t r i n g d o o r b e l l s in e v e r y p r e c i n c t o r division. I n a city-wide c a m p a i g n this r e q u i r e s intensive e f f o r t . I n a state-wide c a m p a i g n t h e e f f o r t m u s t be extensive as well. I n a l m o s t solidly R e p u b l i c a n o r D e m o c r a t i c s t a t e s as, f o r e x a m p l e , P e n n s y l v a n i a o r A l a b a m a , t h e g r e a t e f f o r t is c o n c e n t r a t e d , of c o u r s e , o n t h e fight f o r n o m i n a t i o n in t h e p r i m a r y election. T h i s f a c t c o n t r i b u t e s

52

IN THE

SENATE

tremendously to the strain and expense of running f o r office under modern political conditions. I was at the time a member of the B a n k i n g and Currency, M i l i t a r y Affairs and the L i b r a r y o f Congress committees in the Senate. T h e s e assignments required frequent attendance at meetings, and long hours o f study over bills demanding f a v o r a b l e or unfavorable reports. I was trying to guard the interests o f Pennsylvania in the complex tariff-making situation. I was profoundly concerned with the problem presented by the limitation-ofarmaments treaties, which, when I went to the Senate, were under consideration by the international conference called by President H a r d i n g ; and was deeply involved in discussions of the proposed bonus f o r veterans o f the W o r l d W a r , the D y e r anti-lynching bill and a host o f both public and private measures which demanded of a new senator not only careful consideration but long hours o f intensive study. I n the midst o f the work I was called away frequently to help my own campaign. I spent twenty-five days in twenty-five o f the sixty-seven counties in Pennsylvania, making an average o f five speeches a day. I had to do this while discharging as well as I could my senatorial duties at W a s h i n g t o n . O f course I should have gone into every county. W T hile this effort undoubtedly detracted f r o m my ability to serve the state with undivided energy, I believe that it had its advantages in bringing me into closer contact with constituents and in increasing my capacity to understand and properly represent my commonwealth. Despite the g r e a t strain it puts on the candidate, the primary system has the one great advantage o f giving to all the people a sense of direct contact with their Govern-

HOLDING

THE

JOB

53

mcnt and their public men. I t m a y produce, as m a n y critics h a v e suggested, representatives in C o n g r e s s of a p o o r e r quality than those w h o e m e r g e d f r o m the convention. U n d e r the social and economic conditions that exist in A m e r i c a t o d a y , h o w e v e r , it seems quite possible that only the men w h o rise f r o m obscurity by a process of direct selection are capable of influencing the masses which give them prominence and p o w e r . M y chief opponent in the 1 9 2 2 p r i m a r y w a s an experienced officeholder w h o had s e r v e d acceptably as congressman-at-large and who t h e r e f o r e had been b e f o r e the electorate and had had the experience of actually polling a h e a v y state-wide vote. C a r r y i n g a union c a r d and proclaiming himself as a f e l l o w toiler with the w o r k ingman, he w a s able to appeal to a wide audience. W i t h a sagacity born of experience, he m a d e the most of his opportunity to list various public questions on which I h a d declared myself and, by taking the opposite side on each, to find a ready-made constituency whose friendliness to him was, in f a c t , less dynamic than its opposition to me. T h i s , of course, is a not unusual situation in A m e r i can politics. I h a d announced that I w o u l d not a d v o c a t e a bonus m e a s u r e g r a n t i n g an outright sum of money to all veterans of the W o r l d W a r . T h i s attitude a r o u s e d much resentment a m o n g those w h o f a v o r e d a bonus, and adv o c a c y of the g r a n t became one of the strongest planks in m y opponent's p l a t f o r m . A n o t h e r interesting f a c t o r ope r a t e d to some degree in his f a v o r . A s legislation h a d then recently abolished the office of congressman-atl a r g e , he w a s in the position of an officer whose horse h a d been shot under him and w a s able to m a k e to the regulars a m o v i n g appeal f o r another mount.

54

IN THE

SENATE

T h e r e is always a great deal of vote-making sympathy f o r the man whose office has been taken away f r o m him, which is in marked contrast to the way in which, in A m e r ica, the public always loses interest in the man who has met with d e f e a t . Failure to get elected seems, at times, to be an almost unforgivable sin in American politics. Almost always it precludes a man f r o m ever running again f o r office. In a dynamic nation interested, as ours is, in results r a t h e r than in processes, success is emphasized to an extraordinary degree. In politics, as in athletics, there are few instances in which the man is remembered f o r the plucky fight he made. In the g r e a t m a j o r i t y of cases the defeated officeholder becomes at once unavailable politically and the dethroned champion is amazed by the quickness with which he lapses into obscurity. A s I gained experience in the course o f my campaign, I became aware that the senatorial contest was being deprived o f much of its usual significance by the circumstance that a great political drama was being staged in connection with the struggle f o r the governorship. T h e able administration o f Governor Sproul was drawing to an end. A caucus of state Republican leaders had proposed as a candidate for governor in the primary a man whose eminent qualification f o r the office was equaled only by his reluctance to run. T h e disappointment o f other leaders who, with candidates o f their own, had been unable to make their choice effective, naturally detracted f r o m the support given to the candidate so selected and offered an opportunity to any aspirant who should enter the lists as the people's champion and profit by the lukewarmness o f many o f the organization stalwarts. Gifford Pinchot, who had himself been a member

HOLDING

THE

JOB

55

of the g o v e r n o r ' s cabinet, saw his opportunity and w a s quick to take it. H e conducted a campaign of his own, relying chiefly on the unlovely, but nevertheless suggestive, slogan, C l e a n U p the M e s s . H e w a s nominated by a slender m a r g i n . In the resulting astonishment at w h a t had happened, the f a c t that my own campaign f o r nomination w a s won by a m a j o r i t y of 2 4 1 , 1 5 9 votes was a political circumstance that passed almost unnoticed. A l t h o u g h , as I h a v e said, I recognize the value of the open p r i m a r y in establishing a wholesome relationship between the candidate and his prospective constituents, and although our experience is not yet sufficient to make a wise change in the laws under which it operates, my own experiences in 1 9 2 2 and again in 1 9 2 6 , have given me a sympathetic understanding of the attitude of many public men w h o h a v e expressed skepticism respecting the system's ultimate success. I believe that any system of m a k i n g nominations is good if it results in the choice of a responsible candidate and unifies the p a r t y f o r his election. A n unfit candidate supported by a unified p a r t y means trouble a h e a d f o r the p a r t y . A well-qualified candidate w h o cannot command unified p a r t y support is b a d l y h a n d i c a p p e d f r o m the start. T h e p a r t y convention—in which the candidate is selected by delegates chosen by the p e o p l e — w a s discarded because it w a s thought to produce machine candidates. M o r e o v e r , there is in this country a decline of authority which m a n i f e s t s itself, among other w a y s , in impatience with p a r t y control. T o take nominations out of the hands of conventions suggested itself as a wise r e f o r m . T h e open p r i m a r y — i n which the people vote directly f o r the nomination of their f a v o r i t e candidate—is, h o w e v e r , p r o v i n g f a r f r o m p e r f e c t as a candidate picker, and it

56

IN THE

SENATE

has developed some features which menace p a r t y ence. Some of the debit items in the account o f a wide open primary which my own experiences demonstrated are these: Intensified factionalism, sion of issues, unwholesome expense and undue upon the candidates. L e t me illustrate.

existstatehave confustrain

I f there is a long and bitter preprimary fight between two qualified candidates, the danger is that the friends o f the loser will either not work f o r the winner when the general election comes on, or will even bolt and vote f o r the candidate of the other party. T h i s difficulty is not absent f r o m the convention system, but it is much more acute in the open primary. A candidate d e f e a t e d in a state-wide primary is popularly regarded as having been as effectively thrown into the political discard as if he had been beaten in a general election. T h i s often results in losing to a party the continued activity and service of a man the party cannot afford to lose. Such a result embitters his friends. Any system which brings this about involves a waste of party man-power. A convention chooses not only a candidate but a platf o r m . T h e party nominee runs upon the party p l a t f o r m thus chosen. T h e platform is usually d r a f t e d to harmonize with the national p l a t f o r m o f the party. In an open primary, however, each aspirant for a nomination may set forth his own platform. H e may think it popular to announce himself as a wet or a dry, or as an opponent of evolution, or as a free trader, or as committed to a particular brand o f farm relief, or as favoring a certain foreign policy. I f , f o r example, he wins the Republican nomination and election to the Senate by some such slogan, and if the Republican P a r t y in N a t i o n a l Convention adopts an opposite policy, he is still considered a Repub-

HOLDING

THE

JOB

57

lican, but he must either vote against his party on the issue or repudiate his own slogan. Enough senators elected under such conditions could destroy all party harmony and efficiency. T h e number of men thus chosen appears to be increasing at a rapid rate. I t is not unnatural that some candidates with statewide campaigns to carry through successfully should make great expenditures of money, not necessarily f o r purposes of corruption, but to meet the demands of sordid political practice. Probably to a greater degree today than ever b e f o r e do the men and women interested and participating in political activities expect to be paid f o r their w o r k . In the majority of cases a candidate with many admirers interested in his election will receive enough contributions to his fund to finance the campaign. But to the candidate with a big bank account of his own, this type of support is unnecessary. H e personally can supply all the sinews of w a r . T h o u g h it is a serious matter to have a candidate's admirers waste money in his b e h a l f , it seems f a r more serious f o r a man without responsible backers to secure the party nomination by means of the lavish use of his own money. T h e difficulties which have arisen in attempts to regulate p r i m a r y expenses by law are born of the fact that the p r i m a r y system is by its nature an expensive one. T h e process of disseminating political information is costly and varies in different states. In Pennsylvania a single well-written f o r m letter, addressed and mailed to each Republican voter, could cost $ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 or more. But although much of the criticism of primary expenditures in l a r g e states is uninformed and, at times, malicious, it serves a good purpose, because it is a deterrent to waste and tends to m a k e campaign managers careful instead of

58

IN THE

SENATE

p r o d i g a l . A t best, h o w e v e r , the p r i m a r y system is an expensive luxury and in the long run it m a y p r o v e dear at any price. T h i s explains w h y m a n y prospective public servants whose enlistment w o u l d be invaluable to state or nation a r e reluctant to seek any office involving a state-wide campaign. T h e prospective candidate, if he a l r e a d y holds office, recognizes that he is c o n f r o n t e d by a task which involves three distinct and harassing duties: F i r s t , the actual day-by-day w o r k of his office; second, the bitter internecine fight of a p r i m a r y c a m p a i g n ; and third, the renewed fight involved in the general election. O f these, the p r i m a r y imposes usually the g r e a t e s t strain. Responsible p a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n s compete in the general election and usually o b s e r v e decently the rules of the g a m e . B u t into the p r i m a r y any irresponsible candidate m a y enter and, by a c a m p a i g n of abusive charges boldly m a d e and plausibly maintained, d a m a g e i r r e m e d i a b l y his opponent's chances and character. T h e difference between the general c a m p a i g n and the p r i m a r y m a y thus, in many instances, be c o m p a r e d to that between l a w f u l and guerrilla w a r f a r e . P r i n c i p a l l y because the p r i m a r y can become so u n l a w f u l does it stand as a b a r r i e r between many w o r t h y citizens and public office. T h e period between the p r i m a r y and the g e n e r a l election of 1 9 2 2 g a v e me the opportunity f o r some of the m o s t interesting w o r k of my Senate career. A p a r t f r o m the routine duties mentioned above, a second campaign h a d to be w a g e d . G i f f o r d Pinchot, D a v i d A . R e e d and I h e a d e d the ticket supported by the Republican State C o m m i t t e e . L a r g e l y under the expert direction of the late W . H a r r y B a k e r , first as secretary, then as chairman of the committee, a man whose political k n o w l e d g e and

HOLDING

THE

59

JOB

ability w e r e s u r p a s s e d only by his l i k a b l e p e r s o n a l qualities, an active

fight

w a s conducted,

with

the

n e v e r in d o u b t . A l l t h r e e w e r e e l e c t e d with

outcome

substantial

m a j o r i t i e s , t o g e t h e r with a l m o s t t h e e n t i r e s t a t e t i c k e t . T h i s c a m p a i g n d e m a n d e d , o f course, a r e p e t i t i o n o f m e e t ings and s p e e c h e s t h r o u g h o u t

the

state—speeches

for

which I was a g a i n d r a f t e d f r o m m y S e n a t e duties. I a l s o r e s p o n d e d t o calls f o r a n u m b e r o f a d d r e s s e s in o t h e r s t a t e s in s u p p o r t o f candidacies o f R e p u b l i c a n

senators

whose p r o s p e c t s s e e m e d d o u b t f u l . I f I h a d h o p e d t h a t a t t a i n e d success in t h e

primary

and p r o s p e c t i v e success in the g e n e r a l election would set me f r e e t o c o n c e n t r a t e on s e n a t o r i a l duties, I was s a d l y m i s t a k e n . T h e illness o f S e n a t o r C r o w , w h o w a s c h a i r man o f the R e p u b l i c a n S t a t e C o m m i t t e e o f P e n n s y l v a n i a , m a d e n e c e s s a r y t h e choice o f a successor. S e n a t o r

Pen-

rose h a d been R e p u b l i c a n N a t i o n a l C o m m i t t e e m a n

from

Pennsylvania

and his place had t o be

filled.

Over

the

s t a t e c h a i r m a n s h i p t h e r e w a s an acute conflict within t h e p a r t y . J o s e p h R . G r u n d y , influential b e c a u s e o f his f a i t h ful service t o t h e m a n u f a c t u r i n g i n t e r e s t s o f P e n n s y l v a n i a and his c o n s e q u e n t ability t o raise c a m p a i g n funds, h a d been dissatisfied with t h e c h o i c e — m a d e a g a i n s t his p r o t e s t — o f a g u b e r n a t o r i a l c a n d i d a t e t o o p p o s e P i n c h o t in t h e p r i m a r y . D e t e r m i n e d , it w a s g e n e r a l l y believed,

to

r e b u k e those w h o had differed f r o m h i m , he s o u g h t t o effect t h e election as s t a t e c h a i r m a n o f a m a n o f his own choice. H e c a l l e d on me t o s u p p o r t his c a n d i d a t e . I , h o w ever, concluded t h a t t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e S t a t e R e p u b lican o r g a n i z a t i o n required the election o f B a k e r ,

who

h a d been t h e a b l e and e x p e r i e n c e d l i e u t e n a n t o f S e n a t o r Penrose. caused

My

refusal

a breach

to

between

support us n e v e r

Grundy's

candidate

afterward

healed.

IN THE

60

SENATE

B a k e r ' s election by an overwhelming majority f o l l o w e d . A t the same time I was elected to succeed Penrose on the Republican N a t i o n a l Committee, not because I had the political sagacity required f o r the position, but because, having no political background, I had few enemies; whereas the nomination of any one of the so-called leaders could have reopened the factional fight which alone had made Pinchot's nomination possible. In the midst of all these preelection activities, it devolved upon Senator Reed and me to take an active p a r t in the negotiations which led to the settlement of the serious anthracite coal strike which, f o r workers, operators, and consumers alike, had darkened the spring and summer of 1 9 2 2 . A t that period of the strike, mine workers and operators had reached what appeared to be a hopeless deadlock. T h e then Secretary of Commerce, M r . H o o v e r , told me that I, as senator f r o m the anthracite state, should try to act as mediator. A s a new senator, I felt that I had no standing to volunteer, but said that I would make the effort if thereto requested by the President. In due course I received a letter of request f r o m President H a r d i n g , which was delivered to me personally by Secretary H o o v e r . * I at once established contact with G o v e r n o r Sproul, and with him I called upon the late William A . G l a s g o w , J r . , an able and high-minded lawyer and a friend of many years. H e was at the time counsel f o r the United M i n e W o r k e r s , and had the confidence of their president, J o h n L . L e w i s . L e w i s was at the moment in Indianapolis, where M r . G l a s g o w called him on the long-distance telephone, told him of my mission, advised him to consider my proposal sympatheti* President

Harding's

attitude t o w a r d

this strike as e x p r e s s e d

letter is described in g r e a t e r detail in C h a p t e r

V.

in

his

HOLDING

THE

JOB

61

cally, and ended by putting me on the telephone in his place. A s a result, L e w i s came to Philadelphia, where we conferred. W i t h his approval, the governor and I established contact with a committee representing the operators. T h e r e ensued a long series of nerve-racking conferences in my rooms in the Senate Office Building, in which L e w i s and his lieutenants and the committee of the operators argued backward and f o r w a r d f o r hours at a time, and often f a r into the night. I acted as moderator, and, with the indispensable assistance of my new colleague, Senator Reed, gradually brought the minds of the disputants together. T h e details of the transaction, interesting as they are, cannot be told here because of space limitation. It is enough to say that no political capital was sought to be made out of the settlement and that publicity was avoided rather than courted. T e r m s were reached satisfactory to both sides, a basis was laid f o r the appointment of the United States Coal Commission, a y e a r ' s agreement was signed, the men resumed work and the public got its coal. It was during this period also that I enjoyed some of my most interesting associations with President and M r s . H a r d i n g . D u r i n g the long summer session of 1 9 2 2 , when the day's senatorial w o r k began at nine in the morning and lasted until midnight, it was a life-saver to be invited by the President to use the W h i t e H o u s e tennis court. A t seven o'clock on three mornings each week, spirited contests took place there in which Senator H a l e , of M a i n e , T h e o d o r e Roosevelt, J r . , and I were regular participants, while either Senator W a d s w o r t h , of N e w Y o r k , or my colleague, Senator Reed, made a fourth. W h i l e we were playing tennis the President was often practising

62

IN THE

SENATE

golf strokes on the lawn, and the relative merits o f the two sports became the subject of good-natured controversy. A shower and some b r e a k f a s t made everybody fit f o r the day's work. M r s . H a r d i n g , though always hospitable and kind, was seldom c a r e f r e e . She not only took seriously the responsibilities o f her position but was as much concerned with the details of her husband's work as she had been with the events leading up to his nomination. She was a shrewd politician and, except where her personal likes and dislikes were involved, a keen judge o f men. On one occasion she told me that she had kept f o r years a little book in which she entered the names o f people whom her husband ought not to trust and the names of those in whom he might safely confide. I have often wondered what the book would disclose in regard to some of those who l a t e r shamefully abused M r . H a r d i n g ' s confidence. H e r highly nervous organization gave M r s . H a r d i n g a liking f o r fast driving which sometimes made an automobile ride with her a thrilling experience. Once when M r s . Pepper and I were motoring from B a l t i m o r e to W a s h i n g t o n in the W h i t e H o u s e car with the President and M r s . H a r d i n g , we had as narrow an escape f r o m a serious collision as I hope ever to experience. W e were making not less than fifty miles an hour on a highway intersected by crossroads. A driver approaching at right angles paused to allow the motorcycle outriders to pass and then, not realizing that they were the advance guards o f the approaching car, started to cross the road, only to find us bearing down upon him at lightning speed. H e stopped his car at right angles to our approach. T h e r e

HOLDING

THE

JOB

63

was no room behind him and only the narrowest possible channel between his headlights and a telegraph pole. T h r o u g h the passage the presidential chauffeur piloted his car, just escaping the pole and the other automobile. "Close call," said M r s . H a r d i n g in a matter-of-fact tone. On another occasion when a c a r a v a n of cars was following the President and M r s . H a r d i n g f r o m W a s h i n g ton to Gettysburg, such a pace w a s maintained by the presidential car that all who tried to keep up were in peril. J u s t ahead of me was General Pershing's car and just ahead of his was that of General Dawes. W h e n the procession halted for a few minutes in front of the house that had been A d m i r a l Schley's, the occupants of most of the cars dismounted, happy to be again on terra firma. I can still see General Dawes, his eyes flaming, w a l k i n g up to the President's car and shaking his finger at M r s . H a r d i n g while he took her seriously to task for permitting her own and other precious lives to be jeopardized. W h i l e M r . Coolidge was Vice-President, opportunities for contact with him and with M r s . Coolidge were many. T h e men on my farm are still talking of the interest he showed in them when he and M r s . Coolidge spent a week-end with us. T w o y e a r s later, when M r . Coolidge was President, M r s . Pepper w a s giving to our f a r m manager his first glimpse of W a s h i n g t o n . In the line of visitors in the Executive Office, before M r s . Pepper could do more than say a word of reminder, M r . Coolidge delighted our friend by offering him his hand and asking, " H o w is everything back on the f a r m ? " M e m o r i e s of time spent in the society of M r s . Coolidge are also happy ones. M r s . Pepper and I fell willing

