"Five nations meet in Washington in February and solemnly sign a treaty in which they put the ban of condemnation upon the use of this instrument, poison gas, and then, within six months, seven nations meet in the same capital for the purpose of exchanging views as to how they can most expedite the perfecting of the use of this instrument of modern warfare. In other words, the city of Washington becomes the distributing bureau or the distributing depot of the best information, which information is only desirable upon the theory that this treaty is to be disregarded.

"That shows how utterly and absolutely useless is the treaty which we have ratified. If the United States, one of the signers of the treaty, is to become the central distributing bureau or depot for the information which was condemned by the treaty, we are not only waiting for the other nations to initiate a violation, but we are conniving at it ourselves and encouraging it. Why should we have an international conference on poison gas and thereby encourage and stimulate other peoples to devote their money and their genius to perfecting this hellish means of death. In my opinion we are acting in flagrant violation of the spirit of the treaty and the whole disarmament conference.

"I go further and say that the very fact that seven nations come here, confer together, interchange views-whether candidly and fully or not is another question-in reference to the use of those gases, the perfecting of them, and so forth, is in violation of the spirit of the treaty. It might be justified under the treaty, or notwithstanding the treaty, for the United States to pursue its own individual studies and individual consideration of the matter-that is a matter about which we might differ-but I look with disfavor upon the proposition that they should come here and in a conference deal with the subject which the treaty was supposed to prohibit. This whole disarmament conference and all the treaties are the sheerest hypocrisy unless the work of that conference is to be carried out in good faith. It is not treaties which count, it is the honor and the good faith of the nations. And I denounce as a betrayal of the whole fight for disarmament this encouragement of the things which are in contravention to its whole spirit and purpose."

But it made no difference to the Senate. The Old Guard proceeded to vote the increase for poison gas, as has been recorded.

Pork For Springfield

The Committee on Military Affairs, Senator Wadsworth, Chairman, wanted to put $375,000 of the people's money into the manufacture of rifles at the Springfield Arsenal. Of course that is not a large amount, only a little more than a third of a million, but Senator Hitchcock moved to reduce it to $75,000. He thus explained the situation. Said Hitchcock:

"Mr. President, this proposed legislation involves a really important principle. The testimony of General Pierce before the committee showed conclusively that at the Springfield Arsenal we are manufacturing, at an expense of $900 a day, rifles for which we have no use. The testimony of General Pierce further showed that we have on hand at the present time 2,800,000 rifles and that we are manufacturing 30 rifles a day at that institution at an expense of $900. When asked why we were manufacturing these rifles, the general said it was done simply to keep the working force together, so as to have skilled men in that line. As I have stated, this matter now involves a question of high principle: Shall the money of the people be expended in an Army appropriation bill for supplies that are not needed in a military sense to keep a few skilled men employed, on the theory that they might some time be needed?

"I do not think there can be any dispute as to the facts. I can take the time to read the testimony of General Pierce; but his testimony was, in effect, that it was necessary to have this appropriation in order to keep those men employed. The supply of 2,800,000 rifles which we now have on hand and stored, except for the few that are in the hands of the soldiers, is certainly large enough in any possible contingency that can be conceived of. We did not have use for as many rifles as that during the war, when we had 4,000,000 men under arms, and it is not conceivable that we will ever have use in our day for the number of rifles that we now have on hand; and it is for the Congress to decide whether we are going to spend $900 a day of the people's money simply for the purpose of keeping a few hundred men employed in manufacturing something that is not needed.

"I, therefore, move to reduce the appropriation to $75,000, which will cover all of the necessary expenditures to keep the armory for storage purposes and for certain small manufacture that seems to be required there; and on that I should like to have the yeas and nays."

The Hitchcock amendment was rejected, as follows (the "yeas" being for the reduction):

Yeas-Borah, Caraway, Dial, Gerry, Harris, Harrison, Heflin, Hitchcock, Jones, N. Mex.; Kendrick, King, LaFollette, Ransdell, Robinson, Simmons, Stanley, Underwood, Watson, Georgia-18.

