Evening star., 1933-02-14

Action Of the United States Senate
in the removal Of David 8. Barry, its
sergeant at arms, because Of statements
In a magazine article, has aroused q
debate Of q most spirited nature
throughout the country A great ma
tority Of the comment Of newspapers Is
favorable to the cause Of the ousted
man, while those who uphold the Senate
place their opposition largely on the
ground Of necessary discipline as ap-
piled to an employe Of Congress.
Congress has become extremely
sensitive" says the Birmingham Age
Herald, with the conclusion: How Mr..
Barry could have been guilty Of such a
break Is less easily understood than
that he found himself so roughly
treated for his pains" The Newark
Evening News feels that his disrniss al
can be set down as result Of frayed
nerves." while the Hartford Daily Times
thinks that "the publicity was more
CALLING than the gravemen OF the
Argus Is of the opinion that "he meant
to absolve most members CT Congress
from the charge Of grating" and that
Judgment in such a case should be
tempered with mercy"
Let us hope" remarks the Columbia
IS. c. State, chat II there Is any
foundation for Barry's story, all Of the
tainted enes are marching or hobbling
out at the end OF the session" Viewing
his statement as apparently inadvert-
ent and casual" and quoting the COM
ment that Mr.. Barrys "blunder was OF
the head rather than the heart" the
Cincinnati Times-Star commends the
Senators who voted against his punish
ment with the thought: I'VE like the
avoidance of exhibitionism, the habit
Of responsible speech and action and
the tolerant understanding OF human
nature"
He and the country" according to
the Wall Street Journal, may take
pride in the magnificent speech in his
defenes to which Senator Logan Of Ken
lucky gave utterance. That was worthy
of Edmund Burke himself. No
less admirable was the candor Of Sena-
tors Glenn and Bingham, who asserted
that it was Mr. Barry's implication of
demagcgy that really CALLED the uneasy
conscience of the Senate" The Journal
concludes: Dismissed from his post, Mr..
Barry has, nevertheless, forced public
confession on the floor Of the Senate
Of that body's pathological sensitiveness
to criticism in anywise personal and its
thick skinned indifference to the part
1t should play in government. One
man has thus rendered a finer public
service than the Senate has performed
this whole session" The Charlotte
Observer suggests: Barry can afford
to snap his fingers at the triumphant
Senate, from the money angle, at least,
for that body has put him in the way
of developing into an income taxpayer"
He evidently was inspired to put a
punch into his article and left himself
wide open for attack" according to the
Scranton Times. The Philadelphia
Evening Bulletin suspects that he was
"a victim of the 'scavengers searching
fer hot stuff" and the Toledo Blade
offers the judgment that failure to
produce evidence should be punished
Barry thought he could use one Of the
oldest tricks of the trade, which Is to
drop vitriol into a dish Of honey, and
make the victim like it."
That's no way to taffy ones boss,
remarks the San Francisco Chronicle
of the Barry statement. On the SUBJ
ject of the alleged existence Of dema
gogues in Congress, the Chronicle
states: mot only Barry thinks that Is
true, but every one else. In fact they
know it." Discussing the difference
between a money bribe and some other
form of dealing, that paper comments
is there any difference, morally, be-
tween taking the peoples money tc
put in ones own pocket and taking
the peoples money to bribe groups oi
voters to keep one on the public pay
roll?" The Springfield (Mass) Union
offers the verdict: 1T Is unnecessary
to read the Congressional Record tc
there is much demagoguery in Con-
greSs, and the Senate Is far from beine
superior to the House in that respect. .
The Union concludes that ''by heated
arguments and personal exchanges the