64

IN

THE

SENATE

victims of t h a t charm which endeared her came near her. L o o k i n g backward, it seems contacts with colleagues and friends were stimulating and agreeable as the work of itself.

to all who to me that at least as the Senate

ν T H E

W H I T E

HOUSE FROM HILL

CAPITOL

I

T H A S been my g o o d f o r t u n e to come into personal contact with nine Presidents of the U n i t e d States. Colonel R o o s e v e l t was the first of these with w h o m the contact w a s more than occasional and f o r m a l . In the case of M r . T a f t , as the result of many associations both b e f o r e , during and a f t e r his presidential term, the relation rose to the dignity of a friendship. M r . H a r d i n g w a s the first with whom I had an official relation. H e and M r . C o o l i d g e were the Presidents during whose administrations I served in the Senate. N a t u r a l l y my opportunity to j u d g e these men and to estimate their w o r t h w a s g r e a t e r than in the case of any of the others. I first met M r . H a r d i n g in C h i c a g o immediately a f t e r the a d j o u r n m e n t of the Republican N a t i o n a l Convention in 1 9 2 0 which nominated him f o r the Presidency. Senator W a t s o n of Indiana introduced me to him when I called to p a y my respects. H a r d i n g had a certain charm of m a n n e r which was not assumed but w a s the m a n i f e s t a tion of a genuine interest in his f e l l o w men. H e held out his hand to me and said with a certain quiet earnestness, " I hope to see you o f t e n and I w a n t you to think of yourself as one of u s . " I had been a supporter of G e n e r a l L e o n a r d W o o d f o r the nomination and I had been prejudiced against H a r d i n g . H i s bearing, his greeting and the short talk that f o l l o w e d did much to r e m o v e the preju65

66

IN THE

SENATE

dice. F r o m t h a t m o m e n t until the d a y of his d e a t h I counted him as a f r i e n d . T h e t h o u g h t , of course, never crossed m y m i n d t h a t within eighteen m o n t h s I should be sitting in the S e n a t e a n d seeing him f r e q u e n t l y in connection with public business. Since his d e a t h , stories h a v e been circulated, orally and in p r i n t , which reflect seriously upon his integrity. I have avoided the b o o k s in which these stories a p p e a r , because I think time can be b e t t e r employed t h a n in r e a d i n g attacks u p o n the d e a d . T h e r e f o r e I am n o t in a position to engage in c o n t r o v e r s y a b o u t him even if I w e r e disposed to do so. W h a t I h a v e h e r e set d o w n is m e r e m a t t e r of fact r e c o r d e d in the f o r m of p e r s o n a l recollections. Possibly t h e r e m a y be some r e a d e r s w h o s e interest in public men is n o t s t i m u l a t e d exclusively by d e f a m a t i o n . M r . H a r d i n g ' s f r i e n d l i n e s s m a n i f e s t e d itself even in u n i m p o r t a n t c o r r e s p o n d e n c e . W i t h i n a m o n t h a f t e r his i n a u g u r a t i o n he w r o t e t o m e as f o l l o w s : — T h e first day you find yourself travelling toward W a s h i n g t o n I wish you would r u n in and give me the satisfaction of a brief interview. T h e m a t t e r is not urgent, but I would like to see you sometime within the next couple of weeks. T h e appointment can be arranged any day most convenient to you.

I h a d not t h e least idea w h a t w a s in his m i n d . W h e n , however, I s o u g h t the interview which he h a d suggested I f o u n d t h a t s o m e t h i n g h a d intervened which m a d e it unnecessary. I l e a r n e d a f t e r w a r d t h a t the P r e s i d e n t , of his own m o t i o n , h a d i n t e n d e d to t e n d e r me t h e office of Solicitor G e n e r a l b u t t h a t S e n a t o r P e n r o s e h a d objected. T h i s w a s not surprising, as I h a d never e n j o y e d Penrose's confidence. I h a v e been told t h a t he h a d interposed a similar objection w h e n P r e s i d e n t T a f t p r o p o s e d to offer me an i m p o r t a n t judicial position. P e n r o s e , I

THE

WHITE

HOUSE

FROM

CAPITOL

HILL

67

suspect, had never forgiven me f o r appearing with Senator Edmunds before the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections in opposition to Quay's claim to a seat. T h e incident occurred b e f o r e the constitutional amendment providing f o r the direct election of senators and at a time when senators were elected by the legislatures o f the several states. T h e legislature of Pennsylvania had failed to elect Quay to succeed himself, but after the legislature had adjourned G o v e r n o r Stone had appointed him. T h e contestants urged that the vacancy thus sought to be filled had not " o c c u r r e d " during a recess o f the legislature and that the G o v e r n o r was therefore without power to appoint. T h i s undoubtedly sound view was adopted by the committee, notwithstanding an able argument in Quay's behalf by J o h n P. Elkin, then Attorney General of Pennsylvania and afterward a justice o f the Supreme Court of that state. Senator H o a r of Massachusetts voted with the minority. As we left the committee room the old gentleman, mistaking me f o r Elkin, congratulated me on presenting an argument which exactly coincided with his views. H e was not a little embarrassed when he found that he had congratulated the wrong man. T h e Senate sustained the committee and Quay was denied the seat. I t would have been impossible f o r Penrose really to approve a man who had had the temerity to array himself against Quay. Following my appointment to the Senate I at once called on the President and was received by him with his usual cordiality. Among other things he told me that some of my colleagues in the Senate were accustomed to g a t h e r at the W h i t e House on occasional evenings f o r a game of cards. H e asked me to become one o f the group. In somewhat apologetic fashion I had to explain

68

IN THE

SENATE

that I had no card sense and had never learned to play. H e laughingly put the matter by and offered me f o r my pipe some of his f a v o r i t e tobacco. W e sat and smoked f o r some time while he talked in a most interesting w a y about some of the measures then pending in the Congress in which he took a special interest. I was beginning to appreciate better than ever b e f o r e the immensity of the post-war problems of government. T h e s e looked f o r midable enough when seen at a distance but they loomed l a r g e r as one approached the seat of government. I also realized, f o r the first time adequately, the network of political obligations spread in the w a y of a President nominated under the conditions which existed in the Republican National Convention of 1 9 2 0 . I doubt whether any man ever entered the W h i t e H o u s e confronted by a more stupendous task or with greater need of trustworthy lieutenants to advise him wisely and to act with loyalty in the execution of his plans. T h e vast majority of those whom he selected responded in fine spirit and with admirable efficiency. In a f e w instances it later turned out that his confidence had been misplaced. N a t u r a l l y enough, this fact cast a shadow of eclipse over much of his administration. Such occurrences are the tragedies of political life. A t the time of which I am writing, however, the President w a s attacking his problems with wisdom and v i g o r and he seemed fired by no other ambition than abundantly to justify the popular verdict which gave him his title to office. I doubt if it is generally realized how important w a s the legislation enacted by the Congress in the years between 1 9 2 0 and 1 9 2 8 . A student of legislation in whose judgment I confide puts it this w a y : " A t no time in the history of the American Congress has there been such a

THE WHITE

HOUSE FROM CAPITOL

HILL

69

quantity and variety of fundamental, constructive and f o r w a r d - l o o k i n g legislation as w a s enacted by the Congress under Presidents H a r d i n g and C o o l i d g e . I very much question whether any quarter century of our national history can equal the record made in these eight years. It is of special significance that none of this legislation was sectional. N o n e of it promoted the interest of any one class of citizens at the expense of any other class." I h a v e reviewed the legislative history of this period and I do not think that the comment thus quoted is an over-statement. In the field of agricultural relief there were o v e r a score of acts of m a j o r importance. Some of these w e r e in the f o r m of amendments and amplifications of existing laws. M a n y inaugurated new policies and were steps in advance of anything previously undertaken. T h e financial legislation was even more significant. T o reduce the interest-bearing public debt by nearly seven billions of dollars and to r e f u n d , at a reduced interest rate, over f o u r billions of the remainder w a s in itself a stupendous achievement. N o r must it be f o r g o t t e n that f o u r f e d e r a l tax reduction laws w e r e enacted, a g g r e g a t ing an annual saving of one billion eight hundred million dollars to t a x p a y e r s ; that annual interest charges were reduced by three hundred and twenty-six million; that the tariff legislation of 1 9 2 2 produced an annual revenue in excess of half a billion of dollars and that the refunding of more than eleven billions of f o r e i g n loans yielded an annual payment to us of interest and principal of more than ninety millions. President H a r d i n g signed and put into operation the national budget law, and the system of accounting and administration inaugurated by this legislation has be-

IN THE

70

SENATE

come an accepted and necessary part o f our governmental structure. T h e enactment o f legislation in behalf o f the ex-service men and their dependents was begun at a special session of the Sixty-seventh Congress summoned by President H a r d i n g . T h e original act and its amendments have created a system o f hospitalization and insurance unrivalled, as f a r as I know, in any other country. W e l f a r e legislation and miscellaneous acts too numerous to mention all stand to the credit o f this remarkable era. T h e act of Congress that embodied the budget system gave to the D i r e c t o r of the Budget and to the Comptroller General a status and authority which came as something of a shock to the officials in executive departments who had been accustomed to have a free hand in seeking appropriations and in expending them. T h e budget system is now so much a m a t t e r o f course that we forget the immense amount o f executive selfcontrol required to accept and enforce legislation which in so many respects subordinated the President to the Congress. President Wilson had vetoed a similar act because he wanted the executive department to maintain its supremacy. President H a r d i n g not only signed the bill but overcame seemingly insurmountable obstacles and made the system work. W h e n he persuaded General D a w e s to become the first D i r e c t o r of the Budget he did a splendid thing, but even the General could not have made the machine work without steady executive support. One day the new D i r e c t o r called on the President and said: " I am not getting f a r with your heads o f departments." " W h y n o t ? " asked the President. "Because

I can't afford to cool my heels in

their

THE

IVHIT Ε HOUSE

FROM

CAPITOL

HILL

71

waiting-rooms and they won't come to see m e , " the Director answered. H a v i n g learned which Cabinet officer was the latest recalcitrant, the President at once called him by telephone and requested him to come to the Executive Office. On his a r r i v a l M r . H a r d i n g said, " T h e G e n e r a l and I are talking o v e r some items in the appropriation to your department and we want you to advise with u s . " T h e Cabinet Officer sat down and the discussion began. Presently the President said, " I have no more time now to g i v e you f e l l o w s . J u s t step into the other room and talk this o u t . " T h e y did so. T h e contact was established and the difficulty did not recur. T h i s is typical of the method employed by H a r d i n g in bringing together minds which seemed f a r a p a r t . T h e r e is something in such a method that leads one to recall the wisdom and tact of President McKinley. P o s t - w a r industrial unrest was prevalent in 1 9 2 2 and 1 9 2 3 . T h e strike of the railroad shopmen created a serious situation in the transportation field while in the anthracite coal region the situation w a s even m o r e acute. T h e contrast between M r . H a r d i n g ' s attitude t o w a r d these problems and the method of dealing with them subsequently adopted by M r . Coolidge was as striking as w e r e the other differences between these t w o men. H a r d i n g ' s a p p r o a c h w a s that of a w a r m - h e a r t e d , impulsive man w h o was ready to throw himself into the breach and to use the p o w e r of his personality to bring the w a r r i n g elements together. Coolidge kept w h a t e v e r feelings he had under stern control and played the p a r t of an impersonal executive. In the case of the shopmen's strike, I f o r e s a w trouble f o r the President if he became involved in an acute controversy of which the R a i l r o a d

72

IN THE

SENATE

L a b o r B o a r d had already taken jurisdiction. I w r o t e him a personal letter intended to suggest, t a c t f u l l y , that sound administrative policy required him merely to enf o r c e the decisions of the B o a r d and not himself to perf o r m its functions. I received in reply the f o l l o w i n g letter, which shows clearly that his aim was true and that he w a s not to be diverted f r o m his p u r p o s e : — I had your autographed note of J u l y 27th. F r a n k l y , I do not agree with the proposition that the President, in a great emergency, cannot act as mediator in the settlement of any difficult problem. T h e difficulty with the railroad executives' position is that they expect me, as the responsible head of the government, to enforce to the letter the decisions of the Railroad L a b o r Board as such decisions relate to the employees, while the railroads have again and again ignored the decisions of the Board where the fulfillment was encumbent on railway managers. T h i s is the very thing which necessitates mediation in order to bring about a settlement of the pending strike. I have already declared my support of the Labor Board. A n y settlement which is negotiated through mediation will be based upon both managers and working men agreeing to accept the decisions of the Labor Board and complying therewith as contemplated by the law. I am always grateful for your interest, and am very glad to have your suggestions.

A s time went on, however, it became increasingly clear to him that he had undertaken an impossible task. H e t h e r e f o r e asked me to attempt, through mediation, to allay some of the bitterness of feeling that had been engendered during the strike. I established friendly relations with the striking shopmen and held m a n y c o n f e r ences with the representatives of the carriers. I t m a y be that these efforts did good. A t all events they relieved the President of a burden which had weighed heavily upon him. H e w r o t e me on M a r c h 5, 1 9 2 3 , an appreciative letter which in his own hand he m a r k e d " p e r s o n a l and

THE WHITE

HOUSE

FROM

CAPITOL

HILL

73

confidential." A f t e r this lapse of time there can be no objection to publishing it.

I t r e a d as f o l l o w s : —

F r o m various parts of the country, especially f r o m Pennsylvania, come reports of the continuing seriousness of conditions g r o w i n g o u t of the Shop C r a f t s strike, which remains unsettled on a considerable m i n o r i t y of the c o u n t r y ' s railroads. Feeling strongly t h a t this condition d e m a n d s that every facility be afforded f o r p r o m o t i n g a d j u s t m e n t as soon as possible, I am asking you if you will continue, in such m a n n e r as your o w n good j u d g m e n t m a y dictate, your most t a c t f u l and helpful efforts in behalf of such a d j u s t m e n t s . A p p e a l s have constantly come to me, for some employment of the g o v e r n m e n t ' s influence to this end, but as you k n o w the f u l l measure of the government's authority, as n o w fixed, has been f u t i l e thus far, I shall feel g r a t e f u l if I may be assured of your readiness to continue the efforts you have been p u t t i n g f o r t h h e r e t o f o r e , and you will be confident of my support in every possible w a y . M o s t sincerely yours, Warren G. Harding. Of

course

he received

the

assurance

f o r which

he

asked, f o r I w a s anxious at all times to do w h a t little I could

to

effectuate

his

policies

and

to

support

his

administration. E l s e w h e r e in this v o l u m e * I h a v e r e f e r r e d to the g r e a t anthracite coal strike of 1 9 2 2 . I t w a s in A u g u s t of that y e a r t h a t M r . H o o v e r , then S e c r e t a r y of C o m m e r c e , suggested t h a t I m i g h t be of use as a m e d i a t o r miners a n d o p e r a t o r s . A

letter which

f r o m the P r e s i d e n t bore date A u g u s t

between

he b r o u g h t

me

1 2 t h and w a s as

follows: I a m told t h a t M r . L e w i s has indicated willingness to c o n f e r at once w i t h the a n t h r a c i t e operators in case they invite him to do so. I suggest to you as the Senator f r o m the state most directly concerned t h a t t h e operators will be acting in the public interest if they p r o m p t l y send him a cordial invitation to attend a conference to be called by t h e m at such time and place as they m a y choose. • See Chapter IV.

74

IN

THE

SENATE

w i t h a view t o t h e i m m e d i a t e r e s u m p t i o n of p r o d u c t i o n in the a n t h r a c i t e field. I feel justified in m a k i n g this suggestion, because these o p e r a t o r s have m a n i f e s t e d t h r o u g h o u t a spirit of cooperation w i t h t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n in seeking a f a i r basis upon w h i c h to adjust the anthracite strike. I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t as a basis of c o n f e r e n c e M r . L e w i s stipulates f o r a r e t u r n of t h e m e n at the old w a g e scale and t h e acceptance by t h e o p e r a t o r s of the so-called S h a m o k i n proposals. I n e x t e n d i n g their invitation I hope t h e operators will i n d i c a t e a willingness to take the m e n back at t h e old scale till a commission or o t h e r agency has had a n o p p o r t u n i t y to e x a m i n e into the w h o l e situation. A s to t h e S h a m o k i n proposals, I a m h o p e f u l t h a t M r . L e w i s will r e g a r d t h e m as p r o p e r f o r consideration at the c o n f e r e n c e r a t h e r t h a n as s u b j e c t s of c o m m i t m e n t in advance. I am h o p e f u l of this because I c r e d i t b o t h o p e r a t o r s a n d m i n e r s w i t h a sincere desire to r e s u m e a n t h r a c i t e p r o d u c t i o n a n d I a m sure t h a t n e i t h e r will place any u n n e c e s s a r y obstacle in the w a y of f a i r a d j u s t m e n t . A s to t h e time, I hope t h a t the c o n f e r e n c e will t a k e place in the i m m e d i a t e f u t u r e . N o time is t o be lost. E v e n if p r o d u c t i o n is resumed at once, t h e f u t u r e consequences of past delays m u s t necessarily be serious, b u t , if t h e r e is a n y f u r t h e r delay, w e shall be in d a n g e r of n o t h i n g short of n a t i o n - w i d e disaster. A s to place, I suppose t h a t there m a y be a d v a n t a g e s in m e e t i n g s o m e w h e r e in t h e a n t h r a c i t e region r a t h e r t h a n in W a s h i n g t o n . T h e M a y o r s of several of the i m p o r t a n t cities in t h a t region have assured me of an intense public s e n t i m e n t a m o n g their people in f a v o r of p r o m p t s e t t l e m e n t . It m a y be t h a t in such an a t m o s p h e r e the prospect of quickly reaching a f a i r a d j u s t m e n t w o u l d be b r i g h t . T h i s , of course, is a point to be d e t e r m i n e d by those w h o issue the i n v i t a t i o n .

