The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1885-01-31
REPORTING CONGRESS.

| 1es, have been good while at 1t,
said Mr.. d. F. Murphy, the official
stenographer of the Senate, as he sat in
the handsomely finished stenographers'
room at the Senate end OF the capitol.
Its windows look out upon ti.e spacious
| grounds at the front OF the capitol, for
| it is one OF the most eligible rooms in
| the entire building, just by the massive
| doors, and looking out upon the marble
| portlco OF the Senate end of the east
| front of the capitol. On the ceilings
! are beautiful and highly artistic frescoes,
| reminders of the dead Brumidi, and
stretching around the wall are long
| bills, reports, and other documents of
this sort that are most likely to be
| needed at moments notice.
Eyes, it is over thirty five years." he
said, since | began reporting the Sen
ate proceedings. A long time, is it not?
| and yet it has gone quickly, and with it
a good many men of great abilities and
reputation"
Your reconections run back as far as
Webster, then, do they, MIR. Murphy?"
| "Yes," he answered musingly. 81 re-
member him very well. A very slow.
careful speaker, easy to report because
of the extreme moderation with which
he spoke, Yes, l reported Webster,
and Clay and Cass, and, later on, the
| great men who took their places, Sum
ner and Seward and all the others"
| "Do you join in the often expressed
| opinion that greatness has departed
from the halls of Congress, and that the
statesman of to-day is pigmy compar-
| ed with that of quarter of a century
ago?"
mo; on the contrary, l think that
the Congress of the United States, take
| the members as class, average better
now than it did in earlier days. There
are not, perhaps, just now, any very
great minds which tower up beyond all
| the rest, as seen to be the case with
| Webster and few others then and
since, but take the average statesman
then and now, aud / think he of to-day
| bears comparison very we'll"
"How long has Congress been steno-
graphically reported?'
"rhe Senate was first so reported in
1S4S. There were one or two attempts
earlier, but they were unsatisfactory
tenn began in 1S48 in the Senate, and
about 1850 in the House, and has been
continued since"
"Will the present much criticised sys-
tenn, which permits members to revise
their speeches before publication, be
remedied, do you think?"
Doubtful, | think. There has el-
WAYS been talk about it, but only talk.
there were efforts twenty-five years ago,
| perhaps more, TO have that feature elm
mated, and to have the debates printed
exactly as they occurred. [ remember
| that JEFF Davis was one of the most
vigorous in denouncing revision, and in
urging that the debates be printed ex
actly as they occurred. And yet Davis
was one of the fastest speakers of the
Senate at that time, and it would seem
that if anybody needed to revise his re-
marks or the stenographic report of
them it would be he.'
did he often say SOP"
"No. He scarcely ever looked at his
speeches in manuscript"
'Are the ablest men the ones most
likely to revise and polish up their
speeches 2
"No, rather the reverse. AS rule the
men who stand out most prominently IN
the history of the Senate were OF such
habits of speech that there was little
occasion for them to revise the report
of their speeches. Webster, as | said,
was slow speaker, and a careful one.
Seward usually wrote his speeches
beforehand and committed them TO
memory, so that often he did not require
them to be reported at all, turning them
over in manuscript. This was not always
the case, however. / remember on one
occasion he asked me to take breakfast
with him and take speech that he was
going to deliver on some in portant sub
ject. I did so, but when he got ready
to speak he said he desired to have his
speech taken again, as he would make
some changes from the original one. SO
it was reported and the manuscript
furnished hin, and when it was returned
found that it was neither the first nor
the second speech entire, but third
one, embodying portions of both the
, others. Seward was pretty careful about
his sentences, and would often change
word here or there to polish them up,
speaker, and did not make many changes
in his speeches. Mr.. Chase, of OHIO,
was much given to make changes IN his
speeches. Lincoln ? Well, [ never
reported him, but knew that he was
very slow speaker. Douglas was the
opposite, very rapid speaker. Evarts?
Well, everybody knows about his long
sentences They are terrible.
remember one in his speech on the i'm
peachment of Johnson, which made,
think, eighty odd lines in the Record.
| never knew but one man ike him, and
that was Bell of Tennessee. No, there
are not many men now In the Senate who
are especially difficult to report. MIR.
Edmunds is one of the fastest takers.
You would rot think so to listen to him.
He speaks in rather a low tone, asort
OF conversational manner, and rushes
out his sentences in hurry. ingalls, Is
| a pretty fast talker, but his enunciation
| is so distinct and clear that it is a pleas
ure to report him. Mr.. Beck is a very
| fast talker, and Will keep it up for hours,
| too. Logan is about an average.
Blaine? Well, he is not the most
agreeable man in the world to report.
Fast at times, and sometimes not so fast,
a sort of jerky way that is not comfort
able to the stenographer.
Mr.. Murphy, who has mad this remark
able career as official reporter of the
Senate for thirty five years, ever since
the system OF full reports was adopted,
is quiet gentlemanly appearing man
of perhaps 55, whose face and figure
Il Al. &c fnl t6J
he has bestowed upon his life work. He
is one of the hardest working men in
official life in Washington, and, it may
be remarked, draws more money for
his work than does any officer Of the
government except the president. He
gets s25,00v per year for reporting the
Senate He must out of this pay all his as
sistants, but it is estimated that he nets
about one half the sum paid for their
services, perhaps more. He lives in an