| OCR Text |
Show H THAT "INSIDIOUS LOBBY" H The Iluffhlo Impress comments at length on H President Wilson's "Insidious Lobby." While be- H llcvlng with tlio President, especially on free sugar fl thn Kxprcrs takes sharp Ibsiio with him on the lobby H Question. The article follows: H Webster said something about the advisability H of tlio tempest tossed mariner Improving the first H chpnee to tnko his bearings and find out whither H he has been drifting. Now that a committee of tlio H United States senate has wasted somewhat more H i than a week In taking the personal oaths of sennt- H ors that they have not been corruptly. Insidiously H or otherwlso Improperly approached by any lobbyist fl with tho net result of merely bringing out a brand- m new definition of "Insidious lobbying," It may bo H well to look back hnd seo where we started and then B perhaps wo shall hnvo n better Idea of what wo are B getting to or getting away from. m The beginning of this singular diversion from B tho ordinary course of tariff progress was, a public H statement made by President Wilson on May 27th. H It was as follows: H I think that tho public ought to know the ex- M trnordlnary exertions being made .by the lobby In H Wasiilngton to gain recognition for certain niter- H nttons of tho tariff hilt. Washington has seldom BBBl seen go numerous, so Industrious or so Insidious (n lobby. Tho newspapers nro being filled with paid advertisements, calculated to mislead tho B. Judgment of public men not only, but nlso tho pub- H lie opinion of tho country Itself. Tliero Is ovcry H evidence that money without limit U being spent H to sustain this lobby nnd to create an nppearnnco 1 of n pressure of public opinion antagonistic to H some of tho chief Items of the tariff bill. It Is of B serious IntereEt to tho country that tho people at mm largo tliould have no lobby and be voiceless In B these matters, while great bodies of astute men B Beek to create nil artificial opinion for their prlv- H ato profit. It is tloioughly worth tho whllo of tho 1 peoplo ofthls country to have n knowledge of this m matter. Only public opinion can check and des- B troy It. Tho govwnirent in all Its branches ought BlV to bo rcliced of this intolernblo burden and this Blfl constant Intermptiun to the calm progress of de- H bate. I know that In this I am speaking for the ! members of the two houses, who would rejoice ns IH much ns I would to bo released from this unbear- 1 nblo situation. 11 Uoro was a very definite chnrgo. It locnted tho ! alleged lobby "in Washington." It ascribed to the PfB lobby tho purposo of obtain ng 'certain alterations" fB In tho tariff bill. It declared that tho lobby was "mi- Bm mcrous," "Industr'ous" and "insidious." That word BBS 'Insidious" la not in such common use that Its ex- BBJ act meaning could lie given by every render off- BBt hand. It may be welt to quote tho New Intcrnatlou- SB nl "full of plots; uncthing to: an opportunity to BBj Inbnare, or Intended to entrap; chnraterlzed by BBJ treachery and deceit, sly; crafty; wily." An "Insld- BBj ' lous" lobb), therefore Is not a kind of lobby any BBJ honest statesman can allow to Influenco him. The BBJ senntors wero showing a very proper self-respect BBJ In wishing to clear themselves at once from any BBf suspicion of being tolls of such a lobby. But moro BBJ than this, tho President brought up directly and BBJ positively tho subject of money. Ho said that Uie BBJ newspapers wero being filled with "paid advertise- BBJ merits calculated to mislead tho Judgment of public BBJ men" and also to mislead public opinion, lie said BBJ there was ever)' evidence that money was being BJB spent "without limit " And ho thought tho peoplo BBJ ought to know- about It. Certainly tho people should BBJ know nbout nil) thing of that k.nd. If money Is be- BBJ Ing spent "without llm't" by one of the most num- BBJ erous, tmlustrlouB and Insld ous lobbies ever seen BJB In Washington to obtain "certain alterations" In BBJ tho proposed legislation, that Is a matter of very BBJ great public concern. It Implies corruption or at- BBJ tempts at corruption nnd whether the proposed tar- BBJ Iff Is hold to ho wlso or unwlsj thero can bo no two BJB opinions on tho point that It should ho honestly on-BBJ on-BBJ BBJ The senators have been investigating fcr mo-o BmB thnn a week and so far it appears that no senator BVr had noticed tho presence In Washington of this BlB' most numerous, Industrious and Insidious lobby. BBJ They had seen or heard nothing of the corrupting BBJ ' 'luences which were bo hppa-ent to the eye of the BBJ Prcs'dent. In fact tho testimony wan becoming so BBJ amazingly contradictory of the President's tuser- BJB tions as to arouse a fear among tils' friends that It BBJ i would convict him of having spoken Impulsively and BJB without knowledge of tho facts Courtesy forhiido BBJ that he bo personally summoned before the com- BBJ; ! mltteo to tell under oath the basis for his charges. BBJ but senator after senator visited the