apart from that of the colorless, unappealing personality of the President. They are only his pawns. They have no record of their own upon which to stand. Accordingly, they will fall, as they deserve to fall. That result is one for which all good citizens should be thankful, because the very perpetuity of our institutions depends upon the fullest exercise of independence in the legislative branch of the government. Pepper Is Paralyzed Pennsylvania supplies a conclusive test of Coolidge-Mellon unpopularity. In that state Pepper had all the backing the administration could possibly muster. Mr. Mellon himself did the unprecedented thing of making a campaign speech for Pepper, urging the electorate to support him because the administration wanted him returned to the Senate. The sinews of war were said to be prodigally abundant. The Pepper campaign fund, supplied largely by Mellon influence, is reported in the millions. It was all unavailing. Evidently not enough money could be expended to counter-balance the millstone influence of the Coolidge-Mellon alignment. Pepper, who had the ability, but not the independence, to be a great and useful Senator, has gone down to political oblivion because he chose to be an unthinking pawn of the privilege-serving powers that be. There is precisely the same story to tell about McKinley and Stanfield. They were, first, last and all the time, "administration Senators." The people are getting thoroughly sick of that condition in the policy-making branch of the government. quences of that election were almost comparable to treason. Yet, after admitting and condemning the corruption, forty-nine Senators voted to seat Newberry. "In deciding the Newberry case, a majority of the Senate supported a resolution which contained an unequivocal condemnation of Newberryism. "Referring directly to that Newberry election, speaking specifically of the expenditure of excessive sums in that campaign, and pointing out that it made no difference whether the money was spent with or without the candidate's knowledge and consent, those Newberry Senators denounced such corruption as 'Contrary to sound public policy,' 'Harmful to the honor and dignity of the Senate,' and 'Dangerous to the perpetuity of a free government’Whereupon they proceeded to seat the Senator whose election meant all those fateful and tragic consequences to democracy." "Resolved, (1) That the contest of Henry Ford against Truman H. Newberry be, and it is hereby dismissed. "(2) That Truman H. Newberry is hereby declared to be a duly elected Senator from the State of Michigan for the term of six years commencing on the 4th day of March, 1919, and is entitled to hold his seat in the Senate of the United States. "(3) That whether the amount expended in this primary was $195,000, as was fully reported or openly acknowledged, or whether there were some few thousand dollars in excess, the amount expended was in either case too large, much larger than ought to have been expended. "The expenditure of such excess sums in behalf of a candidate, either with or without his knowledge and consent, being contrary to sound public policy, harmful to the honor and dignity of the Senate and dangerous to the perpetuity of a free government, such excessive expenditures are hereby severely condemned and disapproved." Twenty-one of the Senators who supported the notorious Newberry by voting for the above resolution are gone from the Senate. Eighteen of these Newberry Senators were candidates for reelection this year. Three of them-McKinley, Pepper and Stanfieldhave already paid the penalty of rejection in their own party primaries. The others later to come before the people are: Cameron, Cummins, Curtis, Ernst, Gooding, Harreld, Lenroot, Moses, Oddie, Shortridge, Smoot, Wadsworth, Watson, Weller and Willis. Other "administration Senators" facing reelection -Bingham, Butler, Dale, Means, Robinson (Ind.) and Williams-were not members at the time of the Newberry corruption. It is a perfectly safe prediction that few Newberry Senators will remain after the 1926 elections. "In order that they may more efficiently function in the enforcement of the national prohibition act, any state, county, or municipal officer may be appointed, at a nominal rate of compensation, prohibition officer of the Treasury Department, to enforce the provisions of the national