Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-06-15
SENATE CAMPAIGN PROBES
MAY BRING SET OF RULES
Limit on Cost and Whether Quantity
Spending Alone Will Bar Seating
Expected to Be Fixed.

money in the most legitimate sense.
The amount of money varies. It varies
with the number OF voters in a State,
and 1t varies with the degree to which
the candidate is already known to the
people. But as rule ii takes money.
Not many years after the coming Of
direct primaries and direct elections
the Senate began to observe that a
good deal of money was being used.
The first case that gave rise TO any
great commotion was that Of an old
gentleman, named Isaac Stephenson,
who ran for the Senate in Wisconsin in
1909 and was elected. Wisconsin was a
pioneer In adopting the direct primary.
and stephenson was one of the first
Senators nominated under that system.
Stephenson was wealthy and he spent
good deal of money. The Senate
looked into 1t and discovered the amount
was $4,000. There was argument and
debate about it. but Stephenson was not
disturbed in his seat The idea that
quantity of money. ASSOCIATED from any
charge of corruption in the use of It,
had not yet taken hold.
The second case that came UP is the
one that really started the commotion
OF which we are now in an advanced
and acute stage. In Michigan in 1918
Henry Ford was a candidate for the
nomination for Senator. He was Q
candidate in both parties. 1t was his
candidacy for the Republican nomina-
ton that was associated with some
events that later became sensational.
Had No Need 10 Spend Money.
Not that Ford spent money improp-
eriy. No charge was made against him.
He didn't need to spend money. He was
already 50 well known that no amount
OF money could have made him better
known. Ford, during many years
previous, in the ordinary course of his
business has spent literally millions in
advertising, in employing agents and In
other ways designed to make him we'll
known.
(This condition is pertinent to the
whole of the present article One man,
having already become we'll known, runs
for the Senate; another man, desiring
to compete, must make himself equally
well known. Let the reader ask himself:
If you were running against Henry
Ford, or against William r. Hearst, for
example, how much money would you
need to spend before you could catch UP
with your rival? What limitation would
be fair for the Senate to put upon you?)
Fords rival for the Republican nomi-
nation for Senator in Michigan was a
man with a rather conspicuous record
OF public and war service, Truman New
berry, who, with his friends, felt, let US
say, that the Democratic nomination
was quite enough for Mr.. Ford. In the
primary roughly $4,000 was spent on
behalf of Newberry. While Newberry
was wealthy. the investigation did not
show that any great amount of money
came from him; the bulk of 1t was con-
tributed by relatives and friends.
tn 1aa
the Senate took notice of the expendi-
ture of $4,000 in his primary. There
was much argument and debate, and In
the end Newberry was permitted 10 keep
his seat-though by the narrow majority
Of only one vote.
After Newberry was seated, some SEN
ators got cold feet. The Democrats,
and some newspapers. kept up q clamor-
about what they called the "Newberry
case" The Senate. as a means of pla-
eating criticism, and in a spirit of
serving notice on other rich men who
might enter in primaries for senatorial
nominations, or men having rich friends
the Senate, by a vote of As to IL,
passed a remarkable resolution:
That whether the amount expended
in this (Michigan) primary was $685.
900, as was fully reported or openly
acknowledged or whether there we're
some few thousand dollars In excess,
the amount expended was in either case
too large, much larger than ought to
have been expended. The expenditure
of such excessive sums in behalf of q
candidate, either with or without his
knowledge and consent, being contrary
to sound public policy, harmful to the
honor and dignity OF the Senate and
dangerous to the perpetuity of a free
government. such excessive expenditures
are hereby severity condemned and
disapproved"
That was a remarkable resolution. It
said nothing about corruption. nothing
about the uses to which money was put,
nothing about the sources from which
the money came. The resolution con-
cerned itself solely with the quantity Of
money.
That resolution has been the Senate's
charter of policy-self-grant
since 1t was passed in 1922. The iden-
teal words and phrases of that resolu-
ton have been carefully repeated in
every subsequent case in which the
Senate has taken action against a
Senator on the ground of expenditures.
Case Made Election Issue.
In the meantime the Democrats and
some newspapers not by any means con-
tented with the Senate's passage of a
mere resolution, and insisting that the
Senate ought to have gone the whole
way and expelled Newberry-made the
''Newberry case" an issue in senatorial
elections in 1922, 1924 and 1926. The
Democrats and some newspapers insisted
that the action of Republican Senators
who had voted to seat Newberry was a
political sin. When such Senators came
up for denomination or reelection the
Democrats in the various States de-
nounced them for having voted for New
berry, with the result that four years
after Newberry was seated the Demo-
Gratis were able to boast that 10 Repubr
lican Senators who had voted to seat
him had been defeated in their respec-
tive States. 1t was claimed that the
whole 10 were defeated solely because
they had voted for Newberry; doubtless
an accurate evaluation of issues and
conditions might show that in some
cases, at least, there were other reasons.
In any event the Senate's policy that
quantity of money standing alone Is q
bar took root through the feeling that
The public would take, or could be led
o take, adverse action upon any Senator
falling to vote against the seating of a
Senator charged with spending much
money.
There is not space to tell here the
of the two Senators,
Smith of Illinois and Ware of Pennsyl-
1ania, whom the Senate prevented from
aking their seats. In Smiths case, at
east, the source of the money was of a
'ort to have weight--the bulk OF 1t came
rom public utility magnates under cir
likely to create suspicion of
IN interested motive. But the now
settled policy of the Senate Is that
quantity of money, apart from other
l. Inr a. -
Both the Smith case and the Ware case
we're decided on the question of quantity
Il money.
The Senate does not say what GUAM
ity. And that Is but the first of sew
raj disturbing aspects of the Senates
'olicy. To convict and execute a man
n the absence of plain laws and rules