Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1916-07-28
RAps SENATOR PAGE.
@. H. thompson Touches upoH senatori-
al Record and Happenings at Chi
cage IN 1912.


Editor Of The Phoenix
Senator Page, seeking reelection
from the state of Vermont to the
United States senate, seems to be bas
ing his reasons for the statement that
he should be reelected on his record
while in Washington and his work on
the various committees on which he has
served while there. In one of his let
tiers he states as follows:
"Whenever the Republican party re.
turns to power in the senate my rank
is such that | can select the chairman
ship of either the committee on print
ing, Indian affairs, or agriculture aad
forestry
lie also refers to the fact that his
standing on the committee on naval
affairs would be very good.
Admitting that he could personally
select the craftsmanship of these com
mittees if he desires and that the Re
publican party will come back into
power next fall, would it not be well
for Senator Page to state to his con
stituency why he voted against the
Hollis rural credit bill, as long as he
seems to have in his power, under the
above stated conditions, the ability to
be made chairman. of the committee on
Agricultural A very large proportion
of his constituency are farmers and
win be affected by the successful work.
ing Of the Hollis rural credit bill
I have seen Senator Pages state
ment in this matter in which he sue
cessfully lodges the interrogation by
n clever detour, calling the attention
of the interrogation to the fact that the
rural credit bonds of this banking
scheme would be. non-taxab1e in the
state of Vermont, which is not rel
evant to the matter at all as to the
merits of the bin itself. He also re
fers to the speech of Senator Cum
mings of Iowa, in which he refers to
this particular feature of the bill and
in which speech Senator Cummings
falls back on the old hackneyed phrase
that the bill is Unconstitutional. y
We in Vermont are not particularly in
terested in Senator Cummings idea
along the lines of the constitutional
ty of this bill. We wish to know why
Senator Page voted against it.
| also note that on July 10Th a let
ter purporting to come from Senator
Page to his constituents in Vermont
called their attention again to the fact
that he was staying close to his post
of duty in Washington. If / am in
formed correctly, during the week of
July 10Th the naval appropriation bill,
carrying the most important changes
in our navy which have been made for
many years, was up for final discus
sion. / find that Senator Page was not
in Washington that week but was in
the state of Vermont-apparently not |
for the purpose of assisting the
Greater Vermont association to become
success but for the purpose of main |
tanning political lobby at the meet |
ing of the Greater Vermont association |
for his own reelection. 1t is apparent
that he did not consider that he was
needed on the naval committee at that
time and if he was not needed on the
naval committee at Washington during
that week he never will be and his APP
peal to his constituency on the basis
of his committee appointments appar-
emily is without any value.
Senator Lodge of Massachusetts.
who is also n candidate for reelection,
was a member of the naval committee
and we find by the press quotations
that he considered it necessary to bel
in Washington during the cOnsidera-
tion of this bill I do not find in any
of the press dispatches concerning the
consideration of this bill from its in
ception any mention of Senator Page 3
name or of his work either for or
against the bill Naturally a man who
has served eight years in the UIited
States senate has, perforce of circum-
stances, committee appointments. 1t Isl
Il new thought, however, to the writer
at least, that these appointments were
given out on the basis of the length of
service and not on the ability to serve
and | believe that Senator Page will
have to show to his constituents that
this novel idea is true before he will
get any great support for this reason
alone.
Since he has seen fit to lay great
stress on his record, / am wondering
if we have forgotten the event which
took place at the Republican National
convention in Chicago in June, 1912.
Some members of the Vermont delega-
tion worked with great vigor for the
nomination of Mr.. Hughes at that time
in order to avoid split in the Repub-
lican party. We had succeeded in CON
vincing Mr.. Roosevelt that this was n
wise move if the delegations elected
by direct primary law could be seated.
The test came on the seating of the
California delegates. The Roosevelt
delegates had a strength of 507-nec-
essary for choice, 542. If my memory
serves me right the Vermont delega.
ton caucused and agreed that if there
was break in the balloting they
should east their eight votes for the
seating of the California delegation
and the matter was left with the chair
man (who was Senator Page) to use
his Judgment. The Vermont delegation
had been voting six and two on every
ballot. The records of that convention
show from the very start of the voting
on the seating Of the California dele
gates that there were breaks but Sen
ator Page saw it,, and but for the OBJ
lection of w. r. Warner of Vergennes,
was for casting the Vermont lelega'
ton vote as he had on every ballot in
the convcntion-six and two. Mr.. War,
ner to his everlasting credit objected
and the vote from Vermont on this
ballot was FIVE and three, the Roose-
welt vote rising rs a total to 539, with
in three votes of seating that delega-
ton and making the compromise candi-