prohibition act and acts supplemental thereto in states and territories, except in those states having constitutional or statutory provision against state officers holding office under the Federal Government." The order has been attacked generally, by Democrats, as unconstitutional. Senator King secured the passage of a resolution on the subject, as follows: "WHEREAS, the President, by an Executive order dated May 8 and published May 21, instant, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to appoint county and municipal peace officers within the states as agents of the Treasury Department to enforce the provisions of the national prohibition act, thus undertaking to impose upon such state officers the duty imposed by acts of Congress upon Federal prohibition officers as such, and to charge the Treasury of the United States with an obligation to compensate such state peace officers for services rendered to the Federal Government; and "WHEREAS, said order of the President has not been authorized by act of Congress and has not been assented to by the legislature of any state, and would appear to be of dubious legality; now, therefore, be it "Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be directed to inquire and advise the Senate as to whether said order is within the legal powers of the Executive." fill offices established by law." These observations by Robinson are pertinent and interesting: "Mr. President, I do not controvert-on the contrary, I assert-that it is the right and duty of those entrusted with the enforcement of prohibition to select agents and a sufficient number of agents, if possible, to enforce this law. But it is an entirely different proposition to say that the Federal authority may absorb all the state agencies and the entire state authority on the subject. "Unquestionably, if the President had the power to make such an order as this in connection with prohibition, he could make it in connection with any other Federal law which operates or which is effective in all the states, so that state officers are diverted from performing the functions which they are directed to perform under the constitutions and laws which give them authority and become subject to the control of the Federal authority. tribute much valuable discussion. Here is a sample of the kind of information with which the record is filled. Congressman Barkley, of Kentucky, is speaking: Under the Underwood tariff law, which was a Democratic measure, the farmers' dollar was worth 100 cents in any market in the United States. Today it is worth only about 60 cents in purchasing power. As an illustration of the disadvantage under which the farmer labors today, as compared with his condition 10 years ago, only a few illustrations are required. In that period increases in the price of his farm implements have in many cases amounted to more than 100 per cent. The following table of comparison between the price of a few typical farm implements will shed a flood of light upon the farmers' depressed condition in 1926: The House Rejects Relief for Agriculture WHETHER OR NOT remedial legislation re sults-and that now depends upon the statesmanship of the Senate-the present controversy over agricultural reconstruction will take front rank with the most historically significant of Congressional debates. Perhaps the public does not yet perceive its epochal importance; certainly few Congressmen and Senators do; but, even a few years hence, no great mentality will be required for a clear understanding of this immediate national drama. The issue is plainly one of farm peasantry-unless adequate and equitable reconstruction be quickly accomplished. A farm peasantry means ultimate disaster for every other interest in the country. ** The The situation as we go to press is this: House, by reason of stubborn, short-sighted leadership, responded to the Hoover-Coolidge-Jardine influence and defeated "the corn belt bill." The measure, reported as a committee amendment to the McNary cooperative bill, is now pending in the Senate. If the Senate acts affirmatively, the issue will again come before the House, because that body has already passed the McNary bill. It is obvious, therefore, that what the Senate does will determine the fate of agricultural legislation at this session. As to the result in the House, that is easily explainable. Chairman