With such credentials to back me and with the indispensable support of my new colleague, Senator Reed, I was able to settle the strike upon a basis fair to the public, to the miners and to the operators. T h e settlement was followed by the creation of the United States Coal Commission of which John Hays Hammond was the efficient chairman. W h e n the agreement thus negotiated expired and another strike occurred, the then Governor of Penn-

THE

WHITE

HOUSE

FROM

CAPITOL

HILL

75

sylvania, G i f f o r d Pinchot, was quick to perceive an opportunity to gain the powerful political support of the mineworkers. B y championing the cause of the miners and by the adroit use of effective publicity he secured f r o m the operators a 1 0 % increase in the w a g e scale which the operators, of course, promptly passed on to the public in the f o r m of an increased price f o r coal. B y avoiding publicity and by striving to see both sides of the issue we had effected in 1 9 2 2 a settlement which was of no political a d v a n t a g e to me whatever. Pinchot, on the other hand, at the cost of some millions to the public, bound the mine-workers to him with hoops of steel. In the preprimary campaign of 1 9 2 6 the support thus purchased was a p o w e r f u l factor in diverting to Pinchot votes by which I would otherwise have profited as against V a r e . A l l these well-meant mediatorial efforts are in striking contrast to the canny aloofness of M r . Coolidge. A f t e r his succession to the Presidency, he asked President H a r ding's secretary, G e o r g e Christian, to carry on f o r a while until the new administration should have established itself. N o b o d y could be more impressed than Christian by the difference between his two chiefs. " I f I stayed much longer with the new President I should come to love him f o r the way he handles p r o b l e m s , " he said a f t e r a f e w weeks of contact. " O n e d a y , " he added, " I responded to the President's bell and found M r . Coolidge looking out of a window opening on the W h i t e H o u s e grounds while he smoked a big cigar. ' M r . Christian,' said he, 'it is about time f o r many people to begin to come to the White H o u s e to discuss different phases of the coal strike. W h e n anybody comes, if his special problem concerns the state, r e f e r him to the G o v e r n o r of Pennsylvania. If his problem has a national phase, r e f e r

76

IN THE

SENATE

him to the U n i t e d States Coal Commission. In no event bring him to me.' " M r . Coolidge resumed his cigar. A s f a r as he was concerned the strike was over. I n attempting to analyze M r . Coolidge's c h a r a c t e r some critics profess to find him devoid of feeling while others declare him indifferent to public corruption. T h e first count in this indictment can be neither proved nor disproved. In the philosophy of men of the type to which M r . Coolidge conforms feeling is a thing to be hidden. M a n i f e s t e d feeling is, in their estimation, a weakness. One Sunday M r s . Pepper and I had been to church with the President and M r s . Coolidge. A f t e r w a r d s , at the lunch table, he asked what we thought of the sermon. I t s theme was gratitude and the text was " W e r e there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? T h e r e are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this s t r a n g e r . " I commended the sermon but the President s a i d : " I ' m not at all sure that the man who came back and prostrated himself was a bit more grateful than the nine who went about their business. W h e n I appoint a man to office I don't want him to thank me. I want him to go and make g o o d . " T h e r e was much self-revelation in this r e m a r k ; but no basis for inferring insensibility. I f M r . Coolidge never thanked those who had served him faithfully he was merely doing as he would that others should do to him. T h e second count is altogether without foundation. I t is impossible to contemplate M r . Coolidge's rockribbed honesty without realizing that it is absolutely inconsistent with easy-going tolerance of dishonesty in others. In the presence of such dishonesty there is always open to the honest public man a choice between two courses—the utterance o f fierce denunciation and the

77

THE WHITE HOUSE FROM CAPITOL HILL

e x e r t i o n of w h o l e s o m e influence by silently but o b v i o u s l y p u r s u i n g a course of simple rectitude. I t is m e r e m a t t e r of opinion as to which of these courses has the g r e a t e r public v a l u e . R o o s e v e l t w a s a denouncer.

Denunciation

w e n t w e l l w i t h his t e m p e r a m e n t and physique. I f idge h a d

a t t e m p t e d to burst

Cool-

f o r t h in denunciation

it

w o u l d h a v e been an a l m o s t ludicrous p e r f o r m a n c e . Such an e x p l o s i o n w o u l d h a v e been out of k e e p i n g with a philosophy

which substitutes p e r f o r m a n c e f o r

talk.

A

g o o d w a y in which to test the t w o m e t h o d s is w i t h r e f erence to the possibility of

i m i t a t i n g them.

Roosevelt

h a s h a d m a n y little i m i t a t o r s w h o s e denunciation is unr e a l a n d ineffective. N o b o d y could even a t t e m p t to imit a t e C o o l i d g e ' s m e t h o d w i t h o u t being the r e a l thing. A n excellent illustration of the f u t i l i t y of e x a g g e r a t e d denunciation is f o u n d in the f o l l o w i n g p a s s a g e f r o m the D e m o c r a t i c p l a t f o r m of

1928:—

Never in the entire history of the country has there occurred in any given period of time, or indeed in all time put together, such a spectacle of sordid corruption and unabashed rascality as that which has characterized the administration of Federal affairs under eight blighting years of Republican rule. Not the revels of reconstruction nor all the compounded f r a u d s succeeding that evil era have approached in sheer audacity the shocking thieveries and s t a r t l i n g depravities of officials high and low in the public service at W a s h i n g t o n . From cabinet ministers, with their treasonable crimes, to the cheap vendors of official patronage; from the purchasers of seats in the United States Senate to the vulgar g r a f t e r s upon alien trust funds and upon the hospital resources of the disabled veterans of the W o r l d W a r ; from the givers and receivers of stolen funds for Republican campaign purposes to the public men w h o sat by silently consenting and never revealing a fact or u t t e r i n g a word in condemnation, the whole official organization under Republican rule has become saturated with dishonesty defiant of public opinion and actuated only by a partisan desire to perpetuate its control of the Government. A s in the time of Samuel J . T i l d e n , from whom the Presi-

IN THE

78

SENATE

dency was stolen, the watchword of the day should be, " T u r n the rascals out.'' T h i s is the appeal of the D e m o c r a t i c P a r t y to the people of the country. T o this fixed purpose should be devoted every effort and applied every resource of the p a r t y ; to this end every minor difference on non-essential issues should be put aside and a determined and a united fight be made to rescue the G o v e r n m e n t from those who have betrayed their trust by disgracing it.

W h e n t h e R e p u b l i c a n P a r t y went b e f o r e t h e c o u n t r y on e i g h t y e a r s o f p e r f o r m a n c e versus the d e n u n c i a t i o n j u s t q u o t e d , the p o p u l a r j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t f o r the f o r m e r w i t h o u t l e a v i n g the b o x . S o m e cynics p r o f e s s t o see in this result a low s t a n d a r d o f p o p u l a r m o r a l i t y .

Such

critics a r e like little lawyers w h o a l w a y s a c c o u n t f o r an a d v e r s e v e r d i c t by assuming t h a t the j u r y h a s b e e n t a m p e r e d with. L o o k i n g f r o m Capitol Hill toward the W h i t e

House,

one is t e m p t e d to a p p r a i s e the c o n t r i b u t i o n t o n a t i o n a l w e l l - b e i n g m a d e by H a r d i n g and C o o l i d g e . I t is, howe v e r , t o o soon t o h a z a r d m o r e t h a n a guess

respecting

t h e r a n k which h i s t o r y will a c c o r d t o e i t h e r o f

them.

M y own guess is t h a t , as time passes, the a t t a c k on a single p h a s e o f H a r d i n g ' s p r i v a t e life and the d e f a u l t o f t h o s e w h o b e t r a y e d his trust will cease t o c o l o r e s t i m a t e s o f his a c t u a l a c h i e v e m e n t s . A f t e r

his d e a t h

and

after

c e r t a i n b e t r a y a l s o f his trust h a d been r e v e a l e d , I

in-

sisted, in a speech b e f o r e the R e p u b l i c a n C o n v e n t i o n o f t h e S t a t e o f M a i n e , t h a t t h e h o n e s t and t h e r e f o r e

the

b e s t policy w a s t o admit the d e f a u l t s , p l a c e t h e m in t h e i r p r o p e r r e l a t i o n t o a c h i e v e m e n t s and trust the c o u n t r y t o see

the

picture

in

just

perspective.

This,

obviously

e n o u g h , w a s sound c o m m o n sense. I t was, h o w e v e r , reg a r d e d as political heresy by t h o s e v e r s e d in t h e chanics o f

p a r t y politics. Such men, c l e v e r e n o u g h

meat

THE

WHITE

HOUSE

FROM

CAPITOL

HILL

79

tactics, a r e stupid when it c o m e s to s t r a t e g y . I d e r i v e d much a m u s e m e n t f r o m the a t t a c k s m a d e on this speech by those politicians o f my own p a r t y w h o s e only m a x i m is, " C l a i m e v e r y t h i n g and admit n o t h i n g . " T h e y m a n a g e d t o p r e s e n t the D e m o c r a t i c mechanicians with s o m e t h i n g like an issue, which the l a t t e r in t h e i r turn f u m b l e d by indulging in the a b s u r d e x a g g e r a t i o n q u o t e d a b o v e . A s to t h e

Coolidge

administration,

I

always

found

m y s e l f a d m i r i n g the p r a c t i c a l wisdom with which d o m e s tic policies w e r e f a s h i o n e d and c a r r i e d out, while somet i m e s i r r i t a t e d by the lack o f t h a t scientific i m a g i n a t i o n which

is indispensable

in d e a l i n g w i t h

foreign

affairs.

M y guess is t h a t M r . C o o l i d g e will be denied by p o s t e r ity t h e r a n k o f P i t t , but t h a t he will b e r e c o g n i z e d as t h e P a l m e r s t o n o f our political h i s t o r y .

VI T H E

C O M M I T T E E

SYSTEM

T

T E R the general election of 1 9 2 2 , S e n a t o r D a v i d A . R e e d and I , now sitting as elected r a t h e r than appointed members, found our days and nights distracted by the throng of duties which a seat in the U n i t e d States Senate entails. Because of his experience in the W o r l d W a r , I relinquished to my colleague my membership on the M i l i t a r y A f f a i r s Committee and accepted instead an assignment to the Committee on N a v a l A f f a i r s . I n time I became a member of the F o r e i g n R e l a t i o n s C o m m i t t e e , the select Committee on Revision of the L a w s and of the Committee on Printing, in addition to the other committees to which I had first been a s s i g n e d — n a m e l y , B a n k i n g and Currency and the L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s . A s a m e m b e r also of the Steering Committee, I shared the responsibility of recommending to the Republican m a j o r i t y the o r d e r of priority f o r the consideration of legislative measures, and because of membership on N a v a l A f f a i r s became automatically a member ex-officio of the A p p r o priations Committee sitting to f o r m u l a t e the N a v y appropriation bills. E a c h of these committees has its separate and distinctive functions. T h e Committee on F o r e i g n R e l a t i o n s considers all treaties and measures affecting our intercourse with other p o w e r s . T h e Committee on N a v a l A f f a i r s is in c h a r g e of legislation relating to the first line of the national defense. T h e select Committee on R e v i s i o n of 80

THE COMMITTEE

SYSTEM

81

the L a w s w a s charged, in cooperation with the H o u s e Committee, with the duty of collecting and c o d i f y i n g all the general and permanent legislation of C o n g r e s s since 1 7 8 9 . T h e B a n k i n g and Currency Committee is concerned p r i m a r i l y with the w e l f a r e of the national banks and the coining and printing of our money. T h e L i b r a r y Committee of the t w o houses, in addition to its supervision of the g r e a t L i b r a r y of Congress, considers all measures f o r the erection of m e m o r i a l s and statues o r any structures on public ground which will become p a r t of the C a p i t o l group. T h e Committee on Printing, among other functions, supervises contracts f o r the purchase of p a p e r and supplies f o r the G o v e r n m e n t Printing O f f i c e — the largest establishment of its kind in the w o r l d , with a y e a r l y output of money-order application blanks exceeding 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 , and a capacity equal to printing 92,0 0 0 , 0 0 0 income blanks in thirty days, 3 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 books and pamphlets f o r the D e p a r t m e n t of Agriculture alone in one y e a r , and a number of post cards annually which, as some of its statistically-minded officials boast, w o u l d attain a height of two hundred miles if stacked in a single pile. D u r i n g my term in the Senate I w a s f o r a while chairman both of the L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s Committee and of the Committee on Printing. P r o b a b l y the clearest explanation of the nature and effect of committee w o r k can be made by recounting the history of certain significant measures to which attention w a s given during my term. A m o n g the most interesting of these was the Isle of Pines treaty, considered in the F o r e i g n Relations C o m mittee. A s a result of such w o r k as I was able to do tow a r d securing the ratification of this treaty, the Cuban a m b a s s a d o r invited me to H a v a n a , with the promise

82

IN THE

SENATE

that, if I accepted, a national holiday would be declared in my honor. I was never able to put to the test this hospitable offer. T h e Isle o f Pines treaty, when I became a member, had long been staring the Foreign Relations C o m m i t t e e in the face. A f t e r the Spanish W a r a considerable number o f American citizens had settled in the Isle o f Pines, south o f Cuba, in the hope that under the terms o f the treaty of peace with Spain this territory would be appropriated by the United States and that f a r m products could thus be imported into this country without duty. Cuba deeply resented this effort to deprive her o f a valuable island which had been governed f o r years f r o m H a v a n a and was regarded as Cuban territory. T w o treaties were negotiated between Cuba and the U n i t e d S t a t e s ; one ceding to us a coaling station at Guantanamo, the other surrendering to Cuba our claim to the Isle o f Pines. T h e f o r m e r treaty was promptly ratified by the Senate. T h e latter, as a result of the urgency of the American settlers and largely because S e n a t o r Penrose had espoused their cause, had remained unratified f o r more than twenty years. T h i s situation had caused deep resentment against the United States throughout all L a t i n America. I believed our conduct to be indefensible. W e had fought the Spanish W a r to end Spanish oppression. T o substitute American spoliation would have been a tragic outcome. I therefore urged t h a t the t r e a t y be brought out of committee and ratified. A f t e r it had been favorably reported, Senator B o r a h , chairman of the committee, with characteristic fairness, delegated to me the duty of handling the treaty on the floor, as he himself was opposed to ratification. A parliamentary struggle ensued. A filibuster organized by S e n a t o r Copeland, o f

THE

COMMITTEE

SYSTEM

83

N e w Y o r k , was finally worn down, the treaty was ratified, and demonstrations of Cuban approval followed. A n o t h e r example of the complex problems attending consideration of international agreements in the F o r e i g n Relations Committee was offered by the so-called L a u sanne T r e a t y . In the old days, when T u r k e y ' s judicial system gave no guaranty of justice to litigants, the g r e a t powers stipulated that charges against their nationals in T u r k e y should be tried only in the consular court of the nation to which the accused belonged. Such a system, if imposed on a self-respecting nation, is apt to arouse bitter resentment. A f t e r the G r e a t W a r , T u r k e y , at L a u sanne, forced the European powers to surrender these so-called capitulatory rights. W e were not a party to that t r e a t y ; but our State Department negotiated and the President signed a separate Lausanne T r e a t y with T u r key in which we made the same concessions as had been made by the Allied Powers. T h e Allies had, however, exacted f r o m T u r k e y a promise of f a i r treatment f o r A r m e n i a . Our treaty was silent on that point—wisely, in my opinion. If Armenia were ill treated it would be the business of the Allies to protect her, and we could cooperate with them or not, as we might decide. H a d we, however, exacted a separate promise, and had that promise been broken, we should have had to acquiesce ingloriously or else resort to arms. T h e treaty l e f t us f r e e to help A r m e n i a , but without commitment. I t should h a v e been ratified. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , however, the Democratic Convention in 1 9 2 4 had declared against ratification, thus making it a party issue. Still more unfortunately, a l a r g e body of Protestant clergymen fell an easy prey to propaganda hostile to the treaty and, as so o f t e n happens, succeeded in disguising a question of international

84

IN THE

SENATE

policy as a m o r a l issue. T h e combined opposition of D e m o c r a t s and clergy p r o v e d f a t a l , and we never w e r e able to muster the two-thirds m a j o r i t y necessary f o r ratification. Since the old treaty of 1 8 3 9 has been a b r o g a t e d , we w e r e thus l e f t without normal diplomatic relationship with T u r k e y , to the g r e a t d i s a d v a n t a g e of A m e r i c a n business men and of our missionaries in the N e a r E a s t . T h i s d i s a d v a n t a g e w a s mitigated only by T u r k e y ' s willingness to g i v e us temporarily the rights of the most f a v o r e d nation. I recall one v e r y interesting situation which d e v e l o p e d in the F o r e i g n Relations Committee out of the lengthy discussions over recognition of R u s s i a . S e n a t o r B o r a h introduced and had r e f e r r e d to the committee a resolution advising the President to extend recognition to the Russian Soviet Republic. In committee he u r g e d that public hearings be held on his resolution. I opposed such hearings on the ground that nothing w a s likely to be developed which would change the attitude of our G o v e r n m e n t and that only e m b a r r a s s m e n t to the A d ministration w o u l d result. E v e r y b o d y else w a s f a v o r a b l e to the hearings and they w e r e o r d e r e d held. Doubtless as a mild measure of discipline f o r my opposition, Senator L o d g e , then chairman of the committee, appointed me a member of the subcommittee to conduct the hearings. S e v e r a l such hearings w e r e held with S e n a t o r B o r a h presiding. Witnesses f r o m the State D e partment presented an admirably p r e p a r e d documentary case, establishing to my satisfaction that disturbing and dangerous p r o p a g a n d a is inseparable f r o m the g o v e r n mental activities of the Soviet. T h e n , while the hearings were still in progress, Lenin's death w a s announced in the papers. A t the next hearing the chairman announced

THE COMMITTEE

SYSTEM

85

that L e n i n ' s death had introduced a factor of such uncertainty into the Soviet situation that it would be unnecessary, f o r the time being, to take any f u r t h e r testimony. H e a r i n g s were suspended and during my term in the Senate nothing more w a s h e a r d of the m a t t e r . In point of fact the only organization that could by any possibility be recognized is the " U n i o n of Socialist Soviet Republics." W e must take all or none. P r o b a b l y the most important measures b e f o r e the Foreign Relations Committee during my term were those dealing with the so-called W o r l d Court. Past and present developments concerning this interesting institution will be l a t e r discussed.* Consideration of treaties, which m a y have tremendous influence on our internal policies as well a s our international affairs, occupied much of the committee's time. A n impressive example of such influence is seen in the merchant-marine problem which confronted the Senate during the g r e a t e r p a r t of my term. Of the value of a merchant marine and its worth in the development of t r a d e there can be no doubt. T h e problem we w e r e facing w a s to make it function. A t that time the merchant m a r i n e w a s bottled up and there w e r e only four w a y s of escape. One w a s by cutting an opening through the restrictive b a r r i e r s built by the so-called L a Follette Act. Despite the assertions of shipowners and o p e r a t i n g companies that the L a Follette Act m a k e s it impossible to compete with the cheaper and less restricted f o r e i g n cargo carriers, and despite the pleas that A m e r i c a n shipowners are hampered by a high w a g e scale and by onerous restrictions, it is perfectly clear that there can be no repeal of the L a Follette Act. T h a t w a y out w a s closed. A subsidy would have helped the merchant • See Chapter VIII.

86

IN THE

SENATE

marine, but the f a r m e r s in the W e s t and M i d d l e W e s t w o u l d not consent to it, and their senators held the balance of p o w e r . T h e second channel w a s thus blocked. A possible third w a y out w a s so to regulate rail rates to the seaboard that a differential should be g i v e n to g o o d s intended f o r export in A m e r i c a n ships. T h e opposition of the carriers obstructed this channel. T h e r e seemed to me to be only one other w a y to enable the merchant marine to put to s e a — a n d that was a p r e f e r e n tial tariff in f a v o r of goods brought into this country in A m e r i c a n bottoms. M y study of the history of A m e r i c a n shipping convinced me that it was this v e r y system which, within a short space of y e a r s f o l l o w i n g the winning of our independence, had built up our shipping industry and l a t e r made possible our naval successes in the W a r of 1 8 1 2 . I t is at this point that one m a y perceive the complexity of treaty problems. In our consideration of the m e r c h a n t marine we discovered that the State D e p a r t m e n t , intent upon establishing cordial relations with other countries, had a p p r o v e d f o r general use a f o r m of treaty that w o u l d b a r the U n i t e d States f r o m laying a p r e f e r e n t i a l tariff and had, in f a c t , negotiated with G e r m a n y a t r e a t y in this f o r m . In committee this problem was c a r e f u l l y considered. I was one of those w h o strongly maintained the position that the point should be s a f e g u a r d e d b e f o r e the t r e a t y became operative. A f t e r the difficulty w a s m a d e clear, we did succeed in having G e r m a n y accept the principle of a p r e f e r e n t i a l tariff to the extent of an agreement not to protest should the U n i t e d States at any f u t u r e time discriminate in f a v o r of goods brought in on A m e r i c a n ships. T h u s a w a y was kept open to avail our-

THE COMMITTEE

SYSTEM

87

selves o f the f o u r t h outlet, and so t o m a k e it possible f o r b o a t s flying the A m e r i c a n flag t o sail the high seas. L e g i s l a t i o n d e a l i n g with naval affairs is b o t h i n t e r e s t ing and i m p o r t a n t . T h e w o r k o f the C o m m i t t e e on N a v a l A f f a i r s puts its m e m b e r s in close c o n t a c t with tional c o m p l i c a t i o n s resulting f r o m a t t e m p t s t o

internareduce

the n u m b e r o f fighting ships and t o r e g u l a t e a r m a m e n t s , as well as with d o m e s t i c c o n t r o v e r s i e s c o n c e r n i n g

the

r e l a t i v e values o f cruisers and b a t t l e s h i p s , and o f s u r f a c e c r a f t and a i r c r a f t . T o increase my own k n o w l e d g e o f o u r naval e s t a b l i s h m e n t , and thus give a g r e a t e r m e a s u r e o f service to t h e c o m m i t t e e , I m a d e inspections o f vessels, navy y a r d s and submarines and flew as a p a s s e n g e r in N a v y c o m b a t planes. O n e o f the widely discussed bills b e f o r e the c o m m i t t e e during my m e m b e r s h i p was the m e a s u r e p r o v i d i n g

for

p r o m o t i o n s in t h e N a v y . F o r y e a r s t h e r e has been f r i c tion o v e r the limit and r a t e o f p r o m o t i o n o f naval officers o f the line and o f n a v a l officers o f the staff. A t b o t t o m the difficulty is t h a t those who like to associate t h e r a n k o f a d m i r a l with the sea dogs uf history l o o k askance at the p r o m o t i o n t o this r a n k o f officers in the e n g i n e e r i n g , medical and o t h e r b r a n c h e s o f the service. I was c h a r g e d with the h a n d l i n g on the floor o f a bill p r e p a r e d in consultation with t h e N a v y D e p a r t m e n t to establish a f o r mula f o r c o n c u r r e n t p r o m o t i o n s between line and staff, and t o place t h e r a n k o f a d m i r a l within r e a c h o f officers o f the line and o f officers o f some o f t h e staff d e p a r t m e n t s only. M e a s u r e s such as this are illustrations o f bills upon which the S e n a t e does n o t divide on p a r t y lines.

