Los Angeles herald., 1907-06-02
Executive Sessions of the u. S. Senate

TIME discontinuance of executive ses-
sions Of the United States senate
= has occasionally been proposed.
and some senators have favored it, but
the proposition at all times has been
opposed by the body of the senate.
| Senate executive sessions are for the
consideration of treaties and nominal
tions to public offices which the consti-
tuition requires shall have the approval
of the senate. They are matters over
which the president and senate have
sole Jurisdiction. The former takes the
initiatory step, and it is then left to
| the latter to assent or overrule in re-
| gard to treaties and appointments to
certain offices; each has equal power.
Because these matters proceed from the
president they are called executive ses-
sions, to distinguish them from others.
There /are reasons for discussing
treaties under closed doors that do not
pertain to consideration of nominations
to offices. Treaties aret International
contracts and in thef public discus
sion by the senate there might be Ian
guage used that would be offensive to
the nation which is party to the pre-
liminary stipulation, or views might
have to be expressed which would be
automatically unwise.
The president and senate are not in
frequently at ioggerheads over treaties,
each being sometimes jealous of the
other and disposed to assert their con-
stitutional prerogatives. President
Washington adopted the practice
of consulting senator's, especially
the committee on foreign rela-
tions, before perfecting a treaty, but
his example has been but sparingly fol-
lowed.
Secrecy has always been more or less
respected in treaty making, in fact in
all diplomatic intercourse, and is re-
garded as essential to successful
achievement. In most of the European
countries secret treaties are not un-
common, the power to make them be-
ing vested in the executive without
assent by any part of the legislative
branch of government, but secret
treaty has never been made in this
country since we became nation un
der the constitution. All our treaties
are promulgated, and often the terms
while under consideration are made
public in order to elicit an expression
of public opinion. Government by the
people and for the people requires pub
licity, but not in government by
monarchy or All oligarchy.
If there are good reasons for con-
tinuing secret sessions for considering
treaties there seems to be no rea-
son why they should not be dispensed
with in passing upon appointments to
offices, especially those in which the
duties are to be performed at home.
1t is urged against open sessions for
discussion of nominations to office that
things might be said that would blast
regulations. This might happen, but
there would be compensation in that
applicants for appointments would be
reduced to those that possess the
requisite fitness in capacity and char
acter 1t should not be presumed that
senators, and it is lamentable that the
honor of any should be questioned,
would say nothing that facts did not
justify, nor act with a view to the
promotion of a realization of their am
billions, or in other words to help in
advancing their personal interests. Ger
tainly it should be presumed that no
senator would favor or oppose con-
1rmation from any nature other than
to subserve the public interests. Men
who seek public office should possess
the qualifications and character that
will stand the test of honest criticism.
The people have a right to know and
Judge whether appointments are of men
for their capacity, integrity and pa
formed work for party, or a senator
IN acquiring his seat, or are committed
to helping him retain it. When nomi- |
nees are only considered under closed
doors and are rejected, the common
inference is that there is something
wrong about them, and they suffer
luite as much in reputation as If some-
hing had been urged against them in
open debate. Not knowing the ground
If objection the victim is unable to
make answer and vindicate himself.
There are more reflections on ac-
count of personal antagonisms of SEN
itors, which have no relation to the |
good of the public service, than from
Ill other causes. Such antagonism |
nay be and often is for the purpose of
the place on another, who
has rendered party or personal service, |
Ind to whom it would be paying a po-
itical debt, and perhaps the preferred
one is less meritorious in equipment
'or the Office.
That such cases have more recently