Με

EN AND WOMEN OF AMERICA: Allow me to present a very important group of federal officials, of whom you have doubtless heard much and perhaps know little-the Senators, thirty-two in number, who come before you in 1926 for election review. You are "the party of the first part" in elections and legislation and should therefore be eager to make their acquaintance, not casually, nor in a campaign way, but actually as they are. Since it is their custom, on all occasions, to appear according to seniority and party prominence, let us proceed with the introductions in that order.

First, then meet Mr. Reed Smoot, of Utah, a Senator since 1903. He had always been what (for want of a more adequate political vocabulary) one calls a machine member. In that connection he goes back to the time of the old Aldrich oligarchy. Subsequently, the deliberations and decisions of the Senate were quite largely in the hands of a triumvirate, consisting of Penrose, Lodge and himself. These three were largely responsible for making Harding president. Now, of that dominant trio, Mr. Smoot alone remains. He is, politically speaking, the most powerful of all the Coolidge adherents. This does not imply for him a position such as is held by Mellon, Hoover or Butler, but in patronage matters the personnel of commissions and bureaus -his influence reaches far and wide. Within the Senate, he is chairman of its most important committee, that on Finance. Among the present membership, he stands out as the great high priest of protection, being inclined almost toward fanaticism in his tariff philosophy, whereas with many others the same attitude is inherently habitual, or a mere expediency of politics. Also he is an individual of unusual interest because of the fact that he may soon become head of the Mormon Church, an organization of extensive economic and political power. When indulging in debate, which he does often, Mr. Smoot appears unpleasantly gruff and harsh; but underneath it all is a very real kindliness and generosity. Instinctively do animals and little children comprehend, and come to him. He regards "standpat politics" as he would religion, and with him any independence, or insurgency, is a thing to be stamped out as savagely as was witchcraft in the days of old. He is a dean of Old Guard Republicanism in the Senate, and will tolerate not the slightest straying from its straight and narrow path.

Next in line is Mr. Charles Curtis, who has had his political ups and downs in the cyclonic state of Kansas. His Senate service started in 1907, when he aligned himself with Aldrichism. That affiliation led to repudiation by the electorate. But he came back, after an absence from 1913 to 1915, and

resumed "regularity" as though no break had occurred. Today he is a major domo of the dominant machine, being caucusly chosen "majority leader." Moreover, he is chairman of the crucial committee on Rules, ranking member on Indian Affairs, and well up on both Appropriations and Finance-truly an influential figure-one of the few "to be seen," if you desire either to push or to kill a measure. Such power springs from seniority. It is machinemade, and utilized-whether for public weal or woe is for you to determine.

Now comes the silvery, 75-year old veteran of politics from Iowa, Mr. Albert J. Cummins-seventeen years a Senator. In the beginning he was progressive, conspicuously so on transportation issues. Long ago, however, he became a "regular." From his, former championship of popular welfare to the Esch-Cummins railroad bill is a long jump, but he made it in a few somersaults. He was rewarded, of course, by the highest honors the organization could bestow. He but recently relinquished the position of President pro tempore, and is at present chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and ranking Republican on Interstate Commerce. He was an able debater, and still talks well, but it now requires more time for him to introduce a subject than it once did to discuss it.

The next oldest Senator, in length of service, is Mr. Wesley L. Jones, of Washington, a member since 1909. His first election was due to the political revolt that followed the Pinchot-Ballinger controversy. While Mr. Jones is generally pro-administration, he is likely, at almost any time, to be found on the side of the Independents, as in the Newberry episode. At least it can be said that his machine affiliations have been such that the leaders could never depend upon him for the utmost in strict party "loyalty." He is quite capable of doing his own thinking, and a forceful, though not a brilliant, speaker, always at his best when "kicking over the traces." At present he occupies the rather unaristocratic, unofficial position of Republican "whip"-a kind of party errand boy for the organization. The emblem of this office might appropriately be a lasso-to round up the votes when they are needed for machine purposes. It seems a somewhat doubtful distinction for a public servant of the Jones attainment and caliber.

Here is another caucus official-Mr. James W. Wadsworth, of New York, who entered the Senate in 1915. He is Secretary of the Caucus, and of, by and for the organization, as this position would indicate. There has never been the smallest sign of insurgency in his character or conduct. On the contrary, he always seems alertly on guard against progressivism-and not overfond of democracy. For

example, he opposed woman suffrage.