The

N a v y and the A r m y h a v e t h e i r s u p p o r t e r s and t h e i r det r a c t o r s on b o t h sides o f the aisle. O n e o f those t o w h o m

88

IN THE

SENATE

the N a v y o w e s most is S e n a t o r Swanson, of V i r g i n i a , a consistent a d v o c a t e of reasonable n a v a l preparedness. T h e g r e a t appropriations bills, of which the N a v a l A p p r o p r i a t i o n s Bill is one, sometimes give rise to acute differences between Senate and H o u s e . W h e n the H o u s e bill has been radically amended in the Senate and conf e r e e s meet to consider the problem thus presented, heated discussion o f t e n ensues, and the Senate conferees and the H o u s e conferees eye one another across the table like F r e n c h and G e r m a n delegates at V e r s a i l l e s . A n acute difference of this sort arose in my time in connection with the cruiser-building p r o g r a m . President C o o l i d g e and the H o u s e w e r e opposed to beginning w o r k on certain 10,000-ton cruisers, the building of which had previously been a u t h o r i z e d . T h e Senate, feeling sure that, w h a t e v e r limitation of a r m a m e n t s might come, these ships w o u l d be well within o u r quota, inserted by amendment the necessary a p p r o p r i a t i o n item. Senator H a l e , of M a i n e , the diligent and able chairman of the Senate Committee on N a v a l A f f a i r s , Senator Swanson, of V i r g i n i a , the ranking D e m o c r a t on the committee, and I, as ranking Republican m e m b e r , were a m o n g the Senate conferees. W e had the h a r d task of maintaining our position against both the P r e s i d e n t and the H o u s e , but the soundness of the Senate v i e w w a s finally recognized and the a p p r o p r i a tion w a s m a d e . S o m e of the public comment on my p a r t in this w o r k convinced me that it is o f t e n necessary to be charged with bloodthirstiness and a militaristic spirit to secure even the minimum requisites of national defense. T h e w o r k of the select Committee on Revision of the L a w s , though technical and laborious, w a s of less general interest. I t will undoubtedly surprise many to learn that a single v o l u m e can contain all the general and per-

THE COMMITTEE

SYSTEM

89

manent legislation passed by C o n g r e s s since 1 7 8 9 . T h e volume is, of course, a l a r g e one, and contains, as now printed, 1 7 1 8 pages. T h e p r e p a r a t i o n of this code was a tremendous undertaking. W h e n introduced in the f o r m of a bill, the code was a f o r m i d a b l e document. Senate rules p r o v i d e that any member can demand that a pending measure be read f r o m beginning to end. B y exercising or threatening to exercise this right, S e n a t o r H o w e l l , of N e b r a s k a , succeeded in preventing action upon a voluminous bill f o r the payment to A m e r i c a n claimants of the old French Spoliation Claims. A n y one senator could simil a r l y have prevented a vote upon the bill to authorize the c o d e ; a threatening possibility which we f a c e d throughout the whole period of the bill's legislative history. Senator E r n s t , of Kentucky, chairman of the committee, had c h a r g e d me with the responsibility of explaining the bill and bringing it to a vote. E v e r y serious objection had to be met, either by concession or by s a t i s f a c t o r y answer, and it w a s a nervous time f o r those of us who had l a b o r e d long and h a r d upon the measure. L a r g e l y through the cooperation of Senator W a l s h , of M o n t a n a , and, in the H o u s e , of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e F i t z g e r a l d , of Ohio, the bill was passed, and the U n i t e d States C o d e is now an indispensable tool in every court and law office. In the B a n k i n g and Currency C o m m i t t e e my most interesting and important experience centered on the socalled M c F a d d e n - P e p p e r Bill, which w a s intended to liberalize the charters of national banks, to reconcile conflicting views on branch banking and to extend the charters of F e d e r a l R e s e r v e B a n k s which w e r e soon to expire by limitation. Simultaneously with its appearance in the Senate, it was introduced in the H o u s e by Representative L o u i s T . M c F a d d e n , of P e n n s y l v a n i a , the able

IN THE

90

SENATE

and e x p e r i e n c e d c h a i r m a n o f the H o u s e C o m m i t t e e

on

B a n k i n g and C u r r e n c y . I p r e s i d e d at m a n y public S e n a t e h e a r i n g s on this m e a s u r e w h e n it w a s in c o m m i t t e e , and h a d c h a r g e o f it on the S e n a t e

floor.

T h e prospect

of

b r i n g i n g it t o a v o t e w a s d i m m e d by the o b s t r u c t i o n o f S e n a t o r B o b L a F o l l e t t e and o t h e r s w h o w e r e s u p p o r t ing the M c N a r y - H a u g e n B i l l , f a m o u s f o r its h i g h l y controversial

scheme

of

farm

relief.

I

had

just

about

decided to r e s o r t t o c l o t u r e and h a d a p e t i t i o n t o close the d e b a t e when

signed by a sufficient n u m b e r

Vice-President

Dawes,

perceiving

of

senators,

the

deadlock,

sent f o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e o p p o s i n g g r o u p s . W e m e t one e v e n i n g in his r o o m . B y t h e s h e e r f o r c e o f his personality

he

forced

an

agreement

that

both

measures

should be v o t e d upon. T h i s a g r e e m e n t w a s c a r r i e d out. B o t h bills p a s s e d . T h e M c N a r y - H a u g e n Bill w a s v e t o e d by P r e s i d e n t C o o l i d g e while t h e M c F a d d e n - P e p p e r

Bill

b e c a m e law. T o G e n e r a l D a w e s m o r e t h a n to any o t h e r one m a n c r e d i t is due f o r t h e extension o f the

Federal

Reserve charters. T h e f a c t t h a t t h e L i b r a r y o f C o n g r e s s C o m m i t t e e was c h a r g e d with t h e c a r e and p r e s e r v a t i o n n o t only o f

art

and l i t e r a r y t r e a s u r e s but, in some d e g r e e , o f the physical b e a u t y o f W a s h i n g t o n as well, m a d e my c h a i r m a n ship a m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g e x p e r i e n c e . T h e c e n t r a l o f the f a m o u s l ' E n f a n t P l a n f o r b e a u t i f y i n g

feature

Washing-

ton is t h e M a l l , the m a g n i f i c e n t p a r k w a y which will extend f r o m the C a p i t o l past t h e W a s h i n g t o n and the L i n c o l n

Memorial,

and t h e n

sweep

Monument over

the

M e m o r i a l B r i d g e t o the G r a v e o f t h e U n k n o w n S o l d i e r at A r l i n g t o n . A t the C a p i t o l end the M a l l is o b s t r u c t e d by the B o t a n i c a l G a r d e n , which will soon be m o v e d t o a n e i g h b o r i n g a n d m o r e eligible site. I s h a l l n e v e r f o r g e t

THE COMMITTEE

SYSTEM

91

t h e dismay with which I l e a r n e d one d a y t h a t

in t h e

H o u s e an item had been i n s e r t e d in an a p p r o p r i a t i o n bill providing f o r the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n and p e r m a n e n t l o c a t i o n o f the garden in its o b s t r u c t i v e p o s i t i o n . T h e bill w a s a b o u t t o pass. I f e l t sure t h a t t h e B u d g e t Officer a n d t h e President h a d a p p r o v e d t h e i t e m w i t h o u t r e a l i z i n g significance. I h a i l e d a taxi, h u r r i e d t o t h e W h i t e

its

House

and explained the s i t u a t i o n to P r e s i d e n t H a r d i n g . H e at once directed his s e c r e t a r y , G e o r g e C h r i s t i a n , t o call up Representative M a d d e n , chairman o f the H o u s e

Com-

m i t t e e on A p p r o p r i a t i o n s . T h i s w a s done, and as a result o f their telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n the i t e m w a s stricken out and the integrity o f t h e M a l l a s s u r e d . Another

accomplishment

of

the L i b r a r y

Committee

during that p e r i o d w a s t o open t h e way f o r t h e development of a g r e a t n a t i o n a l a r b o r e t u m , f o r which t h e latitude of W a s h i n g t o n is ideal. T h e v a l l e y o f the A n a c o s t i a R i v e r , which flows t h r o u g h t h e D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a and empties into the P o t o m a c , possesses a soil

particularly

f a v o r a b l e f o r such a d e v e l o p m e n t . I f this v a l l e y h a d n o t been a p p r o p r i a t e d f o r this use, it soon w o u l d h a v e bec o m e the scene o f a building o p e r a t i o n . I l o o k b a c k with satisfaction

n o t unmixed with

amusement

at t h e

long

struggle we h a d t o g e t f o r t h e b i l l — w h i c h I i n t r o d u c e d at the request o f M r s . F r a n k B . N o y e s — t h e a p p r o v a l o f the Budget Officer and o f t h e P r e s i d e n t . I t w a s a s t r u g g l e between the laudable desire

f o r e c o n o m y and t h e still

m o r e laudable d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o p r o v i d e f o r W a s h i n g t o n w h a t will in time b e c o m e one o f its m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g and i m p o r t a n t institutions. A f t e r

m a n y vicissitudes t h e

w a s passed and the S e c r e t a r y the necessary a u t h o r i t y t o m e n t use.

of Agriculture

save

the

land

for

bill

received govern-

92

IN THE

SENATE

W i t h the development o f the L i b r a r y o f Congress itself, the committee was equally concerned. D r . H e r b e r t Putnam, the talented and efficient librarian, has been f o r years developing plans to make this great institution not merely a storehouse of books but a radiating center of culture. Individual donors, in increasing numbers, were tendering endowments for various related activities. A conspicuous instance was the generous offer o f M r s . Archibald Coolidge to build an auditorium f o r c h a m b e r music and to provide f o r the rendering there o f the best that the world has to offer. T h e problem b e f o r e my committee was to provide a legal way to accept such gifts and to administer them effectively when made. W e evolved the idea o f the L i b r a r y of Congress T r u s t Fund, and I embodied it in a carefully drafted bill. T h i s was duly passed, and I learn from D r . Putnam that the machinery thus set up is working to his entire satisfaction. A p a r t f r o m bills requiring my special attention either as their sponsor or as a member of the committee to which they were assigned, many measures of m a j o r importance were b e f o r e the Senate during my membership. T a x reduction—to my mind one of the great and gratifying accomplishments of the past decade—impressed itself on me as the outcome of careful planning, excellent teamwork and good housekeeping. T h e businesslike handling of American finance by the Secretary of the T r e a s u r y , Andrew W . M e l l o n , the budget system and the cooperation o f Congress brought about a surplus sufficiently large to permit o f material lowering o f taxes. T h o s e o f us who participated in the Senate's share of the undertaking and who helped frame the legislation that contributed to it came to regard the Coolidge Administration's success

THE COMMITTEE

SYSTEM

93

in reducing taxes as one of the constructive achievements of the reconstruction period. A n experience described to me by M r . M e l l o n illustrates the interest which President Coolidge showed f r o m the beginning in the financial program of his Administration. Immediately a f t e r M r . Coolidge became President, M r . M e l l o n called on him with a written resignation in his pocket, as is customary among cabinet officers when a new C h i e f Executive assumes office. H e is thus assured o f complete freedom of choice in the selection of his official family. A f t e r greeting the Secretary of the T r e a s u r y cordially, M r . Coolidge plunged into a discussion o f the entire financial system o f the Government and displayed an accuracy and breadth o f knowledge which took M r . M e l l o n by surprise. T h e interview was so interesting t h a t not until he reached the anteroom a f t e r its conclusion did M r . M e l l o n remember that he had not offered his resignation. Reentering M r . Coolidge's office he s a i d : " M r . President, I neglected to tell you that I had come to r e s i g n . " " F o r g e t i t , " said the President. And, fortunately f o r the country, M r . M e l l o n did. I t is impossible to repress a smile when f r o m time to time some sniper undertakes to minimize M r . M e l l o n ' s masterly T r e a s u r y operations by describing them as sums in simple arithmetic. One o f the difficult positions in which a senator can find himself is when his commitment to a certain piece o f legislation comes in conflict with his sense of duty to support the President as a responsible executive and the leader o f the party. An interesting illustration of this situation occurred in the case of the measure f o r an increase of pay to postal employes, enacted early in my

94

IN THE

SENATE

t e r m . I h a d g i v e n m y p l e d g e to t h e p o s t a l e m p l o y e s o f the G o v e r n m e n t t h a t I would s u p p o r t the bill t o i n c r e a s e t h e i r s a l a r i e s . A c c o r d i n g l y I v o t e d f o r a bill d e s i g n e d t o accomplish this p u r p o s e . T h e bill was, h o w e v e r ,

vetoed

by the P r e s i d e n t on t h e g r o u n d t h a t it failed t o m a k e provision f o r t h e r a i s i n g o f p o s t a l r a t e s to m e e t the increased expenditure. President

when

I

f e l t it my duty to s u p p o r t

an unsuccessful

attempt

the

was made

o v e r r i d e his v e t o . I r e d e e m e d m y pledge t o t h e

to

men,

h o w e v e r , by t a k i n g p a r t at once in f o r m u l a t i n g and enacting a substitute m e a s u r e c o n t a i n i n g the requisite revenue f e a t u r e s . Such a m e a s u r e w a s finally p a s s e d and received presidential

approval.

T h e effort t o pass a bill a g a i n s t d e t e r m i n e d opposition o f t e n b r i n g s on a b a t t l e o f wits. O n e such conflict occurred when I h a d c h a r g e o f a H o u s e bill f o r the payment t o B e t h l e h e m

S t e e l w o r k e r s o f the w a r t i m e

which h a d been a w a r d e d

t o them by the W a r

pay

Labor

B o a r d . T h e c o n d i t i o n o f S e n a t e business w a s such t h a t the bill could n o t be c o n s i d e r e d except by u n a n i m o u s consent. O n e s e n a t o r o b j e c t e d e v e r y time the c a l e n d a r w a s called. F i n a l l y he a g r e e d t o allow the bill t o be considered p r o v i d e d an a m e n d m e n t was m a d e which r e a l l y def e a t e d t h e w h o l e p u r p o s e o f the bill. I a g r e e d and t h e bill was p a s s e d as a m e n d e d . I t then went t o a c o n f e r e n c e committee of the two H o u s e s . T h e

conferees

rejected

the d e s t r u c t i v e a m e n d m e n t and the bill was r e p o r t e d b a c k t o both H o u s e s in its o r i g i n a l f o r m . Since a c o n f e r e n c e report

is

privileged

and

its

consideration

cannot

be

blocked by a single o b j e c t i o n , the r e p o r t w a s c o n s i d e r e d , the bill w a s p a s s e d and the w o r k e r s got their pay. O n e o f m y m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g experiences while in the S e n a t e o c c u r r e d when t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d

THE COMMITTEE

SYSTEM

95

States invited me to make the a r g u m e n t in support of the p o w e r of C o n g r e s s in a case then pending b e f o r e it. W h e n C o n g r e s s by law creates an office, prescribes its duties, fixes its term, provides that the incumbent shall be appointed by the President by and with the consent of the Senate, and that he shall be r e m o v a b l e by the President only with the consent of both H o u s e s or of the Senate alone, m a y the President ignore the requirement last specified and remove the officer at his own p l e a s u r e ? T h a t question has been debated ever since 1 7 8 9 , and was be^ f o r e the C o u r t in the case in question. Sixty y e a r s a g o President J o h n s o n held that the executive had an inherent right of removal and he r e f u s e d to be bound by a restriction of this sort in the T e n u r e of Office A c t . H i s d i s r e g a r d of this act w a s the most important charge against him when he w a s impeached by the H o u s e of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . W h e n the B u d g e t A c t w a s passed in President W i l s o n ' s time, it p r o v i d e d that the B u d g e t Officer should be r e m o v a b l e only by impeachment or by the concurrent action of both H o u s e s . President W i l s o n vetoed the bill because he, too, championed unrestrained executive p o w e r s . W h e n , h o w e v e r , the present B u d g e t A c t was passed in President H a r d i n g ' s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , he signed it. President W i l s o n , true to his convictions, had r e m o v e d M y e r s , a p o s t m a s t e r , without the consent of the Senate, although the act creating the office which M y e r s held required such consent as essential to a valid r e m o v a l . M y e r s sued f o r his s a l a r y . T h u s the question, a f t e r one hundred and thirty-seven y e a r s of Congressional debate, was f o r the first time squarely presented to the S u p r e m e Court of the U n i t e d States. T h e case w a s argued f o r the President by the H o n o r a b l e J a m e s M .

96

IN

THE

SENATE

Beck, then Solicitor-General, while I represented the Congress. T h e amount of study and historical research involved in p r e p a r i n g and a r g u i n g the case was very g r e a t . In recognition of this I was honored by receiving the thanks of the Court, thus expressed in the opinion of the Chief Justice: Before closing this opinion, we wish to express the obligation of the C o u r t to M r . Pepper for his able brief and argument as a friend of the C o u r t . Undertaken at our request, our obligation is none the less if we find ourselves obliged to take a view adverse to his. T h e strong presentation of arguments against the conclusion of the C o u r t is of the utmost value in enabling the C o u r t to satisfy itself that it has fully considered all that can be said.

T h i s recognition was the more highly appreciated because, as I am told, it w a s the first expression of this sort in the Court's history. A divided court, by a vote of six justices to three, decided in f a v o r of the President's power to d i s r e g a r d the legislative restriction and to remove an officer at pleasure. I venture the prediction that the question involved in the case has not been disposed of f o r all time. T h e views announced by the dissenting justices will sooner or later have to be reckoned with.* • M r . Justice Holmes, M r . Justice McReynolds, and M r . Justice B r a n deis. See 272 U. S., p. 52

(1926).