Haugen, of the Committee on Agriculture, is chiefly responsible. He was in charge of the bill, and refused to stand for changes which would undoubtedly have insured its success, without in any way weakening the measure. The stumbling block was the provisions in section eight which specifically set up the tariff as "a yard stick." This had no legitimate or useful place in the bill. It would have made no difference in the functioning of the legislation. But its inclusion was so justly offensive to many Democratic members that they could not consistently support legislation in that form. All this was clearly comprehended by corn belt farm leaders. They favored amending the measure to eliminate the tariff statement. With a persistence worthy a better cause, Chairman Haugen objected. even going so far as to threaten a bolt, if that section were altered. The Democrats generally desired to vote affirmatively. About half of them did-in the face of the repulsive section eight. If those provisions had been corrected, as the sponsors of the measure de sired, there is little doubt that the bill would have passed. Congressman Barkley, of Kentucky, and other progressives, sought in vain to secure the amendment of section eight. Everybody knew that the controlling votes hinged upon that point. Congressman Black, of Texas, expressed the attitude of his section in this: "If you western Members want the Members from the South to join you, I will tell you how you can do it, and then you will see how quickly we will rush to your cooperation: Bring in a bill that will repeal the iniquitous Fordney-McCumber tariff law and relieve the farmers from the terrific burdens which it imposes. If you want to improve the situation of agriculture, there is the way to do it. (Applause.)" But Chairman Haugen stood like adamant for the inclusion of those provisions which served only to defeat the measure. That is the simple truth of the matter. Whether his stubborn insistence was due to a conscientious belief in section eight or was influenced by a desire to play into the hands of the antagonistic administration, we do not know. In either event, Mr. Haugen has not shown himself to be a statesmanlike friend of the farmer. ARKANSAS: Driver, nay; Oldfield, yea; Tillman, yea; Wingo, not voting; Ragon, nay; Reed, yea; Parks, nay. CALIFORNIA: Lea, nay; Curry, nay; Kahn, nay; Flaherty, not voting; Carter, nay; Barbour, yea; Free, nay; Lineberger, not voting; Fredericks, not voting; Swing, yea. COLORADO: Vaile, nay; Timberlake, yea; Hardy, yea; Taylor, yea. CONNECTICUT: Fenn, nay; Freeman, nay; Tilson, nay; Merritt, nay; Glynn, nay. ILLINOIS: Madden, nay; Hull, nay; Sproul, nay; Doyle, nay; Sabath, yea; Gorman, nay; Michaelson, not voting; Kunz, nay; Britten, nay; Chindbloom, nay; Reid, yea; Fuller, yea; Johnson, yea; Allen, yea; King, yea; Hull, yea; Funk, yea; Holaday, yea; Adkins, yea; Rainey, yea; Wheeler, yea; Irwin, yea; Arnold, yea; Denison, yea; Williams, yea; Rathbone, yea; Yates, yea. INDIANA: Rowbottom, yea; Greenwood, yea; Gardner, yea; Canfield, yea; Johnson, yea; Elliott, yea; Updike, yea; Vestal, yea; Purnell, yea; Wood, yea; Hall, yea; Hogg, yea; Hickey, yea. IOWA: Kopp, yea; Letts, yea; Robinson, yea; Haugen, yea; Cole, yea; Ramseyer, yea; Dowell, yea; Thurston, yea; Green, yea; Dickinson, yea; Boies, yea. KANSAS: Anthony, yea; Little, yea; Sproul, yea; Hoch, yea; Strong, KENTUCKY: Barkley, not voting; Kincheloe, nay; LOUISIANA: O'Connor, nay; Spearing, nay; Martin, nay; Sandlin, nay; Wilson, nay; Kemp, nay; Lazaro, nay; Aswell, nay. MAINE: Beedy, nay; White, nay; Nelson, nay; Hersey, nay. MARYLAND: Goldsborough, nay; Tydings, nay; Hill, nay; Linthicum, nay; Gambrill, nay; Zihlman, yea. MASSACHUSETTS: Treadway, nay; Bowles, nay; Foss, nay; Stobbs, nay; Rogers, nay; Andrew, nay; Connery, nay; Underhill, present; Douglass, nay; Tinkham, nay; Gallivan, not voting; Luce, not voting: Frothingham, nay; Martin, nay; Gifford, nay. MICHIGAN: Sosnowski, nay; Michener, nay; Hooper, nay; Ketcham, nay; Mapes, nay; Hudson, nay; Cramton, nay; Vincent, nay; McLaughlin, nay; Woodruff, yea; Scott, yea; McLeod, not voting; James, yea. MINNESOTA: Furlow, yea; Clague, yea; Andresen, yea; Keller, yea; Newton, nay; Knutson, yea; Kvale, yea; Carss, yea; Wefald, yea; Goodwin, yea. MISSISSIPPI: