The Senate Week

Work Done. Last week the U. S. senators:

Convened after a fortnight's recess.

Honored the credentials of Bronson Murray Cutting, appointee for the seat of the late Andrieus Aristieus Jones of New Mexico; swore and seated him on the Republican side.

Debated a resolution for amending the constitution to abolish "lame duck" sessions of Congress and presidential tenures; passed it, 65-6; sent it to the House.

Amended and passed a House Bill authorizing 25 millions to buy a triangle of land in the District of Columbia; returned it to the House.

Passed, reconsidered, sent to Committee on Expenses a resolution for another Senate inquiry on Teapot Dome.

"The Game." Frank Leslie Smith, Senator-suspect from Illinois, had another "day in court" with the Campaign Funds Investigation Committee. He read a long statement which "flouted" the Senate er "championed" Illinois, according to viewpoint. Illinois had elected him, the Senate must seat him, said he. The Senators had heard this argument before, from impartial Senator Borah, whose vote had been for seating Mr. Smith, out of respect to Illinois, then ousting Mr. Smith to punish political simony. After Mr. Smith, the Committee listened to a long-awaited explanation by Samuel Insull, potentate of gas, light and politics in Chicago. Mr. Insull, held in contempt of the Senate last year for refusing to tell who received $40,000 of the $237,925 he passed out for the 1926 primary campaign, testified that the $40,000 had gone equally to two local campaigners in Cook County, not to Frank L. Smith. Asked why he subsidized politics, Mr. Insull said, "I like the game." The Committee continued pondering "the game."

Hearst Documents. The special committee investigating the documents with which Publisher William Randolph Hearst tried to show a bribery plot between Mexico and U. S. Senators (TIME, Dec. 19 et seq.), approached the conclusion that Publisher Hearst was a knave or a dolt or both. Handwriting experts last week pronounced the documents, for which Publisher Hearst paid $20,000, to be inept forgeries. The evidence pointed toward the Hearst agent, Miguel Avila, as one of the forgers, though this was not proved. Publisher Hearst protested his own innocence, agreed he had been bamboozled but again insisted a bribery plot had been afoot. This time the Senators ignored Publisher Hearst.