VII THE

FILIBUSTER

O

N E of the perplexities which d i s t u r b the visitor in the gallery is t h a t quaint f e a t u r e of senate p r o c e d u r e k n o w n as the Filibuster. L e t it be supposed t h a t the business officially b e f o r e the Senate a t a given time is a bill d e a l i n g with some i m p o r t a n t b u t prosaic subject. A bill to a m e n d the N a t i o n a l B a n k i n g Act m a y serve as an illustration. A b a n k p r e s i d e n t deeply interested in the m e a s u r e t a k e s his seat in the g a l l e r y t o listen to the d e b a t e and to a w a i t the vote. T h e s e n a t o r w h o h a p p e n s to h a v e t h e floor is comm e n t i n g a t l e n g t h on some recent act o r u t t e r a n c e of the P r e s i d e n t o r of a cabinet officer and is criticizing t h e m in h a r s h or even in violent t e r m s . T h e visitor w a i t s a r e a s o n a b l e time f o r the speaker t o r e f e r to b a n k i n g or t o m a k e s o m e application of his r e m a r k s to the question b e f o r e the Senate. H e waits in vain. T h e s e n a t o r is n o t discussing t h e b a n k i n g bill and h a s no idea of d o i n g so. W h y is he n o t called to o r d e r ? H e is not out of o r d e r . T h e r e is no rule of relevancy in the Senate. U n l e s s by consent a special regulation has been m a d e applicable to the p e n d i n g question, any s e n a t o r m a y speak on any subject he pleases and as long as he w a n t s . " W h y not a m e n d t h e r u l e s ? " t h e visitor inquires. H e is told t h a t the Senate has always hesitated t o a d o p t a rule e m p o w e r i n g the p r e s i d i n g officer to decide w h e t h e r or not the re97

98

IN THE

SENATE

m a r k s o f a s e n a t o r are r e l e v a n t t o t h e issue. O n an app e a l t o the S e n a t e f r o m a decision t h a t the r e m a r k s a r e i r r e l e v a n t , a b a r e m a j o r i t y m i g h t , it is said, sustain a g a g ruling in t h e crisis o f an i m p o r t a n t d e b a t e . T h e v i s i t o r is perhaps

a l s o r e m i n d e d by a s e n a t o r

who

has

accom-

panied him into the g a l l e r y t h a t t h e S e n a t e is, o t h e r things, a f o r u m in which s e n a t o r s m a y

among

ventilate

t h e i r views at pleasure and on any s u b j e c t ; t h a t while f o r b i d d e n by senate rule t o r e f e r offensively t o any s t a t e o f t h e U n i o n o r t o impute u n w o r t h y m o t i v e s o r conduct t o one a n o t h e r , t h e r e is no such rule r e s t r a i n i n g w h e n they criticize o r a t t a c k o t h e r officers o f m e n t o r even t h e P r e s i d e n t

himself;

them

Govern-

and t h a t ,

in

the

opinion o f many, this liberty o f speech is in t h e n a t u r e o f a s a f e t y - v a l v e and may even be at t i m e s a substitute f o r revolution. " H a d

t h e r e been a S e n a t e in R u s s i a , "

the

v i s i t o r m a y be told, " t h e fires t h a t s m o u l d e r e d long and b u r s t f o r t h all at once and with such t e r r i b l e effect m i g h t have

spent

themselves

harmlessly

one by one

and

at

intervals." T h e v i s i t o r w h o is i n t e r e s t e d in t h e b a n k i n g bill possibly not convinced by this h i s t o r i c a l speculation. is apt to enquire

what

is the p r o b a b l e

motive

is He

which

a c t u a t e s the speaking s e n a t o r to launch his a t t a c k upon t h e P r e s i d e n t and cabinet at this p a r t i c u l a r time. I f t h e a n s w e r is t h a t the s e n a t o r h a s no special hostility to the b a n k i n g bill, o r is actually in f a v o r o f its p a s s a g e ,

the

only r e a s o n a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n o f his course is t h a t he is s p e a k i n g e i t h e r f r o m sincere conviction o r f o r p a r t i s a n political effect. I f , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e r e is reason t o believe t h a t he is v e h e m e n t l y o p p o s e d t o the pending bill a n d f e a r s t h a t a m a j o r i t y will v o t e in its f a v o r , t h e r e is s o m e g r o u n d f o r i n f e r r i n g t h a t t h e s p e a k e r is e n g a g e d

THE

FILIBUSTER

99

in a filibuster against the m e a s u r e ; i.e., is using the right of debate, not to c l a r i f y the issue or to enforce his own views, but to postpone as long as he can the opportunity of the m a j o r i t y to enact the measure. It is, of course, a well-known f a c t that filibusters have been o r g a n i z e d and carried on at various times both by individual senators and by political parties and o f t e n with deadly effect. E s p e c i a l l y when every second y e a r the l i f e of a C o n g r e s s must end on M a r c h 4th, it is possible f o r a wello r g a n i z e d g r o u p so to maneuver during the closing d a y s of the session as to make a vote altogether impossible. " I s there no rule," the persistent visitor asks, " b y which a m a j o r i t y of the Senate can f o r c e a measure to a v o t e when they honestly believe that the delay in reaching a v o t e is due to the existence of a filibuster r a t h e r than to a bona fide desire f o r f u r t h e r discussion?" H i s attention is called to Senate R u l e X X I I , which is as follows: I f at a n y time a motion, signed by sixteen Senators, to b r i n g to a close the debate upon any pending measure is presented to the Senate, the presiding officer shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour a f t e r the Senate meets, on the f o l l o w i n g c a l e n d a r d a y but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the Secretary call the roll, and, upon the ascert a i n m e n t that a q u o r u m is present, the presiding officer shall, w i t h o u t debate, submit to the Senate by an a y e - a n d - n a y v o t e the question: " I s it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be b r o u g h t to a close ? " A n d if that question shall be decided in the a f f i r m a t i v e b y a t w o - t h i r d s vote of those voting, then said measure shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed o f . T h e r e a f t e r no S e n a t o r shall be entitled to speak in all m o r e than one h o u r on the pending measure, the a m e n d m e n t s thereto, and motions a f f e c t i n g the same, and it shall be the d u t y of the p r e s i d i n g officer to keep the time of each S e n a t o r w h o speaks.

100

IN THE

SENATE

Except by unanimous consent, no amendment shall be in order after the vote to bring the debate to a close, unless the same has been presented and read prior to that time. N o dilatory motion or dilatory amendment or amendment not germane shall be in order. Points of order, including questions of relevancy, and appeals from the decision of the presiding officer shall be decided w i t h o u t debate.

T h i s rule, it will be observed, provides a m e t h o d by which two-thirds of the Senate can t e r m i n a t e debate and secure a vote. T h i s is cloture. I t is then explained to the visitor that it was to substitute a fifty-one percent cloture f o r a sixty-six percent cloture t h a t G e n e r a l Dawes, when Vice-President, launched a campaign. " W i l l the campaign eventually be successful?" the visitor inquires. H i s senatorial f r i e n d is not sure. T h e change is not p o p u l a r in the Senate but it is very popular at home. W h y the distinction? Because most senators think t h a t they b e t t e r t h a n their constituents understand how the Senate should be r u n ; while practically all constituents are sure that t h e i r own view of the subject is the correct one. If p o p u l a r opinion is definitely and persistently in f a v o r of m a j o r i t y cloture, of course, in the end the action of the Senate will be responsive to it. W h i l e the visitor interested in the p r o m p t passage of the banking bill is praying that m o r e strength be given to those who seek the r e f o r m , it will be well to review the arguments advanced on either side of the proposal. T h e Senate, under the Constitution, h a s several imp o r t a n t duties to discharge. I t occasionally sits as a court of impeachment. I t must advise and consent to the appointment by the President of various sorts of public officers. I t must p e r f o r m a like function in respect to the ratification of treaties negotiated by the Executive. I t

THE

FILIBUSTER

101

must share with the H o u s e of Representatives responsibility f o r all the legislation of Congress. T h e filibuster may be resorted to in order to prevent confirmation of a presidential appointment, in o r d e r to block the ratification of a treaty or in o r d e r to d e f e a t a legislative measure. M y observation is that, in the case of nominations, the d a n g e r is apparent rather than real. Sooner o r later a vote is certain to be reached. T h e intervening debate helps u n i f o r m l y to clear the air. I f it were to become evident that obstruction was being attempted R u l e X X I I might be successfully invoked as it stands. T h e r e are always some minority senators w h o are reluctant to embarrass the President in the m a t t e r of appointments. Such action sets a precedent f o r which they themselves might suffer when political fortunes have changed. In the case of a treaty, ratification requires the concurrence of two-thirds of the senators present. I f twothirds are actually e a g e r to vote f o r ratification, R u l e X X I I as it stands will effectually serve their purpose. I f a 5 1 percent cloture rule w e r e in effect, I can think of only one situation in which a vote could be f o r c e d more effectively than under Rule X X I I . T h a t is the situation in which some senators intend to vote f o r ratification in case a v o t e is reached but are sufficiently in doubt about the merits of the treaty to p r e f e r that no vote be taken at all. M y judgment is that a bare m a j o r i t y ought not to h a v e it in their p o w e r to accomplish ratification by f o r c i n g these reluctant senators to vote. U n l e s s the treaty can command the convinced support of the constitutional m a j o r i t y it had better lapse. D u r i n g the special session of M a r c h of 1 9 2 5 the question arose w h e t h e r or not the Senate w o u l d a d v i s e and

102

IN THE

SENATE

c o n s e n t t o t h e ratification of t h e t r e a t y w i t h C u b a conc e r n i n g title to t h e Isle of Pines. I h a d been p u t in c h a r g e of t h e m e a s u r e on t h e floor by t h e C h a i r m a n of t h e C o m m i t t e e on F o r e i g n R e l a t i o n s . A f t e r a d e b a t e u p o n the m e r i t s it b e c a m e evident t h a t a m i n o r i t y filibuster w a s b e i n g d e v e l o p e d . I t w a s equally e v i d e n t , h o w e v e r , t h a t t w o - t h i r d s of the S e n a t e w e r e r e a d y t o v o t e in f a v o r of r a t i f i c a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y we p r e p a r e d a f o r m of m o t i o n f o r c l o t u r e u n d e r R u l e X X I I a n d h a d it signed by t h e requisite n u m b e r of S e n a t o r s . I n t h e belief t h a t we w e r e sure of t h e v o t e s n e e d e d f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n , we held t h e m o t i o n in r e s e r v e f o r use in case t h e filibuster could n o t o t h e r w i s e be s u p p r e s s e d . I n p o i n t of f a c t , it g r a d u a l l y flickered and w e n t o u t so t h a t the m o t i o n w a s n e v e r actually p r e s e n t e d . But t h e incident s h o w s t h a t c l o t u r e is a v a i l a b l e w h e n t h e case f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n is c l e a r . A n d m y own j u d g m e n t is t h a t , if t h e case is n o t clear, ratification by m a j o r i t y cloture w o u l d be u n d e s i r a b l e . A s applicable to t r e a t i e s , t h e r e f o r e , as well as t o executive n o m i n a t i o n s , I s h o u l d n o t be in f a v o r of c h a n g i n g t h e p r e s e n t rule. T h e legislative field is the t r u e b a t t l e g r o u n d . G e n e r a l D a w e s t h u s p u t t h e case in f a v o r of m a j o r i t y c l o t u r e in connection w i t h l e g i s l a t i o n : I n the last five Congresses the Senate bills and resolutions passed by the Senate, w i t h ninety-six members, exceeded by 1 8 2 the H o u s e bills and resolutions passed by the H o u s e , w i t h 4 3 5 members. T h e exact figures are 3 1 1 3 f o r the Senate and 2 9 3 1 f o r the H o u s e . B u t more significant even than this, as evidence of the inevitable exactions of selfish h u m a n n a t u r e w h e n given a chance, is the f a c t that the Senate passed these 3 1 1 3 bills and resolutions out of a total of 2 9 , 3 3 2 introduced, w h i l e the H o u s e passed its s m a l l e r number of 2 9 3 1 out of a total of 8 2 , 6 3 2 introduced. D u r i n g the last five Congresses, t h e r e f o r e , the Senate passed

THE

FILIBUSTER

103

ten and one-half per cent of the bills and resolutions introduced in the Senate while the House of Representatives passed only three and one-half per cent of the bills and resolutions introduced in the House. I n other words, of bills and resolutions introduced, the Senate, w i t h o u t effective cloture, passed in proportion three times as many as did the House of Representatives, with cloture. T h e r e have been vague claims made by the opponents of reform in the Senate rules, that the absence of effective cloture tended to prevent multiplicity of laws. M y contention is that the figures I have given establish the fact that the absence of effective cloture tends to increase the number of laws. As a result of the consuming of time which the Senate has for constructive legislation by efforts of the minority, through frivolous and unlimited oratory, to obstruct the responsible majority, it becomes necessary that there be occasional outbursts of speed by the Senate in passing bills on the calendar and jamming through appropriation bills. T h e s e outbursts of speed are a dangerous reaction f r o m the cumulative inaction preceding them. Individual Senators have bills on the calendar in which they are interested, as well as items in appropriation bills. T h e forces of normal action are held in check by some obstruction until the reaction comes with a rush t h a t does not make for due or wise consideration. T o pass bills in less time that it takes to read them, especially in the case of appropriation bills carrying hundreds of millions of dollars, a f t e r spending days on a revenue bill or a tariff bill, demonstrates the necessity of so amending the rules of the Senate as to bring about a proper application of time to the consideration of all its business. O v e r against these considerations Senator N o r r i s N e b r a s k a m a r s h a l e d his contention that the

filibuster

f o r m i d a b l e o n l y in t h o s e s h o r t s e s s i o n s o f

the

of is

Senate

which under the Constitution expire on the fourth

of

M a r c h . H e f a v o r s a constitutional amendment providing that

Congressmen

and

Senators

elected

in

November

s h a l l t a k e t h e i r s e a t s in J a n u a r y i n s t e a d o f a l l o w i n g , as at

present,

Congressmen

and

Senators

defeated

in

N o v e m b e r t o f u n c t i o n until t h e f o u r t h o f M a r c h .

"If,"

said Senator N o r r i s ,

were

"this proposed

amendment

a g r e e d t o , t h e n a f t e r w e h a v e h a d an e l e c t i o n a n d a C o n -

104

IN THE

SENATE

g r e s s convened in J a n u a r y , it w o u l d be the C o n g r e s s that h a d been elected in the N o v e m b e r election, a C o n g r e s s f r e s h f r o m the people, a C o n g r e s s representing the ideas of the citizenship as expressed at the ballot box. N o limitation of a session w o u l d exist, and no filibuster w o u l d even be a t t e m p t e d . " Senator M o s e s of N e w H a m p s h i r e has a d v a n c e d his reasons f o r thinking that the alleged evil of the filibuster is really not an evil at all. H e holds that if there is an evil the remedy proposed by S e n a t o r N o r r i s is the p r o p e r one to apply. W h e n the arguments p r o and con are r e v i e w e d , it a p p e a r s to me that the f a c t s cited by G e n e r a l D a w e s , g i v e rise to a presumption in f a v o r of r e f o r m . I f this presumption is rebutted by S e n a t o r N o r r i s and by Senat o r M o s e s it is only by invoking a constitutional amendment not yet adopted and, if ultimately adopted, necessarily inoperative f o r a long time to come. W h e n these able Senators point to Rule X X I I as sufficiently effective f o r legislative purposes, they are tacitly assuming that the Constitution of the U n i t e d States intends that legislation can be enacted only with the concurrence of twothirds of the Senate. A n assumption which in this respect assimilates the enactment of laws to the ratification of treaties is without foundation of f a c t . If R u l e X X I I is the proper measure of m a j o r i t y p o w e r , it must be conceded that the Senate, by permitting unregulated debate and by requiring a 66 per cent m a j o r i t y to terminate it, h a s in effect so amended the Constitution as to enable a 3 4 p e r cent minority to do to a legislative measure w h a t they may do to a treaty. I t seems to me that this is an unjustifiable use of the rule-making p o w e r and I am

THE

FILIBUSTER

105

t h e r e f o r e in f a v o r o f a m e n d m e n t t o c o r r e c t the abuse but o p e r a t i v e in the field o f l e g i s l a t i o n only. M e a n w h i l e the visiting b a n k p r e s i d e n t is still sitting in t h e g a l l e r y a n d the s p e a k i n g s e n a t o r is still

discussing

e v e r y t h i n g e x c e p t the pending m e a s u r e . " W h a t a r e t h e chances,"

a s k s the p e r p l e x e d v i s i t o r ,

"that

this

much-

needed r e f o r m will p r e v a i l ? " H i s c o m p a n i o n thinks it depends upon the a m o u n t o f pressure e x e r t e d b y constituents upon t h e i r s e n a t o r s . T h e r e is likely t o be s t r o n g o p p o s i t i o n t o c h a n g e on the p a r t o f those s o u t h e r n men who f e a r t h e e n a c t m e n t o f an anti-lynching bill o r s o m e m e a s u r e d e e m e d by t h e m unconstitutional. T h e y

regard

the filibuster as t h e i r first line o f d e f e n s e and will be slow t o o u t l a w it. I t w a s u n d e r s t o o d

that

General

Dawes

f a v o r e d an e x c e p t i o n t o the rule, applicable to cases in which the question o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y is raised. I t w o u l d be difficult, h o w e v e r , t o d r a f t the exception in such a w a y as n o t to d e f e a t the r e f o r m . A question o f constitutionality can be i n j e c t e d into a l m o s t e v e r y legislative

dis-

cussion. W h o is to decide w h e t h e r the case is within t h e new rule o r within the suggested e x c e p t i o n ? I t

would

seem wiser t o m a k e the r e f o r m applicable to all legislative m e a s u r e s

and t o press

standing sectional opposition.

for

its a d o p t i o n

notwith-

VIII THE WORLD COURT

F

P R E C E D I N G chapters I have r e f e r r e d to two subjects, each of which, in my opinion, is w o r t h y of more detailed discussion than is possible in a condensed summary of legislative activity. T h e s e a r e : first, the Permanent Court of International Justice, or so-called W o r l d C o u r t ; and second, the v a r i o u s difficulties attending international conferences both at home and a b r o a d . T o each I shall devote a brief chapter discussing its significance and development in the light of my own experience as a senator and as a student of international l a w . T h e Permanent Court of International Justice, popul a r l y called the W o r l d Court, exists in virtue of a t r e a t y , called the Protocol, signed a f t e r the w a r by a l a r g e number of nations. Four y e a r s ago the Senate of the U n i t e d States voted in f a v o r of the signature of this t r e a t y by the United States upon terms then believed to be essential to the protection of our national interests. One of these terms w a s unacceptable to some of the nations that had a l r e a d y signed. But f o r the objection thus raised, the adherence of the U n i t e d States would have been consummated long ago. In the meantime, the Senate has stood its ground, and the condition r e g a r d e d a b r o a d as objectionable still stands as a clean-cut statement of our position. These objecting powers, however, though unwilling to accept the condition imposed by the Senate, h a v e 106

THE WORLD

COURT

107

amended the Protocol and the statute, or constitution, o f the Court and have succeeded in persuading our State D e p a r t m e n t that their amendments mean precisely the same thing as the Senate condition means. In other words, with a subtlety characteristic of Old W o r l d diplomacy, these powers assure us that they mean exactly what we mean, but insist that the meaning shall be expressed in language chosen by them and not by us. Acting on the advice o f our State Department, the President has approved the acceptance o f their assurance, and by his authority our diplomatic representative in Switzerland has actually signed the name of the U n i t e d S t a t e s to the amended Protocol o f the Court and to the supplementary P r o t o c o l amending the statute of the C o u r t . T h i s act is in law the making of a treaty, and it t h e r e f o r e remains inoperative unless and until it is ratified by the Senate. T h e question o f ratification will in due time come b e f o r e that body. Meanwhile, with profound respect f o r the opinion o f the President and his advisers, I desire to register my conviction that the amendments so adroitly offered as substitutes f o r the Senate condition actually fall f a r short of giving us adequate protection against L e a g u e entanglement. T h e r e is now under way in this country a lavishly financed and highly organized campaign to slip us into the L e a g u e of Nations. T h e abandonment of the Senate condition would make a breach in our line o f defense. T h e breach looks small at first, but, like a leak in the dike, it will result in inundation unless we plug it promptly. In this have led myself to ing upon

chapter I seek to present the reasons which me to the conclusion just stated. I address Americans who p r e f e r to do their own thinkpublic questions rather than to accept blindly