Rankin, nay; Lowrey, yea; Whittington, nay; Busby, nay; Collins, nay; Wilson, nay; Quin, yea; Collier, nay. MISSOURI: Romjue, yea; Lozier, yea; Milligan, yea; Faust, yea; Ellis, nay; Dickinson, yea; Major, yea; Nelson, yea; Cannon, yea; Newton, nay; Hawes, yea; Dyer, nay; Kiefner, yea; Bailey, nay; Manlove, yea; Rubey, yea. MONTANA: Evans, yea; Leavitt, yea. NEBRASKA: Morehead, yea; Sears, yea; Howard, yea; McLaughlin, yea; Shallenberger, yea; Simmons, yea. NEVADA: Arentz, yea. NEW HAMPSHIRE: Hale, nay; Wason, nay. NEW JERSEY: Patterson, nay; Bacharach, nay; Appleby, nay; Eaton, nay; Ackerman, nay; Perkins, not voting; Seger, nay; Taylor, nay; Fort, nay; Lehlbach, nay; Auf der Heide, not voting; Norton, nay. NEW MEXICO: Morrow, yea. NEW YORK: Bacon, nay; Kindred, nay; Lindsay, not voting; Cullen, nay; Black, nay; Somers, nay; Quayle, not voting; Cleary, not voting; O'Connell, not voting; Celler, not voting; Prall, not voting; Dickstein, not voting; Sullivan, not voting; Perlman, not voting; Boylan, not voting; O'Connor, not voting; Mills, nay; Carew, not voting; Bloom, nay; LA GUARDIA, nay; Weller, nay; Griffin, nay; Oliver, nay; Fairchild, nay; Wainwright, nay; Fish, nay; Pratt, nay; Corning, not voting; Parker, nay; Crowther, nay; Snell, nay; Sweet, nay; Davenport, nay; Tolley, nay; Magee, nay; Taber, nay; Stalker, nay: Jacobstein, nay; Sanders, nay; Dempsey, nay; MacGregor, nay; Mead, not voting; Reed, nay. Warren, yea; Kerr, yea; Abernethy, yea; Pou, nay; Stedman, yea; Lyon, yea; Hammer, yea; Doughton, yea; Bulwinkle, nay; Weaver, not voting. NORTH CAROLINA: NORTH DAKOTA: Burtness, yea; Hall, yea; Sinclair, yea. OHIO: Stephens, nay; Fitzgerald, nay; Fitzgerald (W. T.), yea; Thompson, yea; Kearns, nay; Brand, yea; Fletcher, nay; Chalmers, nay; Jenkins, nay; Underwood, nay; Speaks, nay; Begg, nay; Davey, nay; Moore, nay; McSweeney, yea; Morgan, nay; Murphy, yea; Cooper, nay; Mooney, nay; Crosser, nay; Burton, nay. OKLAHOMA : Montgomery, nay; Hastings, yea; Carter, yea; McKeown, yea; Swank, yea; Thomas, yea; McClintic, yea; Garber, yea. OREGON: Hawley, nay; Sinnott, yea; Crumpacker, nay. PENNSYLVANIA: Vare, not voting; Graham, nay; Ransley, not voting; Golder, not voting; Connolly, nay; Welsh, not voting; Darrow, nay; Butler, nay; Watson, nay; Griest, yea; Watres, nay; Carpenter, nay; Brumm, nay; Esterly, yea; McFadden, yea; Kiess, nay; Magrady, yea; Beers, yea; Swartz, yea; Walters, not voting; Kurtz, yea; Menges, yea; Swoope, not voting; Kendall, not voting; Temple, nay; Phillips, nay; Strong, nay; Bixler, nay; Shreve, nay; Coyle, nay; Wyant, nay; Porter, nay; Kelly, nay; Morin, not voting; Magee, nay; Campbell, not voting. RHODE ISLAND: Burdick, not voting; Aldrich, not voting; O'Connell, nay. SOUTH CAROLINA: McMillan, nay; Hare, nay; Dominick, nay; McSwain, yea; Stevenson, nay; Gasque, yea; Fulmer, yea. SOUTH DAKOTA: Christopherson, yea; Johnson, yea; Williamson, yea. TENNESSEE: Reece, nay; Taylor, not voting; McReynolds, yea; Hull, nay; Davis, yea; Byrns, nay; Eslick, yea; Browning, nay; Garrett, nay; Fisher, yea. TEXAS: Black, nay; Box, nay; Sanders, nay; Rayburn, nay; Sumners, yea; Johnson, nay; Briggs, nay; Garrett, yea; Mansfield, yea; Buchanan, nay; Connally, nay; Lanham, nay; Williams, nay; Wurzbach, not voting; Garner, not voting; Hudspeth, nay; Blanton, nay; Jones, yea. UTAH: Colton, yea; Leatherwood, yea. VERMONT: Brigham, nay; Gibson, nay. VIRGINIA: Bland, nay; Deal, nay; Montague, nay; Drewry, not voting: Whitehead, nay; Woodrum, nay; Harrison, yea; Moore, nay; Peery, nay: Tucker, nay. WASHINGTON: Miller, yea; Hadley, yea; Johnson, nay; Summers, yea; Hill, yea. WEST VIRGINIA:_ Bachmann, not voting; Bowman, nay; Wolverton, nay; Strother, nay; Taylor, not voting. WISCONSIN: Cooper, yea; Voigt, nay; Nelson, not voting; Schafer, yea; BERGER, nay; Lampert, yea; Beck, yea; Browne, yea; Schneider, yea; Frear, yea; Peavy, not voting. WYOMING: Winter, yea. This roll call will doubtless be considered seriously and very often in the coming campaigns. THE The Exploiting Section HE northeastern section of the country-the financial and industrial part-is exploiting the rest, North, West and South. About that there can be no question. Nor is it at all debatable that the New England-New York-Pennsylvania section selfishly and short-sightedly desires a continuation of agricultural prostration. Economic equality always makes exploitation more