Evening star., 1929-12-14

Rejection of William s. Ware as Sen
ator from Pennsylvania by the Upper
Branch of Congress is a subject of hot
debate throughout the country. Those
who uphold the action of the Senate
feel that huge campaign expenditures
are sufficient evidence of corruption tC
Justify the step. Critics of this action
hold that the precedent established is
contrary to the constitutional rights
of the States.
1.-The Senate again showed that il
prefers lynch law to the Constitution,
charges the Hartford Courant dnde-
pendent Republican,, with the eXplana-
ton that IF Mr.. Ware was guilty OF
fraud, he could have been expelled aft
er he was duly sworn; that IF he was
an undesirable member, he could like
wise have been compelled to withdraw
after taking the oath of Office" The
Courant concludes that "the practice
of the Senate, now hardening into a
precedent, gravely imperils the rights
of the States and the voters in them.
X X X 4
The New York Times independently
calls the Senate action "a high-handed
procedure. fraught with many disturb
ing possibilities hereafter" and the
New York Herald Tribune CRepublican)
warns, IF such reasoning is accepted
as sound, the Senate may find dis
qualifications anywhere it wishes to find
them" The Rock Island Argus Gnde-
pendent) declares, Holding no brief for
Mr.. Ware in particular, one may register
a protest against the possession by a
majority of the Senate of the power
to thwart the voice of the people OF
sovereign State expressed at the polls.
1.-The more the case is discussed,
thinks the Norfolk Ledger Dispatch Gn-
dependent Democratic), "the more in
defensible does the action of the Sen
ate seem, and the more puzzled is this
paper in its effort to understand how
any Senator from the Democratic
South-which habitually is in the MI
nority in the Senate-could bring him.
self to vote to clothe the Senate with
an arbitrary power which the majority
at any time may use as the most AFRO
CANT and partisan of its leaders may
please to use it."
X X X
Unfolding the unseating of Ware. the
Springfield Republican independently
contends: THE actual amount of money
expended, however ridiculous, was a
secondary consideration to the methods
used in obtaining and counting the votes
for Ware, and denying justice at the
polls to Wares opponentS-alike in the
primary and in the election. The Sen
ate could hardly have retained its self
respect If it had not rebuked those
responsible for the practices by refusing
admission to the beneficiary of those
practices" The South Bend Tribune
independent Republican, holds that
"the real issue was not so much the
size of the fund as that there was i'm
pressive evidence of its use in violation
Of electoral morality"
ware was not entitled to his seat
under any concept Of good morals or
public decency," asserts the Admission
Star (Democratic), while the Meridian
Star (Democratic) states that "for the
Senate to seat the creature OF corrup-
ton would be tantamount to corrupting
the Senate itself" and the Chattanooga
News independent Democratic) empha-
sizes the point that "the Senate requires
that its members come with clean
togas."
The evils Of large expenditures in
campaigns are viewed as a reason Cor
popular disapproval of Ware, in COM
ment by the Manchester Union, (inde-
pendent Republican,, the Dallas Journal
independent Democratic) and the
Springfield Hll) State Register Gnde-
pendenD. The Newark Evenings News
tindependent) maintains: mo one likes
to hit a sick man. 1t is unpleasant to
see Mr.. Ware made victim. Yet a VIC
tim must be made if the cynical idea
that Senate seats are on the auction
block is to be checked. Declaring Ware IS
seat vacant will not put an end to cleo
ton frauds and the excessive use OF
money IN politics. Rich men will keep
on buying their way into the Senate