Evening star., 1929-07-03
Uncurbed Speech in Congress
Held Essential to Freedom


the open-session rule. There ought to
be q majority in the Senate capable of
preserving decency in debate" The
Wheeling Intelligencer contends that
this proposal must be necessarily con-
demned by every advocate of liberty,
despite an occasional abuse of congress
sional privilege which may always be
debated away or otherwise publicly ex-
posed"
The Detroit Free Press, reviewing the
entire situation, states that "the reck-
lessnesS Of utterance prevalent in Con-
gress at times is cowardly and disgrace
ful"; that under the new Senate rule
"the situation promises to become worse
than ever" but that "the adoption Of
such constitutional amendment might
easily create an evil worse than the one
the Senator aims to kill" The Free
Press concludes that unless there is
sufficient disposition toward decency to
effect reform from within, there is not
enough to bring about the submission
of the constitutional amendment"
IF it were necessary to consider sert-
ously an amendment so fantastic, It
would be enough to say that absolute
freedom of debate must prevail in Con-
gress," argues the New York Times.
"Only an increased sense Of dignity and
responsibility can prevent those wild
sons, great classes of the community
and foreign governments which are
heard too often in Congress. The re-
cent changes in the rules of the Senate
offer new opportunity for offending In
this respect. But the famous wisdom
of the Senate must be law to itself"
Lauding ''the principle of immunity"
as Of ancient origin, the Hartford Times
declares that "to abandon it would be
~, looiclafixro S1f
free government to the mercy of the
unscrupulouS and the powerful. No
abuse of privilege" continues that pa
per, "could possibly warrant such an
attack upon free government ITSELF"
The Fresno Bee warns that Congress
would be gagged under the proposed
amendment, but is convinced that
there is not the faintest chance Of its
being adopted.
"There will certainly be strong oppo-
sition so the abolishment of immunity
for members of Congress-" thinks the
st. Louis Globe Democrat, "and we do
not expect that 1t will be abolished,
but there is good reason to fear the
consequences Of open and unrestricted
discussion of nominations, to private
regulations, and no less to the public
tacks are made the candidate, If con-
hrmed, will go into Office with lessened
public confidence. and for that reason
leSSened public value"
The New London Day argues, how
ever, that Senator Bingham is follow
ing to It's logical conclusion the argu-
ments which he advanced in seeking to
continue the senatorial custom of vot-
ing on presidential appointments In Sc
cret session" The Day holds that as
executive sessions are going Senators
should deprive themselves of their right
to immunity"
"The Constitution well may be stripped
Of this immunity clause" the Long
Beach Press-Telegram also holds, add
ing: "Put the members of Congress on
the same footing with any citizen in
private life who utters a libel. Let the
Congressman who speaks libel be subject
to prosecution
"The Connecticut Senator" records
the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, specifies
irresponsible repetition of reports, ru-
mors, hearsay evidence, derogatory
statements and aspersions.' Who with
any regard for fair play could find
fault with such proposal? 1t would
simply withdraw a privilege that Is be-
ing grossly abused. It would compel
responsibility where there is now reck-
lesSnesS,''