difficult. Therefore, the predatory states will obstruct to the last ditch every move toward a greater agricultural independence. This is apparent in the attitude of the northeastern states on the Haugen bill. This section voted as follows: THE HE House, as has been revealed, rejected the corn belt bill. Apparently a majority of Congressmen had no fear of the political effect of that action. In the Senate, however, many members are obviously afraid to face their constituencies unless some measure of remedial legislation is passed. Several Senators who would otherwise jump through whatever hoop the administration desired are thoroughly alarmed over what has already happened to Old Guard candidates. This campaign apprehension is doubtless responsible for the fact that the agricultural relief bill will come to a vote in the Senate before adjournment, with considerable of that kind of reluctant support. Numerous Old Guarders, therefore, are lined up for the corn belt bill. Yet, in such a situation where political expediency is undoubtedly a major motive, and with both Senate and House machines dominated by pro-administration leaders, the result is always doubtful. There are altogether too many parliamentary opportunities for double-dealing to make the outlook very hopeful. * With reference to this, Senator La Follette said: "I am frank to say, in view of the action which has already been taken by the House upon the matter and the continuous delay which is occurring here, that the question arises in my mind as to whether or not there is any serious determination on the part of those who are in control of the legislative machinery of both branches of Congress for the passage of any farm-relief legislation. I think that what I have to say in regard to the matter may be taken as being in good faith, because I am not at this particular time a candidate for reelection, but it seems to me, and it is perfectly obvious to anyone who has been studying the situation, that there is continuous delay in the consideration of a farmrelief measure. If we are merely to have a vote in the Senate in order to give Senators an opportunity to go on record, and then the matter is to die because of inaction in the House, that is one proposition. That program will not require very much time. If, however, the measure is to pass the Senate and is to go to the House, and there is to be a conference before final legislation is enacted, it is going to require a long period of time, as everyone knows who is familiar with legislation. It seems to me that we ought to either take up the farm-relief problem in good faith or we ought to lay it aside. Certainly, if the leadership of the Congress is not in a frame of mind where it is ready to give serious attention to relief for agriculture, we ought to be frank with the farmers and let them know that there is not to be any legislation at this session of Congress. It is high time that we get down to a serious consideration of agricultural problems. But if this is just a plan to give senatorial candidates a chance to vote for the bill, then I say let the country know that the Congress is once more making a political football of farm-relief legislation." * With so many Senatorial elections pending, it appears quite probable that the Senate will pass the bill. Then will come the real test of the sincerity of those who thus profess a remedial friendliness for American agriculture. The issue will be fought out by a conference committee of the two branches. By standing firm and refusing to adjourn until adequate relief is accomplished, the Senate has the undisputed power to prevail. What Senators Are Saying Senator G. W. Norris, of Nebraska, in Current History magazine: Last year the returns on the farms of America yielded scarcely 2 per cent on the assessed valuation. This would mean in the neighborhood of 1 per cent for the real value. Everybody seems to be prosperous and making Too few people stop to money except the farmer. think that a country cannot long remain in a prosperous condition when the one fundamental industry of all others is failing. . The freight is added to everything he buys, and it is deducted from everything he sells. In effect, therefore, he pays the freight twice. The farmer is compelled to buy in a protected market and to sell his product in a world market. He buys inside the tariff |