Nays-Ashurst, Brandegee, Bursum, Calder, Cameron, Capper, Cummins, Curtis, Dillingham, Edge, Ernst, France, Hale, Johnson, Jones, Wash.; Kellogg, Ladd, Lenroot, Lodge, McCumber, McKinley, McLean, McNary, Myers, Nelson, New, Newberry, Norris, Oddie, Page, Pepper, Phipps, Poindexter, Pomerene, Rawson, Sheppard, Shortridge, Smoot, Spencer, Sterling, Sutherland, Townsend, Wadsworth, Walsh, Mass.; Warren, Watson, Ind.; Willis-47.

Not Voting-Ball, Broussard, Colt, Crow, Culberson, du Pont, Elkins, Fernald, Fletcher, Frelinghuysen, Glass, Gooding, Harreld, Keyes, McCormick, McKellar, Moses, Nicholson, Norbeck, Overman, Owen, Pittman, Reed, Shields, Smith, Stanfield, Swanson, Trammell, Walsh, Mont., Weller, Williams-31.

Increasing the Army

The House appropriated for a regular standing army of 115,000, which was 13,000 more than the nation had in the pre-war period. Senator Wadsworth and the Old Guard fought through the Senate an increase of 18,000, costing the American people an additional forty or fifty millions. On June 2, the Senate adopted the committee amendment raising the regular army from the House minimum of 115,000 to 133,000, as follows (the "yeas" being for the increase):

Yeas-Ashurst, Ball, Brandegee, Bursum, Calder, Cameron, Colt, Cummins, Curtis, du Pont, Edge, Ernst, France, Gerry, Gooding, Hale, Heflin, Johnson, Jones, Wash.; Kellogg, Kendrick, Lenroot, Lodge, McCumber, McKinley, McLean, McNary, Myers, Nelson, New, Newberry, Oddie, Page, Pepper. Phipps, Poindexter, Rawson, Sheppard, Shortridge, Smith, Smoot, Spencer, Sutherland, Townsend, Underwood, Wadsworth, Warren, Watson, Ind.; Williams-49.

Nays-Borah, Broussard, Capper, Caraway, Dial, Harris, Harrison, Hitchcock, Jones, N. Mex.; King, Ladd, LaFollette, Norris, Robinson, Simmons, Stanley, Swanson, Walsh, Mass.; Walsh, Mont.; Watson, Ga.; Willis-21.

Not Voting-Crow, Culberson, Dillingham, Elkins, Fernald, Fletcher, Frelinghuysen, Glass, Harreld, Keyes, McCormick, McKellar, Moses, Nicholson, Norbeck, Overman, Owen, Pittman, Pomerene, Ransdell, Reed, Shields, Stanfield, Sterling, Trammell, Weller-26.

Wadsworth of New York and Myers of Montana argued for a larger army. Norris and Hitchcock of Nebraska spoke for a reduction.

Said Norris:

"I should like to call upon any Senator here to point to the occasion or the time before the great World War when we were ever handicapped by not having a standing army that was large enough to meet every contingency and every emergency that ever arose in time of peace. Have we any reason to believe now that it will be different, especially when we take into consideration the fact that we have a National Guard and a citizen soldiery equipped with military knowledge such as we never had before, such as we had not an indication of, away beyond anything that ever existed? And now, on top of all that, it is said that we must increase the standing army!

"It seems to me that not a single argument has been produced to show that the standing army should be greater than before the war. In fact, the argument is that it should be, and could be withcut any risk whatever, less, because of these other activities that the Senator from New York has so well mentioned and described."

The Senate passed the navy appropriation bill without a roll call, after adding nearly fifty millions to what the House had voted in Bigger Navy the measure. No real naval disAppropriations armament is in sight, if our future may be judged by this atti

tude of the Senate. Borah summed up the deplorable situation, as follows:

