VOL. LXII

Vacation Time

on

With the adjournment of Congress on Saturday, June 5, and Capitol Hill the opening of the Republican National Convention at the beginning of the following week, there was an almost complete shifting of interest in public affairs from Washington to Chicago. For the first time in several years, Senators and Representatives saw ahead of them several months of freedom from official work. Many matters of importance remained to be considered by Congress, but all attempts on the part of certain members to secure a brief recess of a month or more, over the convention period, instead of full adjournment, were emphatically voted down. Senator Underwood, speaking informally, but with evident authority in his capacity as Democratic leader, informed his fellow Senators that the President would not call Congress back to Washington in extra session unless some unforeseen necessity should arise. Thus members of both Houses left Washington for the Conventions or for their homes in the mood of a lot of schoolboys who had passed their examinations and had the long vacation just ahead of them.

Congress Off Duty Till December

Unless some emergency should arise, Congress will not be in session until the first Monday in · December, and its term will end with that of President Wilson on the fourth of March. Thus the Senators and Representatives could fairly count upon six months of freedom from the legislative grind. Most Representatives, however, are candidates for reëlection, and, quite apart from their commitments in the presidential campaign, they have their own political situations to meet in their respective districts. For some of them-especially those from Southern districts their party nomination is as good as an election, and they are not worried about

No. 1

what may happen on November 2. But in many districts the Congressmen will be kept very busy with their own campaigns and their incidental share in the State and national contests for all of four months. Thirty-two of the ninety-six Senate seats are also involved in this year's elections. Sixty-four of the Senators will be comparatively free to give attention to private affairs and obtain rest or recreation, although all of them will be drawn to some extent into the general party contest.

The Caliber of Our Law-Makers

There is such a confirmed habit on the part of many newspapers and many good citizens to carp at Senators and to belittle Congressmen that it is hard to secure open-mindedness for a just estimate of the personal quality and the statesmanship of our national law-making body. We know little about the rank and file of membership in legislative bodies abroad, because under the British, French, Italian, and other representative systems, it is almost invariably true that a small group holding ministerial rank comes to the front for personal approval or criticism, and the ordinary member of a legislative body does nothing except to give his vote along with those of the party group to which he belongs. Our committee system at Washington throws into prominence a much larger number of members of Senate and House than are brought forward in the British House of Commons, for example. There seems to be an impression that our representatives at the two ends of the Capitol building at Washington are men of smaller caliber than their predecessors twenty or forty or sixty years ago. Taking them on the average, however, the men now in public life will gain rather than lose in repute if subjected to strict comparison with those of earlier periods, in points both of intelligence and of character.

3

.HON. FREDERICK H. GILLETT, OF MASSACHUSETTS, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (Mr. Gillett is completing his twenty-eighth year of continuous service in Congress, and is thoroughly typical of the best New England Republicanism. He made the speech at Chicago placing Governor Coolidge in nomination. In case of Republican victory this fall, he will be Speaker of the next Congress and one of the foremost members of a Government in which Congress will work in close coöperation with the Executive)

Courage

There have been times when a Required in few political leaders have seemed Public Life to stand out in larger proportions than in these days. But it so happens that the principal professions and lines of business occupation have all of them become "affected with a public interest"; and so many opportunities are afforded for usefulness in general ways that political office has less attraction than in former days for capable and ambitious men. Educators, lawyers, bankers, labor leaders, clergymen, editors, engineers-men of these and many other callings-find large opportunities of public service (and of personal distinction) without seeking to be elected to Congress or to be called into other official places. It takes a special kind of courage for a man to enter the political arena and make a contest at the polls for public office. Instead of disparaging men of ability and character who have this kind of courage, it is well to give them at least as much praise as they deserve. Most

of the members of both houses of Congress, including those of both parties, possess much more than average ability, and meet the test of endurance under the strains and annoyances of public life as comparatively few men could. Members of the Senate are to a considerable extent men who have been promoted after a period of good service in the other House; while a number of Senators have attained their seats as a result of proved service in their States as Governors.

Government

"Business"

It should be borne in mind that Is Not Merely the ability and character of individual Senators and Congressmen is a matter quite apart from the efficient functioning of Congress as a body. Engineers do not build great bridges through the agency of a debating society. Bishops and clergymen, who command unqualified respect and esteem when at work in their parishes and dioceses, are likely to make a less favorable impression upon the community at large when they get together in some great conclave or convention and try to legislate for a denomination. Bankers would probably agree that the members of their profession cut a better figure when at work in their own communities than when gathered in conventions to discuss quasi-political problems affecting the economic life of the nation. The plain truth is that government by discussion is a tedious affair, and that Congress cannot possibly do business with the quiet efficiency of the United States Steel Corporation or the swift decisions of the American Federation of Labor. But this is not the fault of individual members of Congress. Nor is it a fault of anybody. There are those who think of Government solely in the terms of business. They haye been imagining that someone who in the exercise of war powers has shown personal vigor, and ability to direct an organization, could transform the American Government and make it run on schedule time and in model fashion, just as the Pennsylvania Railroad system used to operate in the palmy days of railroading. But, while the American Government has a vast deal of business to perform, it is wholly different in its structure and in its nature and objects from a commercial corporation. There are certain ways in which it can be considerably improved, but we shall not dispense with Congress; nor shall we wisely restrict the functions, or further minimize the importance, of the two great halls of legislation.

