The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-05-04
DISCUSSING THE SENATE.

In the May Forum Mr.. Charles r. Miller,
editor of the New York Times, has a reply
to Senator Hears defense of the Senate.
The Massachusetts, senator made it quite
clear that the Senate has not degenerated,
but Mr.. Miller seems to have presented very
good reasons to show that the Senates of
recent years are not up to the rank of those
of earlier days or of twenty years ago. In
the point of intellectual vigor this is proba-
bly, the case. The distinguished men in the
Senate twenty-five years ago were those
whom the exciting issues just before and
during the war tended to bring to the front
the ablest men in the country. Since that
period the issues before the country have
not called such men to the front. The
Blaines, the Conklings and the Mortons
nave passed away, and their places have
been filled by men of less brilliancy. but it
does not yet appear that they are men of
less capacity for legislation. Applying Mr..
Miller's method of reasoning to prove the
degeneracy of the Senate, it could be estab-
lished that the press of the country has
degenerated since the days of Greeley, the
elder Bennett, William Cullen Bryant and
other men whose individuality gave the pa
pers with which they were connected their
distinctive characteristics There are now
no such men, yet it may be said that, as
a whole, every department of newspaper
work is better and more ably done than
during the days of the men who have been
named.
When the Senate is discussed, Webster is
- -~.4l
senators of to-day. There was but one
Webster in the Senate of years ago, and
his own associates could not be compared
with him much more fayorably than can
those of the present Senate. During the
early period the aristocracy of the South,
based upon slavery, sent the ablest men of
that section to the Senate-the Calhouns,
the Haynes, the Davises, the Masons and
the SlidelIs. The fall of slavery has opened
the field to less able men. The newer States
nave not, as a rule, added TO the ability of
the Senate because the rating of men has
not been established therein. Other States
nave held their own. Mr.. Hoar, for all the
purposes of constructive legislation, is an
ADLER man than was Mr.. Sumner, while it
would be necessary to look back many
years to find q man sitting in the Senate
for Massachusetts the superior of Mr..
Lodge. If Rhode Island has had an ADLER
man in the Senate than Mr.. Aldrich his
name cannot be recalled at the moment.
In point of ability and resource it would be
difficult to name a man who has represented
Pennsylvania.w who is the superior of Mr..
Quay. We may not admire him, neither
did we admire Calhoun, but we cannot deny
their ability. When has New Jersey had a
man of more practical ability than the Re
publican and Democrat now representing
that State in the Senate? Illinois has had
able men in the Senate, but Mr.. Cullom.
Judged by the record of usefulness. will
| compare favorably with his predecessors.
When was Wisconsin represented by an
ADLER man than Mr.. Spooner? Mr.. Lindsay,
of Kentucky, will compare favorably with
Mr.. Beck, whom Mr.. Miller applauds, and
when he has been in the Senate a little
longer Mr.. Baker, of Kansas, need not
fear comparison with the late Mr.. Plumb.
One of the embarrassment which the
Senator of the present time has to meet is
the multiplicity of tasks which are i'm
posed upon him by constituents. He has