"Mr. President, the observations made a few moments ago by the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Walsh) and the debate as it is now proceeding seem to me not dissimilar to the debate in France which is now going forward, particularly in the press, upon the treaties which were negotiated some time ago for the limitation of armament. It is all exceedingly interesting. The disarmament parley was called for the purpose of stopping competition in naval armament. That was one of the great ob

jects to be attained and one of the great objects which was supposed to have been attained. We find now, within a few months after the treaties are signed, that the argument which is being advanced in France for the ratification of the treaties is that they in no way limit the building of naval armament upon the part of France in anything which she desires to build; that while there is some limitation upon battleships-a craft which she does not want to build and does not propose to build for two reasons, first, from an economic standpoint, and, second, because of the impression abroad that they are becoming obsolete as to all other instruments of modern naval warfare there is no limit, and therefore the ratification of the treaties would in no wise embarrass France in the future in building up her navy, which she proposes to do. That leads to the further suggestion that at the present time in Japan -not so much in Great Britain, but in Japan-naval armaments, aside from battleships, are being built as rapidly and as effectively as prior to the meeting of the disarmament parley.

"So, Mr. President, while these treaties may be ratified and technically observed, the great object and purpose in calling the disarmament parley-to wit, to stop competition in naval armament-seems to be utterly frustrated by reason of what, in my judgment, may be properly styled bad faith upon the part of the countries in carrying out the spirit of the disarmament parley and the treaty. We are today just as thoroughly engaged in naval-armament competition as we were prior to the calling of the disarmament parley, with the exception of one instrument of modern naval warfare."

The Old Guard, both Republicans and Democrats, defeated an attempt to end our invasion of Haiti.

No Relief For Haiti

King and Borah led this unsuccessful fight against American imperialism. The former sponsored the following amendment: Provided, That no part of said sum shall be used for the purpose of maintaining or employing marines, either officers or enlisted men, in the Republic of Haiti, or the Dominican Republic, or Nicaragua, after December 31, 1922, except in the event of an uprising in either Republic menacing the lives of citizens of the United States or the lives of subjects of a foreign power or powers friendly to the United States, and then only for the purpose of affording protection to said citizens or subjects.

This King amendment was rejected, 9 to 43, as follows:

Yeas-Borah, Johnson, King, Ladd, La Follette, Norris, Overman, Walsh, Mass.: Walsh, Mont.-9. Nays-Brandegee, Broussard, Bursum, Calder, Cameron, Capper, Caraway, Curtis, Dial, Edge, France, Frelinghuysen, Gerry, Heflin, Kellogg, Kendrick, Lenroot, Lodge, McCormick, McCumber, McKinley, McNary, Nelson, Newberry, Nicholson, Norbeck, Oddie, Phipps, Poindexter, Pomerene, Sheppard, Simmons, Smith, Smoot, Spencer, Sterling, Sutherland, Townsend, Trammell, Wadsworth, Warren, Watson, Ind.; Willis.-43.

Not Voting-Ashurst, Ball, Colt, Crow, Culberson, Cummins, Dillingham, du Pont, Elkins, Ernst, Fernald, Fletcher, Glass, Gooding, Hale, Harreld, Harris, Harrison, Hitchcock, Jones, N. Mex.; Jones, Wash.; Keyes, McKellar, McLean, Moses, Myers, New, Owen, Page, Pepper, Pittman, Ransdell, Rawson, Reed, Robinson, Shields, Shortridge, Stanfield, Stanley, Swanson, Underwood, Watson, Ga.; Weller, Williams.-44.

about his first open participation in the work of the Senate. Possibly it may be his last.

The Newberry case is certain to be reopened. Nor is there any reasonable doubt that his second trial will result in expulsion.

A change of three votes would have ousted him last January. Already one of these votes has been lost to Newberry in the defeat of New of Indiana. Thirteen more Old Guard Republicans who supported Newberryism are facing desperate fights for reelection. A conservative estimate is that at least two-thirds of them will be defeated.

Like Lorimer, Newberry will have to face a second trial, with the prospect of a similar final result.

The Old Guard won its long fight for high priced In recent issues we Shipping Board attorneys. have presented roll calls showing High Priced how the House divided on this Attorneys very important question. June 6, the matter was finally decided by the adoption of the conference report on the "independent offices appropriation bill."

