OCR Text |
Show SECRECY IN THE SENATE. Under the above heading the Chicago Herald of the 26th makes the following excellent observations : In the earlier days of the Republic under the Constitution the Senate was inclined to do much of its business behind closed doors, but the sentiment of the country did not approve ap-prove a survival of English Parliamentary exclusiveness; and the only remnant of the custom remaining is that which closes the doors on what are called executive sessions. These are for the consideration of treaties and of Presidential nominations, the latter, of course, being much the more numerous. Having a long term, and, generally, a long purse; clothed by the Constitution with important im-portant functions not appertaining to the popular branch of Congress,elected not immediately imme-diately by the people, and enjoying without meriting, except in rare cases, a conspicuity which gives greater dignity to a Senator than to a Congressman, Senators of the United States are inclined to look upon themselves as very superior persons. Those of them who are not fitted to join in debate would gladly have the galleries closed to the public, but it is not alone these who are exclusive in their office. A sentiment of caste. a feeling of aristocracy, induces Senators to regard the body in which they serve as very remote from the people. These have resisted re-sisted repeated demands that under no circumstances cir-cumstances shall the Senate close its doors upon the public. The demand has its foundation foun-dation in the feeling of the people that they are masters and that these servants of theirs have no right to conceal from them any of their official doings. The argument for secreBy is the necessity" of free inquiry into the character of nominees and an embarrassed embar-rassed debate thereon. But no man who appeals ap-peals to the Executive to give him a position in the publio service whose character will not bear investigation has any right to complain com-plain if inquiry discloses to the public his dark side; and the public, who pays the cost, is certainly entitled to know how far the Executive's selection of officers bears the search of inquisitors in the Senate It ought to know also, if it wishes, upon what ground the Senate refuses to advise and consent to a nomination. The doors, therefore there-fore ought to be thrown open upon all occasions, occa-sions, and the Senators, who, after all, are nothing more than hired men, should be compelled to say their say in the presence of the people. Time was when the British Parliament held its sessions in secret. There were no spectators, no reporters, and the Commons, drawn from a relatively small body of the people, never dreamed that the people had a right tc know the processes as well as the results of their legislation. But Parliament, though it admits few spectators, would not in this age dare to put the seal of secrecy upon its proceedings. The Senate of the United States would do well to abolish a custom which assumes that the people of a republic are not to be trusted with a knowledge knowl-edge of the doings of their representatives. |