The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1916-05-16
THE REJECTION OF MR.. RUBLER

THE REJECTION OF MR.. RUBLEH
If George Rublee was personally
obnoxious" to q single Senator, TO
such an extent that q majority OF
the Senate was bound in courtesy to
vote against his confirmation as
member of the Federal Trade Com
mission, then almost any nomination
Of man who had been in active poll
tics would be rejected under the
same rule.
Mr.. Rublee was named for the
Trade Commission from New Hamp-
shire. There has never been ques-
ton as to his general qualifications.
But the senior Senator from that
State, Mr.. Gallinger, declared that
the appointment was personally OBJ
noxious" to him. Mr.. Gallinger is
Republican; Mr.. Rublee a Pro-
gressive.
Five reasons were assigned by
Senator Gallinger. First, that Mr..
Rublee, though pretending to be q
Progressive, had been campaign
manager for Mr.. Gallinger's Demo-
cratic opponent in the Senatorial
fight. There were two weaknesses
about this charge. First, the COM
mittee investigation showed that
there was no ground whatever for IL
in fact. Second, If it had been true
1t could not reasonably have been q
ground for opposition. II the man
who takes an active part in politics
is to be barred from Office, there will
be painful dearth Of eligibles for
Offices.
Second, Mr.. Gallinger charged
that Mr.. Rublee wrote certain edi-
torials in a New Hampshire paper
attacking Mr.. Gallinger. This was
weak at two points. First, It was
positively proved that Mr.. Rublee
did not write or know anything
whatever about the articles. Second,
the articles were not of offensive
tone or character. They were of
such quality that, If they constituted
mortal offense, then no man writing
on political topics could ever hope to
get past the Senate's rule Of
courtesy.
Third, it was charged that Mr..
Rublee was an active member of the
"Fair Trade League" and conducted
an active fight against Mr.. Gallinger
through it, on the ground that Gal.
linger had opposed bill the league
wanted passed. There were two
weaknesses here, again. First, Mr.
Gallinger was proved to be mistaken
in his facts; and second, If the facts
had been as he understood, they
could not possibly have constituted
a justification for rejection Of the ap.
pointment. They would not have
been to Mr.. Rublee's discredit.
Fourth, Mr., Gallinger had heard
that Mr.. Rublee was credited with
being "the man chiefly responsible
for putting the rollers under Gal
linger." AS a matter of fact, that
observation was intended as a com
pliment to Mr.. Rublee for his worl
as one of the counsel in the Bal
linger case. =" putting the rollers
under Ballinger" was the real OBJ
servation; typographical error il
a newspaper made it read "Gal
linger," and this made Mr.. Ruble,
more "obnoxious!"
Fifth, Mr.. Rublee made speeches
against Gallinger in the last cam
paign, which Mr.. Gallinger regarded
as especially offensive. II may onl!
be observed that these speeches
which were introduced in the Sena
torial investigation, and of which
typical one is in the Record, wer
moderate and courteous. Gallinger'
record was discussed fairly and can
didly, and the voters were asked Il
judge him by It. In fact, these ut
terances appear to have been Of
very high tone, without demagoguer,
or appeal to prejudice, but a fai
statement of honest differences o
opinion.
/ Yet in the face Of this showing
a showing that completely refute
the Gallinger charges at every poin
on which they were made specific
Mr.. Rublee's nomination has been re
jected by the Senate.
The action suggests that the Ser
ate is making a new rule, unde
which in future it will be able liter
ally to dictate Presidential appoint
ments. Any man will hereafter b
liable to rejection if a Senator sha
protest and insist on this precedent
It is a dangerous rule to lay down
and a rule that will injure the Ser
ate far more than it will harm eithe
the President or the man who