White llouso BBJ' with tho apparent purposo of nsklng him privately BVa what he know and what lino of inquiry tho Invest- BBJ, guttng committee st'ould pursuo In order to sustain BJB him Tho first deflnlto hint of what the President BBJ was drlv'ng at was b-ought from tho White House BBJ by Senator Hoko Smith on Thursday. Senator Smith BBJ FPM "Hveryone is entitled to Ws day In court and I BJBj have always consldorel that a legislative body stit Baaraaal '. m i m ,--, ,. BbbH v4BBbbbbbbbBbM BBBBM j iH MMMM J aii-TM T" r It 1 "" as a court. An attempt to influence Its Judgment niter the arguiLtnt Is presented b seeking, nga.n nnd tgnlti to ciate sentiment and work upon tne Judgment of tho members of congress Is Insidious nnd highly objta ontibls obbylng. ' Now that we have thM singular definition wo must nolo that It corresponds somewhat with tho President's orlg nal statement Tho "Insidious lobby" lob-by" of which he complained was Inserting "pn.d advertisements in the newspapers to mislead tho Judgment of puuilc men and to mislead publ.c opinion. opin-ion. It was trying to "create an appearance of a presume of public op.nlon." It Is, of course well known that tho various business Interests likely to bo affected by the revision re-vision of tho tariff havo sent committees to Washington Wash-ington and have hired attorneys to argue their side of the caso and that they havo printed and distributed distrib-uted n great deal of literature to put their arguments argu-ments before tho public. Nowspapers havo printed moro or less of theso arguments, as It was their legitimate and fair duty to lo. No newspaper which would refuse to give all sides a reasonable hearing could pretend to bo fair. Whether any such mat- J ter has been printed as paid advertising The Express Ex-press does not know- It Is not uncommon for ar-t guments on public questions to be displayed and paid for an advertising. Put It Is significant that no such advertisement has yet been shown to the - commttteo during tho progress of this Investigation. Ono would hnvo supposed that If the President had actually scon such advertlsments nnd considered them Illegitimate, ho would have sent them to the committee nt once. Without such evidence, ho leaves himself under tho suspicion that ho harbors the nmnteur.sh delusion that any newspaper state ment which does not accord with his own Ideas or conception of facts must bo a. "paid advertisement." It Is hoped that so great a public man as Mr. Wilson Wil-son Is above such childishness. Put putting aside tho newspaper end of the discussion, dis-cussion, what Is there about any of this distribution j or literature nnd presentation of argument which Is j unfair, Illegitimate or Insidious? Take the case of the most active interest now- nt work to obtain alterations al-terations In the pending bill the sugar interest. Tho Express believes In freo sugar and hopes that tho free sugar clause will bo enacted. But It Is undenlablo that sugar Is a great Industry In the United Uni-ted States and Its dependencies. If the men engaged en-gaged In this Industry believe that the pending bill Is going to Injure them, havo they not tho rlght(J bej oiid question, to say so, to explain to congress nnd to tho country why they believe they will ho Injured? Public opinion may or may not ngreo with them, but, so fnr as they limit their activities to open and public argument, It Is entirely unwarranted unwarrant-ed to call their efforts "Insidious lobbying." Tho claim that congress Is a court and has a right to closo public argument is not ndmlsslble. Congress Is not n court, hnd, If it were, It would not hnvo n right to close public argument. Courts do not limit arguments even boforo their own tribunals tri-bunals as a rule, and thoy never attempt to say thnt discussion In tho press and on the platform must cease when they havo mado up tholr minds. Such tin nttltudo by a court would bo intolerable. Much less can It he admitted as n privilege of a legislative legisla-tive body. If arguments ngalnst tho tnrlft hill or against any features of It nre making hn Impression on tho public which is causing somo senators to doubt tho wisdom nnd Justlco of tho hill. It Is a very poor way to meet this opinion by chnrglng that It has been worked up by an "Insidious lob by." Tho senntors ought to bo Intelligent enough to Judgo whether statements aro untruthful or mis lending and not entitled to Influence them. At any rato, tho decision rests with them. Some of thorn are saying that tho President himself has been the chief Influenco seeking to dlssundo them from the exerclso of their conscientious Judgment nnd It Is proposed thnt tho Investigators ask senators how-far how-far they havo been subjected to such Presidential Influence. Whatever may bo said on that lino, It looks nt present ns If tho President's charges wero i moro an expression of chngrln over tho drift of public Bcntlment ngalnst tho tariff hill thnn of any deflnlto knowledge of tho exlstenco of hn "Insidious lohby." |