108

IN

THE

SENATE

the opinions of those in authority. I do not address myself to those who think it uncivilized and antisocial to scrutinize a treaty between nations as carefully as if it were a business contract between corporations. A f t e r all, a nation has its own interests to conserve just as a business corporation has. A treaty is a contract; and though friendliness and good nature are admirable both in international and in intercorporate relations, yet each word in a contract must be studied and each sentence weighed lest present friendliness be replaced by future w a r f a r e . An international settlement must be either business or a love feast. If the latter, we should not have a treaty. All we need to do in that event is to embrace effusively and swear undying friendship. T h e r e are in America plenty of people who as stockholders in a corporation would violently attack their directors f o r making with another corporation the same sort of treaty that they are eager f o r the United States to make with foreign powers. I f e a r that such people will be irritated by this chapter rather than helped by it. I begin by pointing out that the judges of the W o r l d Court as now organized undertake to combine and at different times to p e r f o r m two very dissimilar functions. One of them is to sit as a court of justice, hearing and deciding such international controversies as disputing nations refer to them. T h e other is to act together as the legal advisers of the League of Nations. T h e f o r m e r function is one which all judges p e r f o r m when they sit to do justice between litigants. T h e latter is such a service as an attorney-general renders to his government when his chief calls on him f o r an opinion. T h e former function is purely legal. T h e latter is partly legal and partly political. T h e legal adviser of a Republican or a Demo-

THE WORLD

COURT

109

cratic President is expected to support as f a r as possible the administration of which he is a part. T h e general counsel of a great corporation sees things f r o m the corporate point of view and you call him a corporation lawyer. T h e legal adviser of the League of Nations must naturally and properly function as the attorney-general of the League. H e must effectuate its policy as f a r as this may conscientiously be done. I t is this semipolitical function which leads Judge de Bustamante to say that "the Court is the advisory organ of the League of Nations." N o amount of indignant assertion that judges cannot be thus drawn into politics suffices to relieve the situation. T h e instant you impose upon a Court the duty of advising a political body, you inject into the Court the germ of disaster. It is this dangerous and unwise attempt to combine the judicial function p e r f o r m e d by the Court f o r litigants with the advisory function thus to be p e r f o r m e d f o r the League which prompted that distinguished American jurist, J o h n Bassett M o o r e , lately a judge of the W o r l d Court, to say that its advisory function is "admittedly inconsistent with and potentially destructive of the judicial character with which the Court has undoubtedly been invested." I n England an ancient usage gave the King and the H o u s e of L o r d s the right to demand an opinion of the King's judges upon legal or legislative questions. T h e attempt of the political end of the government to assert supremacy over the judges wrote many unhappy chapters into English history. T h e effort to transfer the practice of advisory opinions into the American judicial system h a s happily failed. In only seven states did the practice gain a foothold, and even in them the governors have never had such a call upon the courts as that to which the

110

IN THE

SENATE

W o r l d Court is subjected by the Fourteenth A r t i c l e of the L e a g u e Covenant. T h e people of the United States have definitely decided that their Government shall not enter the L e a g u e of Nations. T h e same reasons which prompted that wise decision make it imperative that if we adhere to the W o r l d Court we should do so only upon terms which protect us against the political consequences of supporting the legal adviser of a body with which we have decided not to become entangled. N o such effort at protection was made by President H a r d i n g when, on F e b r u a r y 24, 1 9 2 3 , he sent a message to the Senate calling attention to the question of adherence to the Court. A s p a r t of his message he sent a letter f r o m the then Secretary of State, proposing f o u r conditions of adherence. N o one of these conditions dealt with the point now in controversy. If we h a d adhered to the C o u r t upon the terms thus proposed, we should today be involved in the entanglements against which it is happily not too late to protect ourselves. I t was in order to secure f o r the U n i t e d States that which the H a r d i n g proposals failed to provide that the Senate, on J a n u a r y 27, 1 9 2 6 , when adopting the resolution of adherence by a vote of 76 to 1 7 , included among others the following condition of adherence: V . T h a t the C o u r t shall not . . . w i t h o u t the consent of the U n i t e d States, entertain any request f o r an a d v i s o r y opinion touching any dispute or question in w h i c h the U n i t e d States has or claims an interest.

T h e r e is no room f o r misunderstanding the meaning of the resolution of adherence with this condition embedded in it. T h e United States thereby plainly expresses its willingness to support the Permanent C o u r t and to leave it f r e e to discharge the great and useful judicial

THE WORLD

COURT

111

function f o r which it was created. W i t h equal definiteness, however, the United States declares that in a case in which we claim an interest, the League o f N a t i o n s is not to be allowed to work its way into the controversy by a demand upon the Court f o r its advice. T h e real significance of the Senate condition is not that it imposes an arbitrary limitation upon the Court but that it protects both the Court and the U n i t e d States from the use o f the Court by the League as an opening through which the L e a g u e may intermeddle in a controversy between sovereign states. F r o m the day the Senate laid down this condition to the present time no responsible person has, as f a r as I know, advanced any reason whatever why the parties to the P r o t o c o l should not be satisfied with this condition. I n making this assertion I have in mind the fact that the amendments recently made to the Protocol and to the statute o f the Court are alleged to have an effect equivalent to the effect o f the Senate condition. I f those who make this contention are right, then the Senate is being asked to rescind its own resolution, drawn in language o f its own choosing, and pass another resolution, wordy, obscure and ambiguous, but asserted by those who f a v o r it to have the same meaning as the one which it is to supersede. I t seems to me that the time has come when senators of all shades of thought should have the courage to refuse to make such an unreasonable substitution. I f , as I contend, the proposed substitute falls f a r short o f the protection afforded the U n i t e d States by the Senate condition, that is a still stronger reason why senators should refuse to accept it. T h e best way to test the efficacy o f the substitute is to picture a future international controversy and then compare the

112

IN THE

SENATE

Senate condition and the substitute in their application to the facts thus pictured. In stating such an imaginary case it is hardly necessary to say that the designation of the disputants is merely for the purpose of illustration and contains no implication that the particular controversy thus imagined will ever become a real one. Suppose a dispute were to arise between Mexico and Japan respecting a large amount of territory in Mexico, near our border, claimed to have been acquired by Japanese subjects. Suppose that feeling ran high and that the dispute was not referred by Mexico and J a p a n to the W o r l d Court. Suppose that the Council of the League of Nations, sitting in Geneva, should be of opinion that it would conduce to the peace of the world to have the W o r l d Court advise whether Japan or Mexico was right and were to call upon its advisory organ to act. Further suppose that although no protest was forthcoming f r o m either disputant, yet the United States were to believe that action by the Court—no matter what its decision might be—would be like dropping a lighted match into a powder magazine. Finally, suppose that the United States were to claim a neighbor's interest in the question and were to register with the Court a formal objection to the League's call f o r advice. F r o m the point of view of the United States, what effect is it desirable that our objection should have? Under the operation of the Senate condition the Court would be deprived of power even to entertain the League's request. This is clear to the point of demonstration, and it is precisely the result which common sense would dictate. T h e r e would be no temptation to the League or any of its members to bring pressure to bear upon the Court or to create atmosphere favorable to any

THE WORLD COURT

113

p a r t i c u l a r solution of the problem involved. T h e C o u r t w o u l d be relieved of all this and could never h a v e anything to do with the dispute unless and until the disputants, of their own f r e e will and accord, w e r e to submit the controversy to the C o u r t f o r o r d e r l y hearing and determination. A s c o m p a r e d with this clean-cut and effective w a y of dealing with a dangerous situation, the recent amendment to the P r o t o c o l provides f o r notice to us of the request by the L e a g u e f o r advice f r o m the C o u r t , f o r the respectful consideration of our protest against such request, f o r an opportunity to present our reasons in supp o r t of it, f o r our right to w i t h d r a w our support f r o m the C o u r t " w i t h o u t any imputation of u n f r i e n d l i n e s s " if our protest is not sustained, and, a f t e r all, l e a v e s the L e a g u e f r e e to urge the C o u r t to apply the match to the p o w d e r m a g a z i n e . It is h a r d f o r me to understand how a n y b o d y with w o r l d l y wisdom can possibly be of the opinion that to risk a destructive explosion is as likely to p r e s e r v e the peace of the w o r l d as to prevent the explosion f r o m occurring. I note with something like indignation the disingenuous language in which this amendment to the P r o t o c o l is f r a m e d . Its preamble recites that the signatories " h a v e mutually a g r e e d upon the f o l l o w i n g provisions r e g a r d i n g the adherence of the U n i t e d States of A m e r i c a to the said P r o t o c o l subject to the five rese r v a t i o n s f o r m u l a t e d by the U n i t e d States in the resolution a d o p t e d by the Senate on J a n u a r y 2 7 , 1 9 2 6 . " A r t i c l e 5 of the amendment begins t h u s : " W i t h a v i e w t o insuring that the C o u r t shall not, without the consent of the U n i t e d States, entertain any request f o r an advis o r y opinion touching any dispute or question in which the U n i t e d States has or claims an interest. . . . "

114

IN THE

SENATE

T h e incautious r e a d e r is by this l a n g u a g e led to assume that the amendment is about to write the Senate condition into the Protocol. Instead of doing this, however, the amendment proceeds to emasculate the Senate condition by leaving the C o u r t f r e e to d i s r e g a r d o u r protest and, by emasculating it, falsifies the v e r y declaration with which the amendment itself begins. I t is significant that our own State D e p a r t m e n t w a s evidently misled by this trick of language, f o r in the D e p a r t m e n t ' s letter of N o v e m b e r 1 8 , 1 9 2 9 , to the President, the latter is i n f o r m e d that the conditions set out in the resolution of the Senate had been accepted at G e n e v a by the amendment to the Protocol. I t is subtlety which results in such a mistake as this against which the Senate should be on its g u a r d when it comes to examine the amendment t o the statute of the C o u r t to which I next invite attention. I have specified the danger to be g u a r d e d against. I have pointed out that the H a r d i n g reservations w h o l l y f a i l e d to provide a s a f e g u a r d . I h a v e shown that the condition of adherence insisted upon by the Senate deals effectively with the d a n g e r by preventing it f r o m occurring. I have f u r t h e r shown that the recent amendment to the P r o t o c o l of the C o u r t wholly f a i l s to prevent the d a n g e r and merely gives to the U n i t e d States a right which it would have had at any r a t e — t h e right, namely, to w i t h d r a w its adherence if its solemn protest w e r e disregarded. I now come to the contention that the inadequacy of the amendment to the P r o c o t o l has been effectively supplemented by the f o l l o w i n g amendment to the statute of the C o u r t : " I n the exercise of its a d v i s o r y function the C o u r t shall f u r t h e r be guided by the provisions of the statute which apply to contentious cases t o the extent which it recognizes them to be applicable." B y

THE WORLD

COURT

115

a "contentious case" is meant a case which disputing nations have voluntarily r e f e r r e d to the Court f o r hearing and decision. Since the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and decide contentious cases depends upon the consent of the parties to the contention, it is now gravely asserted by the f r a m e r s of this amendment that the language above quoted binds the Court not to entertain a demand f r o m the League of Nations f o r an advisory opinion unless the nations claiming an interest in the controversy consent that the Court shall comply with the demand. If language means anything, the language of the amendment leaves the Court free to determine whether or not it recognizes this element of consent as applicable. T h e r e are many provisions in the statute which apply to contentious cases. T h e amendment declares in so many words that in the case of its advisory function the Court shall be guided by these provisions " t o the extent which it—the Court itself—recognizes them to be applicable." T h i s necessarily means that when called upon f o r an advisory opinion in a particular case, the Court is to determine f o r itself whether one, two, three, f o u r or all of the provisions applicable to contentious cases are t o be applied to the case that is not contentious. If the Court, upon a given state of facts, declines to recognize the element of consent as applicable, it is left as absolutely free to comply with the demand and give the advice as if this amendment to the statute had never been written. I t is argued, however, that in a case decided by the C o u r t some time ago it actually recognized the necessity of general consent by refusing to render an opinion in the absence of the consent of one of the parties to the dispute. In o t h e r words, it is solemnly asserted by the

116

IN THE

SENATE

proponents of the amendment that because in one case in the past the C o u r t has recognized consent as necessary, it is d e p r i v e d of the f r e e d o m given it by the a m e n d m e n t to determine in f u t u r e cases the extent to which it will recognize the element of consent as applicable. O t h e r people m a y be satisfied by such reasoning. T o me, it sounds like the merest sophistry. T h e case relied upon as d e p r i v i n g the C o u r t of the element of discretion plainly g i v e n to it by the amendment w a s w h a t is k n o w n as the E a s t e r n K a r e l i a case. T h i s was a dispute respecting the effect of the t r e a t y of D o r p a t between F i n l a n d and R u s s i a . T h e disputing nations did not r e f e r the dispute to the Court. T h e Council of the L e a g u e of N a t i o n s , h o w e v e r , called upon the C o u r t f o r an a d v i s o r y opinion. T h e Russian S o v i e t G o v e r n m e n t , with an acumen which might be imitated by g o v e r n m e n t s in b e t t e r standing, sent a t e l e g r a m to the president of the C o u r t r e f u s i n g to take any p a r t in the proceedings because it considered them as " w i t h o u t legal v a l u e either in substance o r in f o r m . " A n acute difference of opinion thereupon arose among the judges of the C o u r t w h e t h e r , in the f a c e of this protest, they ought to comply with the d e m a n d of the Council of the L e a g u e . I f all the incidents of this controversy a m o n g the judges of the C o u r t w e r e e v e r m a d e public it w o u l d doubtless m a k e interesting r e a d i n g . On J u l y 3 , 1 9 2 3 , the C o u r t , by a vote of 6 to 4, declined to give an a d v i s o r y opinion, " b e l i e v i n g , " as J u d g e de B u s t a m a n t e says, " t h a t the r e f u s a l of the R u s s i a n G o v e r n m e n t to lend its assistance m a d e it impossible to complete the investigation of the case which presupposed the consent and the cooperation of both p a r t i e s . " J u d g e de Bustamante himself was one of the f o u r w h o v o t e d to entertain the re-

THE WORLD

COURT

117

quest to render the opinion in spite of the protest of R u s s i a . R e c o g n i z i n g as a g e n e r a l principle t h a t a nation h a s no obligation to submit its disputes to a tribunal without its consent, he and the other minority judges w e r e of opinion that that principle w a s not applicable to a demand e m a n a t i n g f r o m the L e a g u e . " T h e C o u r t , " he declares on p a g e 2 7 8 of his b o o k , * " i s the a d v i s o r y o r g a n of the L e a g u e of N a t i o n s and it is not easy to understand h o w it can r e f u s e to give an opinion that is asked f o r when it is a question of international law that is i n v o l v e d . It is not enough to say that one of the interested parties believes that its intervention is unjustified. A person w h o is consulted by an o r g a n i s m o r a person that has the right to consult him, cannot f o l d his arms and sit back because of the will o r the desire of some other p e r s o n w h o m a y be affected by the consultation, w h e t h e r or not he is the opponent of the consultant, and whether o r not he has some legal o r official connection with the p e r s o n c o n s u l t e d . " T h e decision of the C o u r t was so unwelcome to the Council of the L e a g u e that in a subsequent r e p o r t of the Council to the A s s e m bly of the L e a g u e there w a s actually included a censure of the C o u r t f o r its assertion of independence. T h e Council thus took precisely the position which the P r e s i d e n t of the U n i t e d States might take if he called upon his a t t o r n e y - g e n e r a l to g i v e him an opinion and the attorney-general declined to comply with the request. W h e n it is r e m e m b e r e d t h a t the j u d g e s are elected by the L e a g u e , t h a t they are p a i d by the L e a g u e , that the r i g h t to d e m a n d advice f r o m them is specified in the F o u r t e e n t h A r t i c l e of the C o v e n a n t of the L e a g u e , that • A n t o n i o Sanchez de Bustamante, T h e Macmillan Co., 1925).

The

World

Court

(New

York:

118

IN THE

SENATE

the Council believes t h a t the C o u r t is u n d e r a d u t y to act when directed to do so, and t h a t w h a t may h a v e been but a purely t e m p o r a r y minority of the judges of the C o u r t a g r e e d — a n d presumably still a g r e e — w i t h the view held by the Council, how can any man in full a n d functionable possession of his faculties believe t h a t the incident thus n a r r a t e d constitutes such a recognition by the C o u r t of the necessity of general consent as will deprive it in f u t u r e of the liberty of decision expressly given to it by the a m e n d m e n t ? E v e n if the discretion freely allowed to the C o u r t by the amended statute were held limited by the E a s t e r n Karelia decision, the decision itself covers only a p a r t of the field of controversy. In t h a t case the dispute w a s between Finland and Russia, and it was t h e r e f o r e one of the parties to the dispute t h a t objected to the advisory opinion. T h e r e is nothing in the case which indicates o r even suggests t h a t the C o u r t would have acted as it did if the protest h a d come f r o m a nation not a p a r t y to t h e controversy. In the supposititious case suggested earlier in this chapter, neither Mexico n o r J a p a n protested. T h e protest came f r o m the U n i t e d States, which claimed n o o t h e r interest in the dispute t h a n our desire to p r e v e n t trouble f r o m arising across the b o r d e r . T h e C o u r t m i g h t be absolutely consistent with its f o r m e r decision and yet, on this altered state of facts, hold t h a t the principle of consent was inapplicable in the case of a protest by a third p a r t y . I have now stated my reasons f o r believing t h a t neither the a m e n d m e n t to the Protocol nor the a m e n d m e n t to the statute, n o r b o t h of them in combination, can possibly afford to the U n i t e d States the reasonable and necessary protection against League intrusion secured to

THE WORLD COURT

119

us by the Senate's condition of adherence. It is interesting to reflect that, at the time the Senate acted, a storm of p r o t e s t w a s a r o u s e d a m o n g L e a g u e advocates and that the Senate condition w a s denounced as one which other nations could not possibly be expected to accept. N o w the m e t h o d of attack is changed, and is more dangerous because m o r e insidious. I t is now said that instead of r e f u s i n g to accept our condition of adherence, the other p o w e r s h a v e accepted it with merely a change in the f o r m of expression. T h i s method of approach has carried L e a g u e a d v o c a t e s past the executive b a r r i e r . T h e Senate is our last d e f e n s e . I h a v e in this chapter discussed the W o r l d C o u r t cont r o v e r s y as a single problem in international relations. N o international question can, h o w e v e r , be wisely considered without assigning it a p r o p e r place in our whole scheme of f o r e i g n policy. T h e f o r e i g n policy of the U n i t e d States can be summed up in three sentences: 1 . I n t e r f e r e as little as possible in the affairs of E u r o p e a n nations. 2. D i s c o u r a g e as much as possible interference by E u r o p e a n nations in the affairs of the W e s t e r n H e m i sphere. 3 . Settle o u r own disputes peacefully and encourage the p e a c e f u l settlement of disputes between other nations as f a r as w e can do so consistently with the two f o r e g o i n g propositions. M o r e specifically, these three propositions mean that we should k e e p out of the L e a g u e of N a t i o n s , stand by the M o n r o e D o c t r i n e , support the H a g u e T r i b u n a l , and if w e a d h e r e to the W o r l d C o u r t , do so upon condition that the L e a g u e of N a t i o n s is not to w o r m its w a y into

120

IN THE

SENATE

o u r c o n t r o v e r s i e s by r e f e r r i n g t h e m t o t h e j u d g e s o f the C o u r t w i t h o u t our consent. T h e f o r e i g n policy thus s u m m a r i z e d is usually c h a r a c t e r i z e d by people w h o have w h a t is c a l l e d an i n t e r n a t i o n a l mind as a policy o f provincial a l o o f n e s s f r o m w o r l d aff a i r s . B y A m e r i c a n s it is r e c o g n i z e d as the course

of

n a t i o n a l conduct m o s t likely t o p r e s e r v e the p e a c e o f the world.