Everything

on the program, from the Mellon plan to a whitewash of Newberry, apparently has had his full approval. His special pets, perhaps, are army bills. As chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, his opportunities in that connection have been frequent, and handled zealously.

A year later, in 1916, Mr. James E. Watson, of Indiana, became a Senator. He is an experienced and successful professional in politics. No outstanding legislation bears his name, but it is probable that few public men ever had more ramified connections with forces interested in the results of political and parliamentary decisions. Formerly he was in the House, and close to the throne of Cannonism. The Mulhall expose revealed him in the character of a lobbyist; but in that sensational episode, you will remember, there was a general whitewash, excepting for Congressman McDermott, who was made the goat. In the Senate, Mr. Watson has been a regular, and a resourceful, insistent leader of regularity. His present rank in the organization, caucus created, is that of Assistant Majority Leader, with the chairmanship of the Committee on Interstate Commerce and prominent places on Finance, Rules, and Privileges and Elections. He is a real factor in any Senatorial situation. He has oratorical talent, but knows when "arrangement" is preferable to argument. When he does indulge in debate, everything and everybody that rises in opposition to the powers that be are likely to be branded as "bolshevistic." Such stigma, rather than facts and logic, are perhaps his favorite verbal weapons. It was so that he attacked the Federal Trade Commission in the beginning of the long fight to end the public usefulness of that body.

Two conspicuous characters entered the Senate in 1918-Mr. Irvine L. Lenroot, of Wisconsin, and Mr. George H. Moses, of New Hampshire.

Mr. Lenroot was first elected through La Follette influence. No one can dispute that, nor the further fact that the advancement was merited, from the La Follette point of view. Mr. Lenroot had been a chief lieutenant of Fighting Bob during all that period when the badger state was being wrested from "stalwart" control. Later, as Congressman, he figured prominently in the fight against the Cannon regime. Then he switched completely. The Lenroot of yesterday is wholly unlike the Lenroot of today. Probably there was never a greater transformation of attitude and affiliation. Now he is proorganization, "hook, line and sinker."

Mr. Moses comes from "hardboiled" Republican territory, and conducts himself accordingly, although sometimes giving the impression that a more liberal environment would have found him responsive-and happier. Except on one outstanding occasion, his deportment has conformed to traditional New England regularity-but without the witchcraft kind of

intolerance. He opposed the dye embargo, with ability and vigor. Otherwise he must be catalogued as reactionary. On March 5, 1925, the machine, in caucus assembled, selected him as President pro tempore of the Senate, a recognition and reward of no small proportions. Mr. Moses is of added interest because he was until recently Chairman of the Republican Senatorial Committee, that being an unofficial agency for the purely partisan purpose of electing a sufficient number of regulars to control the spoils and perquisites and privileges of the Senate organization.

The successor to Warren G. Harding in the Senate was Mr. Frank B. Willis, also from Ohio, of course a state that makes and unmakes many a President. He took the seat January 10, 1921, serving first by appointment. It is not necessary to recall very much concerning Mr. Willis. Overshadowing all else is his "conviction and acquittal" amendment to the resolution seating Newberry. He may go down in history as the man who wrote "the epitaph of decency in the Senate." Also he figured on the firing line in the defense of Attorney General Daugherty.

There appear now a number of Senators who were simultaneous, so far as seniority is concerned, all being initially elected in 1920, with the Harding sweep. Several of them, no doubt, would not have succeeded without "landslide" assistance. They are:

Ralph H. Cameron, of Arizona;
Richard P. Ernst, of Kentucky;
Frank R. Gooding, of Idaho;
John W. Harreld, of Oklahoma;
William B. McKinley, of Illinois;
Tasker L. Oddie, of Nevada;

Samuel W. Shortridge, of California;
Robert N. Stanfield, of Oregon;

O. E. Weller, of Maryland; and

Peter Norbeck, of South Dakota, who is placed last

in the list because he is noticeably different from the others, and would so be "lined up" by them, they being regulars and he much inclined toward independence.

Judged by the old standards of statesmanship, this group of Senators is marked by mediocrity. Certainly there is no Webster or Sumner or Clay among them. They have demonstrated little outstanding individuality, having for the most part led a colorless, camp-follower kind of machine existence. It is only fair to them, however, to point out that they have been in the Senate less than five years, which is hardly long enough for seniority to provide opportunities for a demonstration of ability and influence. Under the existing system, no Senator gets very far until at least a decade has elapsed, unless he be exceptionally fearless and free.