Congressman Byrns of Tennessee thus recited the history of this controversy:

"This matter has been pending for so long a time that I think probably it would be entirely proper if I called your attention very briefly to its history, for this is the only item in dispute. As the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Wood) said, the House passed this bill with a provision that not exceeding six employees of the department should be paid in excess of $11,000 per annum each, and that they should not be paid exceeding $25,000. The Senate struck out that provision and put in a general provision that 13 employees might be paid in excess of $11,000. The amendment came back to the House, and on March 15 a motion to recede and concur in that amendment of the Senate was defeated by an overwhelming vote in the House. It was then sent to conference, and the conference report was submitted and voted on on April 3. That conference report proposed to limit the employees who should receive in excess of $11,000 to six not in excess of $25,000 and four not to exceed $35,000. That report was overwhelmingly rejected by the House. It again went to conference, and another conference report was presented to the House, and voted on on April 20, which provided six at $25,000, two at $20,000, and two at $15,000. That report was overwhelmingly rejected by the House. It again went to conference and another conference report was submitted, which was rejected by the House. That report provided for six not to exceed $25,000, two not to exceed $20,000, and one not to exceed $15,000. The present report provides, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Wood) has stated, that six shall not exceed $25,000 and two shall not exceed $20,000."

The final roll call, by which the House voted these excessive salaries for Shipping Board attorneys, was as follows:

CALIFORNIA-Yeas-Barbour, Curry, Osborne, Swing. Nays-Free, Raker. Not Voting-Kahn, Lea, Lineberger. Nolan. COLORADO-Yeas-Hardy, Timberlake, Vaile. Nay-Taylor.

CONNECTICUT-Not Voting-Fenn, Freeman, Glynn, Merritt, Tilson. DELAWARE-Yea-Layton.

FLORIDA-Not Voting-Clark, Drane, Sears, Smithwick. GEORGIA-Nay-Brand, Crisp, Lankford, Larsen. Lee, Overstreet, Wise, Wright. Not Voting-Bell, Park, Upshaw, Vinson. IDAHO Yeas-French, Smith.

ILLINOIS-Yeas-Brooks, Cannon, Chindblom, Gorman, Graham, King, Madden, Rodenberg, Shaw, Sproul, Williams. Nays-Rainey, Wheeler. Not Voting-Britten, Copley, Denison, Fuller, Funk, Ireland, Kunz, McKenzie, Mann, Michaelson, Moore, Sabath, Yates. INDIANA-Yeas-Benham, Dunbar, Elliott, Fairfield, Hickey, Moores, Wood. Nay-Kraus. Not Voting-Bland, Luhring, Purnell, Sanders, Vestal.

IOWA-Yeas-Green, Towner. Nays-Dowell, Haugen, Kopp, Ramseyer. Not Voting-Boies, Cole, Dickinson, Hull, Sweet.

KANSAS-Nays-Anthony, Bird, Hoch, Little, Strong, Tincher, White. Not Voting-Campbell.

KENTUCKY-Yeas-Langley, Ogden, Nays-Barkley, Gilbert, Kincheloe, Thomas. Not Voting-Cantrill, Fields, Johnson, Robsion, Rouse, LOUISIANA-Nays-Dupre, Favrot, Lazaro, Martin, O'Connor, Sandlin, Wilson. Not Voting-Aswell.

MAINE-Yeas-Beedy, Hersey, Nelson, White.

MARYLAND-Yeas-Blakeney, Hill, Mudd. Nays-Linthicum, Zihlman. Not Voting-Goldsborough. MASSACHUSETTS - Yeas Dallinger, Frothingham, Greene, Luce, Rogers, Tinkham, Underhill, Walsh. Not Voting-Andrew, Gallivan, Maloney, Paige, Tague, Treadway. Winslow. Nay

MICHIGAN-Yeas-Cramton, McLaughlin, Mapes, Michener. Woodruff. Not Voting-Brennan, Codd, Fordney, James, Kelley, Ketcham, Scott, Smith.

MINNESOTA-Yeas-Knutson, Newton, Schall, Steenerson, Volstead. Nays Clague, Keller. Not Voting-Anderson, Davis, Larson.

MISSISSIPPI-Nays-Collier, Humphreys, Johnson, Lowrey, Rankin, Quin, Sisson. Not Voting-Collins.

