OCR Text |
Show PURINO the last 6even or eight years in the senate sen-ate and in the house of representatives there have . been Introduced many measures. Many of them have had their origin directly -with the people who have made their influence felt more markedly within the decade dec-ade than perhaps ever before in the history or the country. As a result re-sult of this members of both houses have been at times forced to show plainly whether their sympathies were with the masses or with the great controlling interests. It has been hard for them to counterfeit a loyalty to the people's interests Some of them have attempted it and have been found out, and are now In private life. The conditions have been such as to make congressional actions within the last few years of special interest, certainly to the onlooker on-looker in Washington. After the Beveridge beef-inspection amendment had been tacked It was hoped securely upon the agricultural department appropriation bill the senate sen-ate awaited house action on the amendment with manifest anxiety. Now there were some members of the senate who it was supposed from the very inception of the matter had held that the measure was altogether too drastic and was in its very nature an invasion of the right of private com-i com-i panies to conduct their business as they saw fit, provided it was not conducted con-ducted in a manner manifestly inimi cal to the public welfare. The upper house had sent the Beveridge amendment to passage quickly, quietly and without a dissenting dis-senting vote, but the feeling held nevertheless that some of the members mem-bers voted as they did simply because be-cause they felt obliged so to vote. One of those who in the public mind it was held had cast his vote in favor of the beef-inspoction law rather unwillingly, un-willingly, was none other than Senator Sen-ator Lodge of Massachusetts. Possibly it was Mr. Lodge's well-known well-known bent toward conservatism and the old ways that impelled people to think that he was in mind if not in heart opposed to carrying; government inquiry into tiv? business of private concerns to an? greater lengths than they had been crfed. The house cbangod the meat Inspection In-spection measure tiv ansferring the cost of the work fro tle pocketbook of the packer '.o tL6 pocketbook of the government and br striking out the clause which made obligatory the placing of the date upon the Vnspec-tion Vnspec-tion stamp. When the measure ;ame back to the senate in its ohanged form one of the first senators to get upon his feet for the purpose of denouncing de-nouncing the changes was Senator Lodge of Massachusetts, and the si eech that he made upon a subject matter no loftier than the dirt upon a packing-house floor Rnd the consequent conse-quent duty of the government to force the hand of the packers to lay hold on Hie broom of cleanliness has been declared 6lnce to be the greatest speech made at the first session of the Flits -ninth congress, and when this element was made by those who ctve pussea judgment tne speeches of Bailey, Knox and Spooner upon the constitutional question involved in the r.'.iircad rate measure were not lost l sight nor to memory. There are often sneers at Massachusetts, Massa-chusetts, because, as the rest of the country has it, she arrogates to herself her-self a certain scholarly distinction denied unto the other commonwealths of the country. Possibly the sneer at times is justifiable, because the old Hay State not only holds herself distinguished above all others in matters mat-ters Intellectual, but she is too fond of letting the conceit spread Into other oth-er fields where she siands not even second, nor yet perhaps twentieth Massachusetts, however, generally does send big men to the senate of the United States, and in the main big men to the house of representatives representa-tives of the nation. In the hearing of such a speech as that of Henry Cabot Lodge upon the Beveridge amendment to the agricultural bill the living sneer of the dead and gone Mark lianna expends Itself Ineffectually. Hanna said that "in Henry Cabot Lodge a good historian was spoiled to make a poor statesman." Mr. Lodge was talking about the pork packing Industry, of corn beef, of Bausages and of bob veal, and yet this man rose to the heights of a great orator. His speech was as withering as contempt for dishonesty in business methods, coupled with a mastery of the language of Irony and Bcorn and biting satire, could make it. While the senator from Massachusetts Massa-chusetts was speaking not a colleague moved in his seat, not a whisper was heard, nor was one of the papers V ; n which littered the senate's desks allowed al-lowed to rustle. Even Mr. Tillman, whose love for Mr. Lodge is not transcending, looked upon the Massa chusetts man with a much more sterlingly honest expression of ad miration in his face than he probably would have cared to make manifest, for it was the Massachusetts senator who only a few days before bad in the senate and in the Tillman presence pres-ence called the statement of a friend of the South Carolinian " a deliberate and unqualified falsehood." Senator Winthrop Murray Crane is Mr. Lodge's colleague in the senate. Mr. Crane Is no orator as Mr. Lodge is, and he knows It. Mr. Crane pales In the presence of a speech predica ment and for the first time In years the Bay State has one man . In the upper house of congress who cannot be eloquent when occasion demands. This touching upon the -opresenta-tion of Massachusetts in the upper house of congress brings to mind the lust great speech of Senator George Frisbie Hoar. It was upon the subject sub-ject of the convention between the United States and the Republic of Panama. That speech was doubly a prophecy. In it he spoke of his own coming death, and then, quoting in