Evening star., 1925-05-03

Recently United States Senator.
~ My few years ago the United States
l Senate was referred to facetiously as
a "Millionares' Club" Men of great
~ wealth have always had the ambition
to complete careers of financial achievement
by gaining admittance to the Senate. The
scandals connected with the election Of aspir-
ing millionaires to the Senate when the State
Legislatures were intrusted with the filling or
seats in that body finally aroused public re-
sentiment and led to the popular uprising OF
1912, and the passage of the constitutional
amendment which deprived the Legislatures of
the power they had held for 100 years and
vested in the people themselves the authority
20 elect their Senators.
This radical reform in the method of elect
ing Senators has by no means closed the doors
of the Senate to the wealthy class. Indeed, in
those States where the party machine is strong
the millionaire with political aspirations, WELD
ing tremedous influence in the organization by
reason of his wealth, has the advantage in
seeking a nomination. And the nomination is
frequently equivalent to election.
Even today there are many millionalres In
the Senate. From the New England States
alone eight of the twelve Senators are either
monaires men who enjoy very substantial
incomes. In the present Senate there are 70
or more millionaireS, and while the proportion
is not so large in former days, 1t Is large
enough now to give the wealth of the country
an exceedingly powerful representation IN the
upper house of Congress. l do not want to
be understood in favor of discrimination
against the millionaire candidate simply be-
cause he is a millionaire. But l believe it is
unfortunate that the imperfections of our po
litical system do in many States give the rich
man an advantage and put the poor man at a
disadvantage.
However there are men of meager
incomes in the Senate today than before
in its history.
Strikes at Propagandsts.
No one of course. will argue that the Senate
has deteriorated simply because statistics show
smaller percentage of millionaires than used
to sit and deliberate in that body. But what
other idea can be in the minds of the propa-
gandists who are subtly seeking to spread the
notion among the unthinking-among those
who are so gullible to accept hand-me- down
opinions and prejudices without examination
that the Senate is not the splendid body of
statesmen that it used to be?
The opagandists imply that the Senate
has deteriorated Has it? Yes, if the measure
by which you judge the value and usefulness
of legislative body is the wealth of it's mem
bers.
Has the Senate deteriorated? Yes, if the
measure by which you estimate a legislative
body is the personal record of its members as
directors in or attorneys for great corporate
interests before entering public life.
Has the Senate deteriorated? Possibly, if
culture and social refinement and the little
personal graces that frequently, but not al
ways, bred in wealthy homes, constitute your
test.
Certainly there is political independ
ence in the Senate today than formerly. Fewer
men are bound by party dictation. Some argue
that this is unfortunate. I do not.
Shall the elected representatives of the peo-
pie follow political leadership, which is so often
subordnated to selfish interests, shall they
have the gumption to exercise their own judg-
ment. Unless the public insist that their serv-
ants be left free to guard the public interests
as their judgment and conscience dictate what
will be the result?