Refined Humor

The U. S. Senate last week presented a spectacle that is seen in Washington scarcely once in a generation. Part of the spectacle was purely visual: day after day seats on the Senate floor, of which three-quarters are usually vacant, were occupied by as many as 60 of the 96 Senators. On roll calls as many as 80 appeared personally in the chamber to vote. But the most important part of the spectacle was political: senior members of the majority party, led by the Administration's own floor leader were fighting one of the Administration's own bills. It was something to see and hear.

The fight was over the Administration's $1,500,000,000 Relief bill for fiscal 1938. In the House vigorous attempts were made to attach earmarking amendments to provide pork for the constituencies of various Congressmen (TIME, June 7 et seg.), but in the Senate the revolt against the bill was of an entirely different character. The fight in the Senate was started when dapper Senator James F. Byrnes, long rated a close political friend of Franklin Roosevelt, proposed an amendment sponsored by the Appropriations Committee requiring that no Work Relief projects should be undertaken unless the local communities concerned paid 40% of the cost of the projects, or certified to the satisfaction of Relief Administrator Hopkins that they were not financially able to contribute so much. Thus, although an impoverished community would not be deprived of Relief even if the Federal Government had to provide 100% of its cost, a moral brake would be placed on spending. Senator Byrnes presented tables to show that the financial condition of States and cities has materially improved since 1933, argued that his requirement would prevent shameless attempts to raid the Federal Treasury. At the White House the President retorted by telling newshawks it was unfair to make communities take a "pauper's oath" to obtain Relief grants.

After the battle had been fought on this basis for several days, Leader Joseph T. Robinson proposed a compromise. It reduced the local contribution requirement from 40% to 25%, omitted the "pauper's oath," placed the responsibility on the President for waiving the 25% requirement for communities unable to meet it. But the Administration forces under Senator Alben W. Barkley of Kentucky rallied to oppose this modified restriction on the spending of $1,500,000,000.

This produced a very delicate political situation. Since Senator Robinson has been promised a place on the Supreme Court, there are two chief candidates to succeed him as majority leader. One, favored by most of the older Democratic Senators, is Senator Byrnes. The other, not so popular with the Senators but preferred by the President is Senator Barkley. Senator Barkley not yet majority leader nevertheless openly led the Administration's fight, rallying several more or less radically inclined freshmen Senators such as Schwartz of Wyoming and Pepper of Florida. He was credited with having been given the go-ahead signal by the White House.

Finally Senator Robinson took up the cudgels. He spoke as Senator Robinson has not spoken in many months. Said he:

"Gentlemen may laugh about a $36,000,000,000 debt hanging over the Treasury of the United States if they wish to, but with all my refined and expanded sense of humor I find it impossible to laugh about such a thing. . . .

"Anyone may assert that it is unreasonable, it is unjust, it is embarrassing, it is humiliating to say that there must be a showing as to their ability or inability of those seeking Federal funds as to what they themselves can do; but have we come to that state of mind in legislating that we want to encourage or even countenance indifference, lack of diligence, total lack of thrift and energy? Have we come to the point where we wish to say, "The less you do or attempt to do, the more we will do?" When the Relief bill went to Congress a group of stanch Democratic Senators, of whom Senator Robinson was one, went to the White House and said flatly that Relief spending had to be reduced. They said it so flatly that Franklin Roosevelt listened to them and gave them reassurance. Inasmuch as the President was last week trying to push his Relief bill through Congress without, so far as could be seen, making any concessions to economy or making good on his original reassurance, whatever it may have been, the reason for Senator Robinson's anger was self-evident.

Senator J. Hamilton Lewis, Illinois' dudish oldster, who plays along closely with the New Deal, harried angry Senator Robinson by asking for an explanation '"why the amendment is necessary at all . . . if it is already in the power of the President to use his discretion as to the amount of local contributions required." Losing his temper, Joe Robinson turned on him and bellowed: "I can give the Senator from Illinois the explanation, but--Great God!--I respectfully decline to give him understanding." The final scene of the debate was almost tearful. Alben Barkley cried: "I never expected to see the floor of the U. S. Senate turned into a theatre where a scene from the Merchant of Venice would be re-enacted with Uncle Sam playing the role of Shylock." Carter Glass stamped onto the floor and delivered a philippic upon "economic blunders, if not economic crimes, perpetrated by Congress in the name of starving people who never starved and freezing people who never froze." Senator Borah chimed in with a warning that recent Supreme Court decisions give Congress virtually unlimited power to spend money for any purpose "and if the brakes are not put on here there is no place they can be put on." When the roll calls were taken, however, the Byrnes amendment was defeated 58 to 25, the Robinson amendment 49 to 34, but among those 34 were 22 Democrats (not counting three who were paired for it). And the names of Harrison, Glass, Byrnes, Pittman, Bankhead, Bailey, Connally, Clark, Russell, Democratic stalwarts all, were every one of them recorded supporting Joseph T. Robinson and opposing Franklin D. Roosevelt.

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