IX INTERNATIONAL

CONFERENCES

"i I W R I T E , the eyes of the world are fixed upon London. B y the time this is published, the naval conference now in session there will have adjourned. Only one thing can with certainty be predicted about its outcome, and that is that there will be a wide divergence of opinion respecting the value of its achievements. T h e r e will be those who will acclaim it a success and those who will seek to discredit it as a f a i l u r e . T h e truth, of course, will lie somewhere between these extremes. It is not m y intention to discuss the conference or the problems with which it is g r a p p l i n g . I r e f e r to it merely as a typical a t t e m p t to settle amicably a difficult international question. I use it to give point to some g e n e r a l suggestions respecting conferences called to consider important m a t t e r s about which nations are not in agreement. M y reason f o r so confidently predicting divergent views respecting the outcome of the London Conference is a simple one. T h e meeting has from the outset meant different things to different people. T h e r e w a s no consensus of p o p u l a r opinion respecting its objectives and no g e n e r a l r e a l i z a t i o n of the scope of the issues to be considered. T h o s e who did not know what it w a s all about cannot reasonably be expected to agree upon an a p p r a i s a l of results. One evidence that there w a s widespread misunderstanding r e g a r d i n g the objectives of the conference is 121

122

IN THE

SENATE

f u r n i s h e d by the names p o p u l a r l y given to it. I t is v a r i ously r e f e r r e d to as a C o n f e r e n c e on N a v a l A r m a m e n t s , a C o n f e r e n c e on L i m i t a t i o n of N a v a l A r m a m e n t s , a C o n f e r e n c e on Reduction of N a v a l A r m a m e n t s and a C o n f e r e n c e on D i s a r m a m e n t . T h e term " d i s a r m a m e n t " w a s f r e e l y used when the conference w a s in contemplation. T h e persistent use of this w o r d undoubtedly encoura g e d multitudes of people to look h o p e f u l l y f o r the actual abandonment of the use of w a r s h i p s . E v e n P r i m e M i n i s t e r M a c D o n a l d unwittingly encouraged such a w o r l d hope when, in his speech b e f o r e the L e a g u e of N a t i o n s on September 3 , 1 9 2 9 , he continually emphasized disarmament as the objective of the p r o p o s e d conference. I say " u n w i t t i n g l y " because a c a r e f u l study of his address satisfies me that by d i s a r m a m e n t he meant merely a reduction of existing s t a n d a r d s of a r m a m e n t r a t h e r than the scuttling of all the w a r s h i p s of the w o r l d . Doubtless it w a s in the sense of reduction rather than of destruction that S e c r e t a r y H e n d e r s o n again used the term " d i s a r m a m e n t " in the British notes of October 7, 1 9 2 9 , summoning the conference. B e this as it may, the careless or insidious use of so significant a w o r d unquestionably aroused f a l s e hopes in the minds of all w h o are by temperament or on principle opposed to w a r . President H o o v e r w a s much more c a r e f u l in his choice of w o r d s . B o t h in his speech of acceptance and in his M e m o r i a l D a y address on M a y 3 0 , 1 9 2 9 , he avoided all reference to disarmament and spoke merely of c a r r y i n g the process of limitation of a r m a m e n t s to the point of reducing existing commitments. A n d although the British note invited the U n i t e d States to participate in a conf e r e n c e called " t o deal with the question of naval disa r m a m e n t , " Secretary of State Stimson, in accepting, w a s

INTERNATIONAL

CONFERENCES

123

careful to describe the meeting as " a conference on naval armaments." In addition to the many who took the disarmament proposal literally were the multitudes who looked confidently f o r the curtailing of existing commitments f o r construction and even f o r the scrapping of vessels built or in building. Others, again, neither hoped for nor desired cancellation of building contracts or the destruction of naval property but looked with confidence for definite and drastic limitations upon future construction and for the establishment of fixed ratios among the navies of all participating powers. All these groups are distinct from those who deprecate limitations and ratios of all sorts and hold that the United States should determine f o r itself f r o m time to time what its naval p r o g r a m should be. T h e inevitableness of dissatisfaction with the actual results of the conference appears when all these points of view are tabulated. T h e situation somewhat resembles that which would arise if a conference were to be called with reference to the use of alcoholic beverages. T h e conferees would include those who oppose the use o f liquor on moral grounds; those who hold that the use of alcohol is not morally wrong, but that absolute prohibition is socially and economically desirable; those who stand f o r modified prohibition; those who oppose prohibition, but favor government control of the liquor traffic; those who hold that the whole subject of liquor control should be left to the several states; and those who believe that the self-control of the individual is the only sound solution. I t is obvious that little headway would be made at such a conference. Indeed, the pro-

124

IN THE

SENATE

ceedings might so develop as to require the p a c i f y i n g influence of both A r m y and N a v y . I n addition to divergent ideals of w h a t the success of a conference means, there are all sorts of inherent difficulties of which the public takes little account. Such difficulties become most evident w h e n — a s in the case of a conference on a r m a m e n t s — a g r e e m e n t s reached by the c o n f e r e e s call f o r definite governmental action. E c o n o m i c conferences, meetings in the interest of child l i f e and general w e l f a r e , and other conventions which merely utter opinion o r make recommendations and a d j o u r n a r e not beset with nearly so many difficulties. Since the organization of the L e a g u e of N a t i o n s m a n y conferences of various sorts have been held under its auspices. T h e s e h a v e met, deliberated, resolved and adjourned. P e r h a p s the most notable was the W o r l d E c o n o m i c C o n f e r e n c e held in 1 9 2 7 . E v e n if nothing definite happens as the result of such conferences, the participants are l e f t with a sense of achievement and satisfaction, and in an undefined but important w a y w o r l d progress is made, if only with glacial slowness. Indeed, it is the holding of such conferences that has gained f o r the L e a g u e a sphere of sufficient influence to compensate f o r the f a i l u r e of the purposes f o r which it w a s organized. T h e original purpose of its f o u n d e r s was thus expressed by President W i l s o n : T h e r e is only one w a y to assure the world of peace—that is, by making it so dangerous to break the peace that no other nation will have the audacity to attempt it.

In other w o r d s , the animating ideal w a s force applied to attain peace. A l l the machinery of the L e a g u e w a s contrived to effect this ideal. B y declining to become a p a r t y to such a coercive alliance the U n i t e d States m a y

INTERNATIONAL

CONFERENCES

125

be credited with preventing the achievement of so deadly a purpose. T h e result has been that the L e a g u e , to j u s t i f y its existence, has happily been compelled to substitute the ideal of conference and conciliation f o r that of alliance and coercion. I f President Wilson's statement is compared with the listed achievements of the L e a g u e during its ten y e a r s of existence, it will be realized that the most significant provisions of the L e a g u e Covenant have become obsolete and might with advantage be eliminated by amendment. I t is not to be expected that the U n i t e d States can ever do more than cooperate inf o r m a l l y with the L e a g u e unless adequate revision of its Covenant makes a reassertion of its original aim altogether impossible. If such a concession to candor is ever made by the members of the L e a g u e and if the United States then becomes a member of the converted association, it will be an interesting question whether the U n i t e d States has joined the L e a g u e or whether the L e a g u e has joined the United States. A distinguished editorial writer recently recorded a w a g e r laid in Geneva that the United States would become a member of the L e a g u e by 1 9 3 5 . If this should happen, a conference of sportsmen may have to be called to determine whether the bet has been won. T h e definite abandonment of the policy of international coercion has thus retraced the backward step taken when the L e a g u e was f o r m e d and has brought the w o r l d f o r w a r d to the point which had been reached when T h e H a g u e conferences were convened. In an era of conference the public virtue most in demand is patience. W h e n conferees represent responsible governments everybody should realize that their words, their acts and the proposals to which they assent must

126

IN THE

SENATE

be such as will be approved at home. T h e r e is a perfectly obvious distinction, often overlooked, between the man who can express his opinion without responsibility f o r consequences and the man who is trustee for millions of people. T h e solitary thinker, whether he be Grotius, Bentham, Voltaire or your well-informed friend at the club, can formulate a plan f o r preserving world peace and can, in imagination, take all the steps necessary to effectuate it. If a peace conference is actually called, however, and all sorts of difficulties are suggested by the conferees, the solitary thinker is driven to resent every such suggestion as a perverse and unintelligent interference with the project in hand. T h e conferees, on the other hand, must have a multitude of considerations in mind which your friend at the club may with impunity disregard. When, at the Naval Conference, Secretary of State Stimson and his colleagues wisely announced that the United States could not purchase French cooperation by yielding to the French demand f o r some f o r m of security, they were stating what is merely a matter of fact. N o treaty, whether it be a consultative pact or any other, would be likely to command public support if it committed the United States to play even a consultant's part in a European controversy not yet defined or foreseen. A "consultative pact" is a treaty which binds the parties to consult with one another upon the happening of some event which the treaty specifies. If such a treaty is proposed and approved at a peace conference as a substitute for an alliance based on force, it might be a desirable agreement f o r nations to sign. If, however, the promise to consult is given to induce a nation to diminish

INTERNATIONAL

CONFERENCES

127

its protective a r m a m e n t , the t r e a t y , while in f o r m a t r e a t y f o r consultation, becomes in effect a promise to help with ships, men and money. I f , f o r example, F r a n c e w e r e induced to reduce her fleet by our promise t o " c o n s u l t " if h e r s a f e t y were t h r e a t e n e d , and if in compliance with o u r promise we were t o respond t o a summons to conference, were to attend, discuss the situation a n d go h o m e leaving France t o her f a t e , we should m e r i t the sure condemnation of all w h o love f a i r play. I t would n o t help the situation to point t o a provision in the t r e a t y a u t h o r i z i n g us thus to w i t h d r a w . T h e r e are some duties which cannot be waived in a d v a n c e — a n d one of t h e m is the s p o r t s m a n ' s duty to help a defenseless n e i g h b o r w h o h a s s u r r e n d e r e d his means of defense in consideration of a promise to take counsel respecting his situation if and when t h r e a t e n e d by an enemy. Y e t o u r conferees w e r e bitterly attacked by the representative in L o n d o n of an A m e r i c a n association of solit a r y thinkers who p r o c e e d e d to call P r e s i d e n t H o o v e r to task f o r not ignoring so i m p o r t a n t a f a c t o r as the certain d i s a p p r o v a l of the people of the U n i t e d States. " W h y n o t promise at least t o go into conference with o t h e r p o w e r s in the event of f u t u r e trouble in E u r o p e ? " Such is the question which is petulantly asked by thinkers w h o have nobody t o w h o m t h e i r opinion must be subm i t t e d f o r a p p r o v a l or d i s a p p r o v a l . F r o m the point of view of the responsible thinker the answer is obvious. I f , when the trouble comes, the U n i t e d States thinks the circumstances such as t o m a k e consultation wise, we may be counted upon to sit in w i t h o u t p r i o r commitment. I f , t h e r e f o r e , the U n i t e d States is asked t o promise in advance t h a t it will sit in, the object sought can only be to

128

IN THE

SENATE

bind us to do something which we might deem it unwise to do if uncommitted. I t is an effort to make us promise, when the facts are as yet unknown, that we will play a certain p a r t whatever the facts may turn out to be. I t is certain that a promise of this sort could not be ratified by the Senate. " B u t , " says the irresponsible thinker, " t h e President should be as bold as a lion and should instruct our conferees to act as individuals who are not subject to accountability." A p a r t f r o m the fact that the President and our conferees are presumably voicing their own convictions as well as those o f the nation, is the further fact that even a lion may have discretion as well as boldness. J u s t what the king o f beasts would do if he were aware t h a t a certain trail meant sure death f o r the lioness, his cubs and himself is a question f o r big-game hunters to settle. But if the experts decide that he would p r e f e r the path o f death to a detour, I suggest that his is a p o o r standard o f conduct f o r national imitation. I t is often assumed that the failure o f conferees to do what the solitary thinker desires is, in some unworthy sense, ascribable to politics back home. I t is, of course, true t h a t political considerations are, o r ought to be, potent in all international settlements. T h e very summoning of a conference may be the redemption of a party promise. T h e choice of the conferees must take some account o f political susceptibilities. I f , as in the case o f F r a n c e , ministries rise and fall with the tide, it would be absurd f o r M . B r i a n d or M . T a r d i e u t o take any other position than one that could command home support. I t is true that legitimate political considerations are not the only ones that may affect the progress of a conference. W h e n , a f t e r the G r e a t W a r , certain statesmen

INTERNATIONAL

CONFERENCES

129

sought votes at home by absurdly extravagant estimates of German indemnity, they placed serious obstacles in the path of the subsequent conferences which faced the problem of reparations. I t also often happens that difficulties are adroitly placed in the way of conference by those who do not want the convener of the conference to gain credit by success. I n spite, however, of all the difficulties with which an international conference is beset, it is the only process which holds the hope of peace. Conference may not bring peace, but there will be no peace except after conference. Conference may attain varying degrees of success, but it can never wholly fail. T h e fact that the conferees meet and strive earnestly to reach a constructive result is itself of tonic value. T o the extent that there is disappointment over the result there comes a renewed determination throughout the world to attack the problem again. I have said that in this connection patience is the virtue most needed. I f one intellectual quality is in demand more than another, it is the quality of comprehension, both on the part of the conferees and of the people back home who await the outcome. A conferee is useless unless he can see a situation through the other man's eyes as well as through his own. T o the extent that he succeeds in doing this, the possibility of agreement is increased. But, by the same token, a great demand is thus made upon the comprehension of the people at home; f o r they have not experienced the contacts or lived in the atmosphere of conference out of which agreements develop. T h e conferees alone know the difficulties which had to be met and overcome. T h e y alone realize that what was done was the best that could be done. T h e y

130

IN THE

SENATE

alone appreciate the necessity of the concessions which they made. T h e man at home is called upon to judge the results of conference without having the experience by which alone the results were produced. This is why so many treaties fail of ratification in the Senate. T h e work of the conferees is scrutinized critically. T h e gains made are underestimated. T h e concessions made are exaggerated. T h e treaty which was negotiated by those who were warmed by conference is voted upon by those who are chilled by suspicion. Even so, it is better that some good treaties should be rejected than that bad ones should be too readily accepted. T h e enthusiasm of conferees may lead to concessions that are really unjustifiable. A critical review of their work is, therefore, of the utmost value. But the solitary thinker is thereby goaded to madness. "If only we could abolish the Senate and substitute me," he exclaims, "righteousness and peace would kiss each other and all would soon be well with the world."

χ LOSING T H E JOB ^ T E R three y e a r s in the Senate it became necessary again, as in 1 9 2 2 , to p r e p a r e f o r campaigns f o r nomination and election. I was serving the t e r m f o r which S e n a t o r P e n r o s e had been elected, and t h a t term expired M a r c h 3 , 1 9 2 7 . In September of 1 9 2 5 I began the w o r k of o r g a n i z i n g to secure the renomination. T h i s was e a r l i e r than is customary, but I wanted to get as much campaigning as possible out of the w a y b e f o r e C o n g r e s s began its sessions in early December. M y first step w a s to consult with W . H a r r y B a k e r , chairman of the Republican State Committee, and another f r i e n d of wide political experience in r e g a r d to a statement announcing my candidacy. A c t i n g in p a r t on their advice, I m a d e my announcement, stating that I wanted to return to the Senate as a representative of the whole s t a t e ; that I sought the support of the entire state o r g a n i z a t i o n , but that I did not w a n t to be r e g a r d e d as the p a r t i c u l a r candidate of any one county organization. T o this I a d d e d l a t e r a reiteration of other statements emphasizing m y determination to keep judicial offices out of politics. T h e statements w e r e received u n f a v o r a b l y by a number of p o w e r f u l political leaders. In them, such s t a l w a r t s saw a double affront. T h e statements w e r e recognized, first, as a declaration of independence of the Vare-cont r o l l e d P h i l a d e l p h i a organization, and, second, as a 131

132

IN THE

SENATE

pronouncement against the vicious doctrine o f regularity in the primary, since I openly flouted the theory t h a t it is irregular in such campaigns to oppose the " s l a t e d " candidate. F o r a while no candidate appeared in the lists against me. I t was an open secret, however, t h a t G o v e r n o r Pinchot, whose term was about to expire, would come out as a contender and that, when he did, Representative W i l l i a m S. V a r e would do the like. Pinchot, in due course, announced his candidacy; a step which assured a split in the votes which would normally come to me. V a r e lost no time in seizing the opportunity thus afforded and announced his candidacy on an anti-prohibition issue. F r o m the outset everyone with political experience knew that the senatorial campaign was a contest between V a r e and me, and t h a t the only effect o f Pinchot's candidacy was to handicap me in the struggle. T h e situation constituted, however, an interesting triangle. I had whatever advantage may be credited to incumbency in the office which we three sought, although I had built no political organization in my own interest. Pinchot, as governor of the state, capitalized the support which four years in t h a t important office had put at his disposal. V a r e , as leader o f the Philadelphia organization, could count on tremendous support in his home city. H i s strength was f u r t h e r increased not only by the appeal of his wet platf o r m but by the f a c t that Pinchot and I would split the prohibition vote. T h e r e were multitudes o f prohibitionists who took delight in Pinchot's militant utterances as contrasted with my acceptance of the declarations of the Republican p l a t f o r m . W i t h both Pinchot and V a r e the prohibition question was a political issue, while to me it presented itself as a social and economic problem, which

LOSING

THE

JOB

133

could not be solved by violent advocacy of either extreme. Meanwhile a bigger and more bitter fight was being waged f o r the nomination of Pinchot's successor in the governorship. Linked up with this nomination were many other candidates, including those f o r the office of Lieutenant Governor and of Secretary of Internal Affairs. In addition to these, approximately thirty-six candidates f o r Congress, twenty-five candidates f o r the State Senate, two hundred and eight candidates f o r the State H o u s e of Representatives, and a multitude of state and local committeemen were to be chosen. As I have said, when I announced myself f o r the Republican nomination, I did so as an independent candidate, without relationship to any of those who were seeking nominations to office. M y plan was to retain this independence of position until the day of the primary, when, if successful, I would, of course, cooperate wholeheartedly with the Republican ticket in the state. W h e n Pinchot and V a r e entered the field as contestants, there was still no reason, so f a r as I was concerned, f o r modifying my plans. W h e n , however, various candidates appeared f o r the gubernatorial nomination, it developed that many men and women all over the state who were united in their support of me were divided in their support of candidates for the governorship. T h e two strongest candidates f o r that office were John S. Fisher, the present incumbent, and E d w a r d E. Beidleman. W h e n my friends divided between Beidleman and Fisher, the attempt to associate me with one or the other of these candidates was an effort made not so much in my interest as in the interest of factional success. As the factional fight grew more intense it created a situation in which I

134

IN THE

SENATE

had to make a choice, and my choice inevitably related me to the candidacy of John S. Fisher, f o r whom I had and shall always retain both admiration and regard. I realized at the time that this could prove costly. T h e universal experience of senators is that they dare not get their candidacies mixed with the candidacies of state office seekers. Experience has shown that it multiplies their political liabilities and divides their political assets. Meanwhile an alliance probably of a similar nature was reported to exist between Vare and Beidleman. A s f a r as it was possible to do so, I preserved the distinctiveness of my campaign. I retained my central organization, my chairman, the chairman of my own finance committee and my treasurer. T h e only campaign fund over which I had any control was devoted to the single pursuit of the senatorial nomination. T h e campaign f o r the entire ticket headed by Fisher and me was in hands over which I had no control and represented an effort in the interest of all the men on the ticket. While my own campaign fund was raised and distributed by my friends, the dominating influence in the collection and disbursement of the ticket fund was Joseph R. Grundy, whose friendship I had lost once and for all by my support of W . H a r r y Baker three years earlier. Like all primary campaigns in which serious issues and warring ambitions are involved, this developed into a vigorous and expensive one. Personally I made two hundred and thirty-five campaign speeches in addition to numerous statements and other responses to the usual demands for expressions of opinion by office seekers. Thousands of letters were mailed by all the separate candidates, huge advertisements were inserted in periodicals and in newspapers printed in English and in those

LOSING

THE

JOB

135

printed in foreign languages, posters appeared on billboards and fences throughout the state, men and women were hired as organizers, speakers, publicity directors, watchers at the polls and to perform the various other duties f o r which political workers in these days expect and receive compensation. It is an interesting reflection that in the political campaigns of today almost every one wants to capitalize his or her party activity f o r money. When I was young, service at the polls on election day was freely rendered by men who never thought of asking pay f o r the time thus spent. T o d a y our national absorption in the pursuit of wealth has changed all this. Service to a party appears to be regarded as a legitimate basis f o r compensation. This economic fact, which, however deplorable, is nevertheless a fact, is lost sight of by many earnest reformers. T h e sums of money contributed and spent f o r the support of opposing tickets in the Pennsylvania primary of 1 9 2 6 were thus expended to further the nominations of a host of candidates whose appeals were addressed to an aggregate population representing about one-twelfth of the entire population of the United States. A t its conclusion, the overwhelming support given to Vare by his Philadelphia organization won him the election with a count of 596,000 votes as against my total of 5 1 5 , 0 0 0 . A s against Vare, I carried sixty-two out of the sixtyseven counties of Pennsylvania and came to Philadelphia with a plurality of more than 140,000, which the support of his local organization converted into a decisive plurality for him. In the gubernatorial campaign, John S. Fisher defeated E d w a r d E . Beidleman. Thus a complete victory was gained by neither ticket. Naturally, there was talk of trading, of defections

136

IN THE

SENATE

within the ranks and of election-booth irregularities. T h e r e were, in other words, the veiled charges of the type that follow every bitterly contested primary fight. Personally I saw no definite proof that these charges were true to any such extent as to change the result of the primary. I accordingly followed the maxim familiar to lawyers, that your first duty is to take your licking like a gentleman. Pinchot, however, brought the charges prominently into the light when, in his official communication as governor, certifying to the Senate the later election of Vare, he made the assertion that the nomination was "partly bought and partly stolen." A f t e r Senator H a r r y S. New had been defeated in Indiana in a primary contest not wholly unlike mine, he was walking one day down the stairs in the Capitol to the long tunnel that leads to the Senate Office Building. A woman visitor to the Capitol had become bewildered by the network of passageways. Accosting Senator New, she said, " I am trying to get out of the Senate. Can you tell me how to do it?" Bowing low, he replied, " M a d a m , I advise you to run in an Indiana primary." M y only criticism of this advice is that it limits unduly the geography of escape.

