Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-05-28
In the Public Interest.

In the Public Interest.
The Senate, unless all signs fail. Is
about to amend its rule which now
clothes in secrecy all details Of the con-
sideration denominations to public Of
fee. This amendment, 1t is generally
admitted, will provide for the publica-
ton Of the record vdtes taken in execu-
tive session on nominations. 1t may go
further and provide also for the con-
sideration of all nominations in open
session unless the Senate orders other
wise in individual cases by q majority
vote.
The amendment of the rules will be
in large measure an outgrowth of the
recent effort of the Senate rules COM
mittee to investigate the so-called Sen
ate leak" and the publication by the
newspapers of reports Of the proceed
ings in executive session. The rules
committee undertook to discipline the
United Press and its correspondent,
Paul r. Mallon, because of the publica-
ton of q roll call vote upon the nomi-
nation of former Senator Lenroot to
be q Judge of the United States Court
of Customs Appeals. No rule of the Sen
ate limits in any way the publication
of any news story in regard to secret
sessions of the Senate or any other
matter in which the Senate may be in
terested. The rules committee, however,
sought to obtain from Mr.. Mallon the
source Of the information he used in
writing his story Of the secret session
on the Lenroot nomination. Very prop
erly Mr.. Mallon declined to reveal the
source of his information. Newspapers
and newspaper men do not reveal
sources Of information when that in
formation is obtained in confidence. It
has been obvious for years that in
formation regarding secret executive
sessions has come from members Of the
Senate itself. II any investigation Is
to 20 forward the Senators themselves
necessarily must be Intercepted.
The alternative to bringing s5 MEM
bers Of the Senate before the rules COM
mittee, including the members Of the
committee itself, for questioning. is an
amendment to the rule requiring secrecy
regarding action taken by the Senate
on nominations. That alternative the
rules committee apparently has accept
ed as q way out Of its dilemma. The
rule itself for years has been honored
more in the breach than In its ohserv-
ance. Apparently there has been no way
effectually to keep Senators Of the
United States from talking about what
transpires in secret sessions, although
the rule provides expulsion from the
Senate.
The weakness Of the rule of secrecy
and its supporters lies in the fact that
It is not in the public interest TO con-
ceal the action Of the Senators on I'M
portant nominations to public ONCE.
There is no justification whatever for
keeping from the public the record vote
of Senators for or against an appointee
to ONCE.
The rules committee has been in
structed by the Senate, through o unan-
imous consent agreement, to report an
amendment to the rules or to stand
discharged from further consideration
of the matter, thereby allowing the
Senate to deal with the proposed
amendment directly. Under the consent
agreement the rules committee must re-
port by next Tuesday. A majority of the
Senate clearly favors liberalization Of
the rule Of secrecy. There is an over
whelming majority ready TO vote for
the publication Of the record votes on
nominations, although some Of the
Senators who favor that course con-
tinue to oppose publication Of the de-
bates on nominations. It was the pub
lication of the roll call on the Lenroot
nomination which forced this issue to
the consideration Of the Senate. That
publication has served a public interest
After all, 1t is more important to know
how the Senators vote on a nomination
than how they talk about It.