Personal Rule in

Peace Time

In the preliminary groping of the country for presidential candidates there has been evident two distinct trends of thought and feeling. On the one hand have been those who have sought to embody the authority of the nation. in a personage. Those who think and feel in this way do not like delay and discussion and the tiresome balancing of considerations. They like bold leadership, and they long to follow a hero. The other trend of feeling is that of distrust of the arbitrary ruler, exercising almost unlimited power, and the earnest desire to return to the former plan of a government of checks and balances, with all the parts working at their best. Just before adjourning, Congress with one fell swoop voted to abolish most of the exceptional war-time powers which had been conferred upon the executive in 1917 and 1918. About sixty different wartime acts were thus grouped for purposes of repeal in a single resolution that on June 3 was adopted in the House of Representatives by vote of 343 to 3. On June 4 the Senate adopted the resolution unanimously. At least there was no record of any opposing vote. It was understood

pean war ended with the armistice; and, in a legal sense for which a very good argument can be made, the United States was at peace when everybody else was; that is to say, when ratifications of the Versailles Treaty in Europe caused the war status to disappear. However that may be, the repeal of temporary war-time laws was already long past due; and Congress could not properly have adjourned for its six months' holiday without sweeping away many of the statutes that had been enacted to serve a transient emer

gency. The Lever Food and Fuel Control Act was not included in those repealed, nor was the so-called "Trading with the Enemy Act." There were perhaps reasons of practical weight for keeping these laws on the

statute books for a somewhat longer period. Thus the

I critical conditions as regards the supply of such necessary commodities as coal and breadstuffs created by the terrible economic displacements of the war have not yet been overcome. It may be necessary to use the powers granted to the President under the Lever Act to make it fairly certain that coal will be mined and distributed next winter and that famine may be averted by some public control of supplies, markets, and prices. In general, war measures are obsolete.

the leaders in both parties. The Senate was not disposed to take precipitate action, and the adjournment of Congress postpones the question until next winter. This vote of the House could not have expressed mature conviction. Congressmen were all facing the ordeal of reëlection. Great pressure had suddenly been put upon them by groups of exservice men and their friends. It is true that the men who were selected to wear the uniform were not as well treated as those selected to build ships, manufacture munitions, and operate railroads. The sympathy of Congress was genuine, but the state of public finance did not justify this particular So Congress decided to adjourn.

measure.

Pressure

by

Few people realize the pressure that is put upon members of Groups Congress by great organized groups. We are publishing an article this month from the pen of a Washington correspondent, Mr. George P. Morris, who discusses in a thoughtful way this tendency to bring the strong influence of outside organization to bear upon the decisions made at Washington. Citizens who criticize the ex-service men for urging the bonus bill must pause to remember that they themselves perchance belong to the Chambers of Commerce which press their views upon Congress through powerful committees. Or they are members of great farmers' organizations, or of trade unionism as represented by the American Federation of Labor officials and the heads of the Railroad Brotherhoods. Or they are connected with educational bodies which have been urging the enactment of measures granting large amounts of federal aid to education in one form or another. As we have explained in previous numbers of this REVIEW, a foremost achievement of the session now adjourned has been the passage of railroad legislation. The stockholders and managers of the roads found ways to have their views represented at Washington, while, on the other hand, the organized railway employees were successful in securing modification of the original anti-strike clauses. The temperance organizations in a previous session had concerned themselves with details of the Volstead Act, and the organized suffrage movement has shown that it understands well the latest methods of using political pressure upon legislative bodies. We are not condemning these mass attempts to influence legislative work, but are merely pointing out, apropos of the

House vote on the "bonus" bill, the difficult position in which law-makers are sometimes placed by the pressure of organizations, which can make life unpleasant for a Congressman in his home district if his judgment or his sense of duty has not been in accord with their desires.

"Popular"

Practise

Until a few years ago, as some

Methods in of our younger voters scarcely remember, and as many women voters may not bear in mind, United States Senators were chosen by the State legislatures. The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, which went into effect on May 31, 1913, changed the system in an important way. It caused Senators to be chosen in the States by popular vote, just as the Governors are elected. Furthermore, within recent years most of the States have provided for primary elections in which members of political parties select their candidates. Not a few mature observers hold the view that under the former system, when the legislatures named the Senators, the country secured the services of better qualified individuals. There are men of fitness for service in the Senate who do not care to incur the expense and trouble of two popular contests-one for the party nomination, and another a few weeks later for the election itself. We shall, of course, adhere to the popular election of Senators, at least for a good while to come. It was not fitting that the legislatures should be diverted from their proper work of law-making and State finance by contests, which were often prolonged, over the choice of United States Senators. It is, however, questionable whether the party primary system is desirable and whether it results in securing nominations as satisfactory as could be made by party conventions.

The System of

Primaries"

And this leads us to a discussion "Presidential of the recent presidential primaries and their value in helping the country to secure the best party candidates for what is now the foremost public office in the world. Previous to 1912 the presidential primary was virtually unknown. In that year an effort was made to enact at Washington a law that would provide for the holding of preferential primaries throughout the country to discover the will of the voters in respect to their party nominations. Such a national measure has always failed of passage. Many legislatures, however, have enacted presidential primary laws of