XI

PRINCIPLES IN POLITICS

T

H E R E are times in the l i f e of a public man when it is his duty to rise above principle." T h i s contribution to political philosophy was m a d e by an able senator to w h o m I had suggested that principle required a certain course of conduct in a m a t t e r which he and I were discussing. H e put his hand on my shoulder as he said it and there w a s a humorous twinkle in his eye. B u t he meant w h a t he said and his long political experience entitled him to speak with authority. H e w a s merely re-stating in epigrammatic f o r m the maxim that one w h o seeks public office or desires to retain it cannot a f f o r d to act in strict accordance with his convictions unless the result is likely to be a net gain in his vote.

L o o k i n g back o v e r my own brief political experience I can see a number of situations, particularly during the p r e p r i m a r y c a m p a i g n of 1 9 2 6 , in which I might h a v e " r i s e n above p r i n c i p l e " and in e v e r y such case the question is w h a t w o u l d h a v e happened had I done so. I here r e v i e w these situations, not because my f a i l u r e to win a Senate renomination w a s a m a t t e r of g r e a t importance but because that campaign w a s a chapter in A m e r i c a n political history and is f o r that reason worth analyzing. T h e r e w a s , f o r example, the situation which arose when the opportunity came to state my position on the Prohibition issue. W h e n my candidacy began to attract public attention, I w a s asked to declare my position upon 137

138

IN THE

SENATE

this vexed question. I had, and still have, perfectly definite opinions upon it. I accordingly, without the least hesitation, replied to the inquiry as f o l l o w s : — I agree that the attitude of many of our citizens toward Prohibition is disappointing and that the resulting lawlessness and discontent should be a matter of grave concern to all of us. I t seems to me, however, that the right view to hold with respect to the Eighteenth Amendment and the enforcement law is that by regular constitutional and legislative processes we have committed ourselves to a nation-wide social experiment. T h e nature of the experiment is such that in my judgment it must be continued for many many years before its success or failure can be determined. I f ultimately there is something like a consensus that the non-alcoholic life is best for an individual and a nation, the experiment will have succeeded. I f , on the other hand, there is something like a consensus that the use of alcohol for beverage purposes is a desirable one, both physiologically and socially, then the experiment will have failed. A t the present time there is no agreement on this subject, although my estimate is that a very large majority of the people of this country believe that the experiment is well worth making. In the meantime, I regard it as the duty of a public man to do all that he can by precept, example and vote, to accomplish the purpose of the amendment by framing effective enforcement laws and by insisting upon the faithful execution of them. Consistently with this conviction I cut out the use of alcohol when I went into the Senate and I do not expect to vote in any way inconsistent with the views above expressed. As I am in the legislative department of the Government I have no opportunity to take part in the enforcement of the law for that is an executive duty. T o the extent that I can influence the course of events, however, I am doing and expect to do all that I can to see that enforcement is effective and strict. I venture to suggest to you and your associates that if, while retaining your opinion that the experiment will fail, you will nevertheless do all that you can to make it succeed, you certainly will have lost nothing substantial if ultimately the experiment fails in spite of your support, but you will have gained a very great deal if through your cooperation the success of the experiment is finally demonstrated. I am sorry that our minds do not meet on this matter but I

PRINCIPLES

IN

POLITICS

139

am sure that you will recognize it as a great public question respecting which there is room for honest and intelligent difference of opinion.

All my life I had been accustomed to the use o f alcohol. I had been brought up to believe t h a t the moral significance o f conduct depends upon whether it is the result of compulsion or o f an exercise o f free will. I , however, realized that we as a nation had, in the m a t t e r o f drink, used our freedom foolishly and that the Eighteenth Amendment was a reaction against abuse. I felt bound to accept it as such. I saw nothing in the contention that my rights had thereby been violated. A legal right is merely a legally protected interest. I f , by constitutional processes, protection o f any interest o f mine is denied or withdrawn, t h a t is the end o f my " r i g h t . " I f I am displeased I may agitate f o r constitutional change, or start a revolution, or leave the c o u n t r y — o r obey the law. I regarded agitation f o r repeal o f the E i g h t e e n t h Amendment as at least premature because the Prohibition experiment had not been tried to a conclusion. N e i t h e r revolution nor exile appealed to me. I had accordingly accepted law observance as an ordinary civic duty and had lived up to it. T h e extreme dry repudiates the suggestion that Prohibition is anything but a demonstrated success. T h e extreme wet believes that it is a disastrous failure. J u s t as definite as either o f these extremes, but differing f r o m them as truth differs f r o m e r r o r , is the position that prohibition is still in its experimental stage but that both obedience and enforcement should be invoked to p r o m o t e its success. T h i s was and is my position. I t had, o f course, no political value. N o position has political value if it can be readily misrepresented by an unscrupulous enemy. Indeed it had no other merit than

140

IN THE

SENATE

common sense. I t t h e r e f o r e pleased neither the fanatical drys nor the angry wets. B u t it represented my honest opinion and I declared it. T h e results were interesting. An important political leader in Philadelphia called to tell me t h a t my letter was " b a d politics." An influential county " b o s s " gave notice t h a t his promise of support was withdrawn. A prominent physician, a member of one of my committees, wrote me an angry letter of resignation. Organization hostile to me was begun among those who were socially my friends. O n the dry side, Pinchot and his kind spoke o f my stand in characteristic fashion. V a r e , counting on Pinchot's candidacy to cut down my vote, announced his own candidacy for the Senate on a "light wine and b e e r " platf o r m . Frantic friends begged me to make an utterance t h a t would satisfy those wets who, f o r other reasons, wanted to vote f o r me. M y refusal to modify what I had said was ascribed in many quarters to a lack of political acumen. " T o o b a d , " said a citizen of average political knowledge to a friend of mine, " t h a t Pepper hasn't sense enough to take a different position." " B u t the position he takes is an honest expression of his views," observed my friend. " W o u l d you have him be dishonest about i t ? " " I never thought o f it that way," said the citizen. V a r e won. I was second. Pinchot trailed. W h a t is the political analysis? W o u l d the result have been different if I had "risen above p r i n c i p l e " ? " C e r tainly," says the cynic. " B y side-stepping you could have kept the issue out o f the campaign. A s it was, you handed one popular extreme to V a r e and the other to P i n c h o t . " Such reasoning seems to me to leave basic facts out of consideration. V a r e was enabled to defeat me only by the organization vote in Philadelphia. I f I had been

PRINCIPLES

IN

POLITICS

141

wet and V a r e d r y the v o t e in South Philadelphia would not h a v e been m a t e r i a l l y affected. T h e vote against me was produced by the w a r d leaders, not by my declaration. U p state, on the other hand, my declaration m a d e me friends. I c a r r i e d against V a r e sixty-two out of sixty-six counties outside of Philadelphia and came to Philadelphia with the enormous plurality of 1 4 0 , 0 0 0 . T h e counties thus carried included five of the wettest counties in the State, and a m o n g them the county of the boss ref e r r e d to above. N o r did V a r e enter the race f o r any other reason than that he saw a chance to slip into office in the situation which Pinchot's candidacy created. I f Pinchot ran V a r e w a s determined to run, irrespective of issues, declarations o r any other f a c t o r s . Pinchot's decision to run w a s determined by no other consideration than that which had actuated him in earlier c a m p a i g n s : there w a s a vacancy to be filled and he heard the voice of the people calling f o r him to fill it. I f I had been an extreme d r y I k n o w him well enough to believe that he would h a v e f o u n d other causes to champion and w o u l d h a v e championed them v a l i a n t l y — a n d with the same result. N a t u r a l l y enough, in casting about f o r arguments, the anti-prohibitionists are now recording my d e f e a t as their achievement. B u t the situation w a s f a r m o r e complex than they realize and the issue which presents itself to them as the only issue w a s in f a c t negligible so f a r a s the result is concerned. On the other hand, a p e r f e c t illustration of a result directly due to the " w e t " v o t e w a s the nomination of Pinchot f o r the g o v e r n o r s h i p of Pennsylvania in M a y , 1 9 3 0 . Pinchot, an extreme d r y , w a s opposed by F r a n c i s Shunk B r o w n , w h o declared m e r e l y f o r a r e f e r e n d u m . T h e wets put their own candidate into the fight and e v e r y vote f o r him w a s , of course, sub-

142

IN THE

SENATE

tracted f r o m Brown. T h e larger the wet vote, u n d e r such circumstances, the larger was Pinchot's margin. T h e definiteness of his stand was the very thing that brought him victory. T h e Soldier's Bonus question created another issue which had to be faced or evaded. It seemed clear to me that the proposal to make cash payments to men who had served in the W o r l d W a r and had emerged unhurt was from every point of view an unsound proposal. In the individual case the payment was not large enough to have business value. In the aggregate the amount involved was sufficient to impair our ability to do justice to the disabled men. Sentimentally, the payment of money to those who had earned the country's lasting gratitude seemed to me like offering a tip to the man who had saved your life at the risk of his own. Newspapermen asked me to express my views and I did so. I thus incurred the opposition of the American Legion and some of this opposition was incredibly bitter. It took various forms. Some legion posts passed fiery resolutions. Individuals wrote threatening letters. A soldier who had lost a leg was employed in the interest of one of my adversaries to appear at political meetings and declare that he had sought an interview with me in Washington and that I had told him " t o get the h—1 out of here." Altogether, the attempt to act on principle had lively consequences. Vare was f o r the bonus and he won. Does this prove that my declaration was a factor in my d e f e a t ? In my opinion it does not. T h e fact is that the opponents of the bonus became just as fanatical in their opposition as were the proponents in their advocacy. Speaking generally, the business and financial interests of the country were arrayed on the negative side. T h e intensity of their oppo-

PRINCIPLES

IN

POLITICS

143

sition w a s illustrated in a social club in another state where the p o r t r a i t of an otherwise popular senator w a s hung with f a c e to the w a l l because he f a v o r e d the bonus. T h e s e interests w e r e , on the whole, more effective politically than w a s the L e g i o n . M y declaration h a d been m a d e without considering its political consequences, but as things turned out I believe that throughout the State the net result of my stand w a s helpful to my candidacy. V a r e w a s wise in his generation in coming out as he d i d : f o r up-state his soldier vote reduced my plurality and to that extent m a d e the task of his city o r g a n i z a t i o n less f o r m i d a b l e . V i e w i n g the whole incident in retrospect I believe that here again honesty p r o v e d to be the best policy. W h e n in J u l y of 1 9 2 4 members of the A m e r i c a n B a r Association made an E n g l i s h pilgrimage I w a s invited to a d d r e s s them b e f o r e they sailed. T h e increased use by f e d e r a l judges of the injunction in labor disputes h a d long been a matter of concern to me. In v i e w of the interesting E n g l i s h legislation on this subject it seemed to me that the pilgrims might usefully be invited to study the E n g l i s h solution of this serious problem. I accordingly d e v o t e d my address to this subject. T h e occasion w a s , of course, non-political and I dealt with the m a t t e r w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e to its effect on my candidacy. A b o u t the same time, but strictly in the course of public business, I a d v o cated the submission to the States of the p r o p o s e d childl a b o r amendment, my belief being that agitation f o r amendment would persist until the states h a d h a d a chance to express themselves. T h e s e t w o declarations w e r e undoubtedly " b a d politics." M r . G r u n d y , claiming to voice the sentiment of the m a n u f a c t u r i n g interests in P e n n s y l v a n i a , w a s o u t r a g e d by them and in person noti-

144

IN THE

SENATE

fied me of his opposition. A s he l a t e r became the dominant f a c t o r in the c a m p a i g n to nominate the " t i c k e t " on which I had a place, it w a s a serious m a t t e r to h a v e incurred his hostility. A g a i n , h o w e v e r , a f a c t o r must be reckoned with which, in a superficial study of the incident, might easily be o v e r l o o k e d . T h a t f a c t o r is the existence of relentless hostility to me on M r . G r u n d y ' s p a r t long b e f o r e my position w a s declared on either of the two issues in question. In other w o r d s , my utterances on those subjects m e r e l y a d d e d f u e l to a flame a l r e a d y burning with intensity. H a d I e v a d e d both of them, the campaign " l i n e - u p " w o u l d h a v e been the s a m e : the direction of policy and the raising and expenditure of campaign f u n d s w o u l d still h a v e been under the control of a political enemy. W h i l e , t h e r e f o r e , my attitude on these t w o questions undoubtedly did me serious h a r m , I am inclined to think that it a g g r a v a t e d a situation but did not create it. N e i t h e r utterance gained me support. So f a r as there w a s anything that could be described as a labor vote, Pinchot h a d i t ; and in the coal regions he w a s particularly s t r o n g because he had acquired the supp o r t of the U n i t e d M i n e W o r k e r s by his shrewd political manipulation of the anthracite strike situation in 1 9 2 3 . T h e supporters of the child-labor p r o p o s a l h a d no unified political strength. T h e stand of many of them in the campaign w a s determined by other considerations. On the whole, t h e r e f o r e , I w a s hurt by these utterances and not helped by them but neither w a s a f a c t o r of g r e a t importance in producing the ultimate result. T h e rashness with which confident political inferences are d r a w n b y superficial o b s e r v e r s is illustrated by the statement sometimes m a d e that m y stand on the W o r l d C o u r t issue contributed to d e f e a t . I n the Senate I advo-

PRINCIPLES

IN

POLITICS

145

cated separation of the P e r m a n e n t C o u r t f r o m its organic relationship to the L e a g u e . T h i s seems to me a highly desirable result, as tending to minimize the possibility o f political interference with the C o u r t ' s judicial function. W h e n it became evident to me that complete separation o f Court f r o m L e a g u e could not be accomplished, I bent all my energies to secure, as a condition o f adherence, a provision making it possible f o r the U n i t e d States to curb the power o f the Court to act as adviser to the L e a g u e . A s the result o f many conferences between senators and with others, such a condition was finally included in the resolution o f adherence and I voted in f a v o r o f adherence on these terms. H e r e again I was following a course which had no vote-getting value. As usual, the extremes o f advocacy and opposition were the popular positions. T o be willing to vote f o r adherence on any terms was regarded by many as a weakness. T o stipulate f o r a condition unwelcome to the L e a g u e was an offence to those who have what is called an international mind. In point o f fact, however, my attitude on this question had no appreciable effect upon the result o f the campaign. M r . V a r e , as f a r as I can recall, never stated his position on the subject and certainly I lost no votes to Pinchot on the C o u r t issue. T o list me as one o f those who lost his seat by voting f o r adherence is merely an indication o f ignorance o f the facts. A s I write, a proposal is pending to accomplish adherence by the U n i t e d States without the safeguarding Senate condition, on the theory that L e a g u e members have found a formula f o r accomplishing our purpose by using t h e i r words. M y public opposition to this unsatisfactory substitution has again allied me with those who are opposed to adherence on any terms.

146

IN THE

SENATE

When in the autumn of 1 9 2 5 I decided to seek renomination in the following spring I had to determine what attitude to take toward the V a r e organization in Philadelphia. If I had been willing to ask that organization to sponsor my candidacy few well-informed people will doubt that overwhelming victory would have been the result. W h a t I did was to issue the following statement: I am convinced that the best interests of the R e p u b l i c a n party require the Senatorship to be treated as a m a r k of confidence by people of all the counties and not as an office to be bargained f o r w i t h p o w e r f u l groups in some of the counties. I do not say this in hostility to a n y group. O n the c o n t r a r y I advocate political organization in each county according to the temperament and character of its people. B u t I do not believe it to be wholesome f o r any of the counties to be o v e r w e i g h e d by the influence and p o w e r of others. T h i s is a C o m m o n w e a l t h . T h e Senatorial office is the concern of the w h o l e state. T h e Senator ought to be the free choice of all the people.

I was convinced that local organization support would have involved so great a sacrifice of independence that a Senate seat acquired in this way was not worth having. I realized that sooner or later there must come a test of strength and in issuing this statement I was necessarily inviting the test. E v e n so, M r . V a r e would have hesitated to accept this issue and to risk single combat. H e preferred to reckon on the intervention of Pinchot which at that time was probable but not certain. M r . Vare's advisers did all they could to amplify the call of the people to which Pinchot's ear is sensitive and it will, I suppose, never be known just how much of the demand f o r his candidacy was actually inspired by them. A f t e r the primary they with pardonable pride reckoned this as their most astute move and undoubtedly it was. Looking back

PRINCIPLES IN

POLITICS

147

over the whole episode the only lasting regret o f which I am conscious is the regret that Pinchot could not resist the temptation to spoil what would have been a pretty fight. I f V a r e had decided against single combat his organization would t h e r e a f t e r have borne to the U n i t e d States S e n a t o r no other relation than that borne by every other county organization in the State. I f he had sought the nomination in a two-sided fight, no m a t t e r what issues were injected, an analysis o f the vote demonstrates that I would have won by a wide margin. In that event, however, if it is to be assumed t h a t all other conditions remained the same, I should have been compelled to b e a r the odium o f large campaign expenditures raised against my will and used to my disadvantage but labeled with my name. W h a t action the Senate would have taken in such a case is o f course mere matter o f opinion, but even to have one's election ascribed to the use of money, no m a t t e r how baseless the charge, is too high a price to pay even f o r the privilege of serving one's country. O f what has here been written this is the s u m : t h a t whatever may be in general the soundness o r unsoundness o f the maxim with which this chapter began, it derives no support f r o m the record of my own political experience. Reviewing that experience and my term o f service in the Senate, I find a great deal upon which to look back with satisfaction. F i v e years o f strenuous work yielded a little in the way o f achievement and much in the way o f self-development. T h a t I made many lasting friendships, incurred few personal enmities, and acquired and retained the confidence o f those fellow citizens whose esteem I most valued are facts upon which it is agreeable to reflect. A n o t h e r f a c t — n a m e l y , that I have no intention o f ever seeking or accepting public office o f any

148

IN

THE

SENATE

sort—enables me to review the record with a measure of philosophic detachment. I t is only at rare moments t h a t I covet even momentarily the opportunity again to influence the course of events at Washington.