At the Carlton

All winter long the Senate Insurgents clamored for a special session of Congress in which to continue their discussion of such politico-economic topics as Depression, Unemployment, Power, Farm Relief, Tariff. They failed to get one. Therefore last week in the ballroom of Washington's exclusive Carlton Hotel they, their families and friends to the number of 200 held a special session of their own at which they succeeded in publicizing these subjects more widely, if more briefly, than they could have at the Capitol. Present were college professors, economists, labor leaders, farm representatives, editors, writers, lawyers, politicians, critics of the times, all of whom had what they called the Progressive type of mind.

In the Senate the five sponsors for this political gathering--Republicans Norris, La Follette, Cutting; Democrats Wheeler and Costigan--rate themselves party men who revolt on occasion against party rule. As such they are Insurgents. Outside the Senate they drop party labels to unite on certain economic principles. As such they are Progressives. Republicans and Democrats were welcomed impartially to last week's powwow at the Carlton.

No Third Party. The last big Progressive meeting occurred in 1924 when the groundwork was laid for the late great Robert Marion La Follette's independent presidential candidacy. Despite his 5,000,000 popular votes, La Follette left his supporters with a conviction of the futility of Third Party movements under existing U. S. political conditions. Progressives last week unfurled the old La Follette battle flag, echoed the old La Follette war cries but hushed all talk of a third party. Results, if any, were to be accomplished by Insurgency within the old parties, not by Independence outside them.

"Passion v. Prudence" The prospect of the Progressive conference and its in- evitable criticism of the Hoover Adminis-tration gave the G. O. P. a touch of cold shivers. Day before the meeting the Republican National Committee, through its counsel, James Francis Burke, spoke de- fensively as follows: "The American people are already suffering from an overproduction of politics. . . . The whole country is now praying for political relief. So why not give politics a short recess? . . . Everyone must cool off and carry on. We must stop snarling and begin smiling. Sanity will then have more front seats and more front page. Passion will subside and prudence will preside."

Fess in High. Some of the public effect of this G. O. P. motion to adjourn politics was spoiled by the behavior of little Simeon Davison Fess, national G. O. P. chairman. He rushed to the White House to say good-bye to President Hoover. He came out declaring: "The time has come when we must let the country know. . . . In other words, we are going into high gear."

Questions by Watson, Another effort to disrupt the Progressive conference came from Indiana's James Eli Watson, the G. O. P.'s Senate leader. Senator Watson publicly submitted to Senator Norris as the Carlton conference's chairman a set of 14 embarrassing political questions which he suggested the Progressives answer. He asked, among other things: Should the 18th Amendment be repealed? Should the Government undertake the ownership and operation of railways? Should the Constitution be amended to deprive the President of veto power? Should the country adopt the dole system?

Senator Norris of course recognized Senator Watson's attempt to get the Progressives to quarreling among themselves. The following long-range dialog occurred:

Senator Norris: Mr. Watson . . . used to be, before he became a Senator, a lobbyist. I presume his former masters are better satisfied with his work in than they were with his work out of Congress. . . . Little Jimmie Watson ought to gather up a bunch of marbles, go out and hunt up that boy Lucas [Republican Executive Director] and together they could have a nice game in the backyard of the White House.

Senator Watson: When a man gets mad and resorts to ridicule and personalities, it is proof conclusive he is seeking to evade the real question. The fact is I never was a lobbyist at Washington, except for the Manufacturers Association for a tariff. . . .

Senator Norris (later): Watson is a fine fellow personally. There is no reason why he should not organize a conference of his own . . . and take a bundle of straw and go across the river and start a little hell of his own. . . .

Answer by Beard. Though Senator Norris shunned the Watson questions, they did find an able and authentic answerer among the Progressives. He was famed Historian Charles Austin Beard (Rise of American Civilization; American Party Battle) and his responses, based on ''the Progressive opinion of the country." came closer to summarizing the conference's position and purpose on matters of broad policy than any other statement there made. Excerpts:

Question: Should the 18th Amendment be repealed?

Answer: While there is reason for treating Prohibition as a red herring to drive the people of the U. S. off the main trail, it may be faced. Progressive opinion is against any blanket repeal of the 18th Amendment which does not substitute a rational system of public control over alcohol.

Question: Should the Government take over and operate the electrical power business of the country?

Answer: Progressive opinion is against any such wholesale nationalization. It demands that governments insist on principles of prudent investment, elimination of stock juggling inflation and on competent commissions; that the people shall have the right to engage in the production of power by their own determination; the elimination of corruption and undercover propaganda by utility interests.

Question: Should the Constitution be amended to give Congress power to override decisions of the Supreme Court?