part from John Bright, he said: "I see one vast federation stretching from the frozen North in unbroken line to the glowing South, and from the wild billows of the Atlantic westward west-ward to the calmer waters of the Pacific Pa-cific main, and I see one people and one language, one law and one faith, and over all that wide continent a home for freedom and a refuge for the oppressed of every race and every clime." On closing the last speech that he delivered in the senate of the United States, Senator Hoar said: "I do not expect myself to see the accomplishment accomplish-ment of that vision, but I believe It is not far off. The eyes of children now born, the eyes of men now within the sound of my voice will see it far on its way to accomplishment. In spite of a difference of opinion on one great question, I am confident that the career of peaceful empire and of peaceful glory will be along the same path, with the same chart and compass, com-pass, with the same guiding stars, with the same rule of faith and rractice that this nation has followed from the beginning." In congress at times there is presented pre-sented a fine question of ethics to which the higher moralists may give answer if they can. Many a representative repre-sentative finds his conscience tind his apparent duty to his constituents at loggerheads. Demand comes from home that he speak in support of a measure at which his own sense of right revolts. Is !.e to speak or Is he to keep silence? Possibly the answer that springs most readily to the lips Is "yes,' and the three lettered word has as a basis for Its utterance the thought that a representative, being a representative, repre-sentative, should do as those whom he represents direct. There are other sides to this matter, however, some of them shadowed In doubt and others of them clear in the sunlight. Doubtless a representative should vote as his district demands, but have the represented ones the right to expect their member to stand up in the face of men to advocate a measure meas-ure with reasonings and with arguments argu-ments in the truth of none of which he believes, and In the setting forth of which he utters no word without making his lips lie to his heart? Flippant persons to the contrary notwithstanding, most congressmen have consciences. The house of representatives rep-resentatives Is composed for the far greater part of men of decency and of hv,nor poor men In thls'world's goods they are in the main and their poverty pov-erty is their praise. It was hinted Id press correspondence from Washington Wash-ington time and again, and not tnfre-quent'y tnfre-quent'y plain statement was mado, that scores of Republican representatives repre-sentatives were opposed" at heart to t- V " ' , i th" railroad rate legislation urged by President Roosevelt and demanded by the people. Those Republicans who held that the law which was sought was better off than on the statute books voted for the iaw against their own in cllnations and belief because their constituents demanded that they should so vote, but may It not be said to their everlasting credit that most of the representatives who thought the legislation wrong refused to play the hypocrite and the liar in oratorical oratori-cal pleadings for that which they held to be bad in principle. It Is no hard task for a layman ol ordinary Intelligence to tell withirj the span of a speech whether or not the well spring of the eloquence is in the heart. Voice and manner betray the hypocrite, though the words themselves are a fair mask for the lie The speech reads well in the Con gressional Record and In the other public jrints. The constituents find sincerity in the written words, but the listeners have caught the false notes in every sente.ice of the tongue's utterance. The country knows today that one of the chief promoters of the rate regulating measure was a man whe thought that the legislation was- conceived con-ceived in Iniquity. He had the cour age of his convictions at the outset or thought he had but later without undergoing in the least a change ol heart he changed his attitude, and the railroad rate measure goes hue history inseparably connected in the public mind with the name of a representative rep-resentative who almost unquestionably unquestion-ably was a foe rather than a friend t- the legislation. Are a reucmina-tion reucmina-tion and a re-election worth the price ot public hypocrisy? There were Republican representatives representa-tives a few years ago who yearned to speak their minds on the subject of tariff revision. That which they wanted to say would have been un-p.easant un-p.easant to the ears of the majority ol the party members. Loyalty to party-kept party-kept most of these men silent, and no one, perhaps, blames them for their silence, for possibly party good is paramount. The few plain speakers on tariff revision were In the main those Republicans who were certain o'. the countenance of their constituents constit-uents In that whlcj they had to say. It is highly probable, however, that Samuel W. McCall of Massachusetts would have said what he did say If tnere hadn't been a revisionist Republican Re-publican In his district. There are some men whom party considerations can't throttle. It was not a bit pleasant pleas-ant for Mr Cannon and others to hear the heretic McCall say in his cold, bunt bit forceful way: "Now, the people of Massachusetts are only thinking a little in advance o some of the people of this country. Soon this idea, will invade New York and Illinois and Ohio, gathering force as it moves; and I say tc you that If we do rot treat protection as a rational ra-tional principle instead of as a cast-iron, cast-iron, Immutable set of schedules, we art likely to have the Democratic party and then possibly the deluge." There was prophecy In that. |