Evening star., 1921-10-28
Censure No Cure.

If the result will be a more careful
gressional Record from eXtraneous
and improper matter, or better still
aboishment of the much and often
abused privilege of extension of re-
marks" the episode eliminating yes
terday in the CenSure of a member of
Congress for misuse of the Record
will have been to Il good end. AS to
the difference between expulsion and
censure, which the House decided in
favor of the latter. there is no special
public concern. Probably the action
taken was the wisest in the circum-
stances The offense consisted of in
terjecting in d ''leave-to-print" speech
a certain document in the last degree
obnoxious to taste and decency, not
in the members own language, but
given as an exhibit. For it, of course.
the member was responsible. The Of
fense in printing it was to the minds
of many of his colleagues aggravated
by his refusal to apologize for its in
sertion, and his insistenCe upon its
Justification as a proper item in his
argument. But the House, though re-
fusing expulsion by the narrow margin
of eight votes. administered a censure
by unanimous ballot which is without
parallel in its history.
Evidence that the House is not dis
posed to curtail the extension of re-
marks was afforded Immediately after
the administration of censure yester-
day, when leaves to print We're grant
ed two members. The danger of i'm
propriety occurring in connection with
such extended speeches is actually
slight. The case of the member re-
buked yesterday is one of rare excep-
tion. Numerous arrangements have
occurred in the past, but as a rule, and
almost uniformly, members are as
scrupulouS about their extended
speeches as about those they actually
deliver on the floor. The real evil in
this case is not the possible abuse of
the privilege. but the privilege itself.
1t was pointed out yesterday by the
House majority leader in pressing his
resolution for expulsion that in the
speech at issue the member had writ
ten in frequent references to the
Speaker, which gave the impression
that the words had actually been de-
livered on the floor of the House. This
is common practice. Members have
is simply an aggravation of the case
against the "leave-to-print" privilege.
The Congressional Record should
contain nothing as of the nature of
| proceedings that is not strictly inn
mediate to those proceedings. The
leave to print speeches" never de-
livered. in fact, grows out of the prac-
tice of withholding remarks for re-
vision. If the Record is to be truly a
record no words uttered in debate
should ever be withheld or revised out
of their original meaning and scope.
If this rule can be adopted "leave-to-
print" privileges may with safety and
propriety be granted to enable mem
bers to publish eXtraneous matter,
supplementary views and documents,
provided these prints do not take the
appearance of matter uttered in de-
bate.
The whole question turns upon the
matter of the franking privilege. The
speeches printed under extension OF
remarks are frankable as part of the
Congressional Record. They can be
reprinted as documents and franked
through the mails free. If it is de-
sired to continue this prerogative of
the membership let Congress provide
for it in some other way than by de-
priving the Congressional Record of
its character as a true report of its
proceedings.