Answer: A reply might be made in the language of Mr. Justice Holmes that nothing important would happen if this were done. If the right kind of judges are appointed no such drastic amendment would be demanded in any quarter.

Question: Should the country adopt the dole system?

Answer: If by that trick question Senator Watson means a system of unemployment reserves and insurance, Progressive opinion favors it.

Question: Should Russia be recognized?

Answer: Yes.

Dr. Beard also flayed Congress for "frittering away thousands of precious hours on petty and trifling bills"; for "turning executive officers loose" under too general laws; for barring Cabinet members from floor debates; for "comic opera" procedure.

Big Speech, The Progressives' meetings were decorous, academic, humorless. Most of the addresses were rehashes of things said and said again in Congress. New ideas were scarce. From Senator Borah came the Big Speech. His subject was Wealth, with a dash of Farm Relief for flavoring. High spot: "To attack the rich because they are rich is one thing but to insist that they shall operate in accordance with honest laws and honest principles is the supreme question today before the American people. . . . Economists have advised us that 3% of the people own 75% of the wealth. Let's say 4% own 80%. I would not take it from them. But I do think there should be a political party in this country--if not a party, a political voice--which would worry more about the 96% than the 4% "

"Shadows Eastward." Most dramatic episode occurred when 69-year-old Senator Norris passed Progressive leadership over to 36-year-old Senator "Young Bob" La Follette. His deep-set blue eyes wet with emotion, Senator Norris declared: "I am drawing near the place where the setting sun casts its shadows eastward. My time to pass over the river will come at no very distant day. [Cries of "No! No!" from the audience.] But when I pass on I would like to do so with the realization that the banner of civic rights will be taken up by young men who will carry it farther up the mountainside than I have been able to. ... One of these young men I now present, Senator Bob La Follette. . . ."

"Young Bob's" answer was a terrific excoriation of President Hoover for lacking the "will or courage" to meet the economic crisis.

Franklin; Theodore, Though presidential politics was barred from the conference, nevertheless the name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, New York's Democratic Governor, kept shuttling back & forth in its news. It took two telegrams and a long distance telephone call for the Governor to convey to Senator Norris the full measure of his regret at being absent. Said the final message: "I am much disappointed. ... I need not tell you of my real interest in the subjects you will discuss. . . . May I call your attention particularly to the water power policy of this State, to our agricultural program and the new land utilization policy." To Progressives this sounded like a pretty plain bid for their support of the Roosevelt candidacy next year. In an impassioned speech Senator Norris exclaimed: "What we need to bring prosperity and happiness is another Roosevelt in the White House.''

Everyone thought he had plopped for Franklin Delano until he explained that he was talking only about the late great Theodore.

Other newsworthy speeches were made by William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, who was booed when he opposed U. S. recognition of Russia; Robert Paine Scripps, president of Scripps-Howard newspapers who demanded a shorter workweek, a wider distribution of wealth; Frank Murphy, red-headed Mayor of Detroit, whose description of his city's $2,000,000 per month Unemployment relief brought forth great cheers. Present at the conference as a silent spectator, was Ohio's Democratic Senator Robert Johns Bulkley, whose friends hope to put him in the White House (TIME, Nov. 24).

Results, Resolutions showed the tenor of Progressive thought. Among the re-forms the conference called for were: 1) abolition of the electoral college and the popular election of the President (without which no Third Party can make any effective headway); 2) tariff revision to in-clude the transfer of flexible authority from the White House to the Capitol; 3) Unemployment insurance; 4) co-ordinate State and Federal job agencies (the vetoed Wagner bill); 5) repeal of the War- time espionage act; 6) a law against Federal wiretapping; 7) admission of Cabinet members to Congressional debates; 8) removal of postal censorship over the Press; 9) no more deportations of political refugees.

Left unwritten were the Progressive policies on Power, and Husbandry.

Significance, Hard to gauge was the political significance of the Progressive Conference. Its attendants revealed a harmony among themselves which may have been more polite than purposeful. In the new Congress the Insurgent group will, more than ever before, hold the bal- ance of power, will be able to do the most with their economic program. Their activities at the next session (December to June, 1932) will color the whole presidential campaign. Last week's meeting served to emphasize the drift of Progressive opinion from Republican to Demo- cratic principles. To Progressives, President Hoover has become a hopeless reactionary; they have lost faith in winning any of their reforms through the Republican party. Democracy, they hope, will furnish a presidential candidate they can support. Most favored among them at the moment is Governor Roosevelt; most disliked is Owen D. Young whose nomination to run against President Hoover, Progressives say, would send them off fishing in hip boots throughout the campaign.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.