MISSOURI-Yeas-Dyer, Ellis, Hays, Hukriede, Newton, Millspaugh, Rhodes, Shelton. Nays-Lawrence, Roach, Rucker. Not Voting-Atkeson, Faust, Hawes, McPherson, Patterson. MONTANA-Yeas-McCormick, Riddick.

NEBRASKA-Nays-Andrews, McLaughlin. Not Voting-Evans, Jef

feris, Kinkaid.

NEW MEXICO-Yea-Montoya.

NEW YORK-Yeas-Bond, Clarke, Crowther, Cullen, Fish, Hicks, Hogan, Kissel, Lee, Magee, Mills, Mott, Parker, Petersen, Rossdale, Ryan, Siegel, Snell, Snyder. Nays-Carew, London, MacGregor, Mead, Perlman, Ten Eyke. Not Voting-Ansorge, Cockran, Chandler, Dempsey, Dunn, Fairchild, Gould, Griffin, Henry, Husted, Kindred, Kline, Reed, Riordan, Sanders, Sullivan, Volk, Ward.

NORTH CAROLINA-Nays-Bulwinkle, Hammer, Pou, Stedma, Ward. Not Voting-Doughton, Kitchin, Lyon, Weaver.

NORTH DAKOTA-Yea-Young. Not Voting-Burtness, Sinclair. OHIO-Yeas-Burton, Cable, Fess, Kearns, Murphy, Stephens. NaysChalmers, Cole, Gahn, Morgan, Norton, Ricketts, Speaks, Thompson. Not Voting-Begg, Cooper, Fitzgerald, Foster, Himes, Knight, Longworth, Moore. OKLAHOMA-Yea-Pringey. Nays-Carter, Chandler, Gensman, Not Voting-Herrick, McClintic, Robertson, Swank.

OREGON-Yeas-Hawley, Sinnott. Not Voting-McArthur. PENNSYLVANIA-Yeas-Crago, Bixler, Butler, Campbell, Darrow, Edmonds, Gernerd, Griest, Kelley, Kirkpatrick, McLaughlin, Porter, Strong, Watson, Wyant. Nays-Kline, McFadden, Walters. Not Voting -Burke, Brooks, Connell, Connolly, Coughlin, Focht, Graham, Jones, Kendall, Kiess, Kreider, Morin, Ransley, Reber, Rose, Shreve, Temple, Vare.

RHODE ISLAND-Yea-Burdick. Not_Voting-Kennedy, Stiness. SOUTH CAROLINA-Nays-Byrnes, Dominick, Fulmer, Logan, Stevenson. Not Voting-McSwain, Stoll.

SOUTH DAKOTA-Yea-Christopherson. Nay-Williamson. Not Voting-Johnson.

TENNESSEE-Yea-Brown. Nay-Byrns, Clouse, Davis, Fisher, Garrett, Reece, Scott. Not Voting-Padgett, Taylor.

TEXAS-Yea-Wurzbach. Nays-Box, Briggs, Buchanan, Garrett, Garner, Jones, Lanham, Sanders, Sumners, Williams. Not VotingBlack, Blanton, Connally, Hardy, Hudspeth, Mansfield, Rayburn. UTAH-Yeas-Colton, Leatherwood. VERMONT-Yeas-Dale, Greene.

VIRGINIA-Yeas-Bland, Slemp. Nays-Drewry, Moore, Tucker, Woods. Not Voting-Deal, Harrison, Hooker, Montague.

WASHINGTON-Yeas-Hadley, Johnson, Miller, Webster. Nay

Summers.

And then this:

"It seems to me that the address of the Secretary of War ought not to pass unnoticed lest the silence of those who do not agree with him may be taken as an approval of his utterances."

Continuing, Norris quickly stressed the fundamental issue, when he said:

"Mr. President, in a free government founded upon the consent of the governed, on the theory that the people are sufficiently intelligent to be given the right of self-government, no man in my judgment can successfully deny the right of the people to nominate candidates, unless at the same time he is consistent and denies the right of the people to vote at general elections. A primary is nothing but an election. It is just as important as, and nine times out of ten it is more important than, the election which follows. Give to me or to anyone else or to any machine or any body of men the right and power to nominate candidates for office, and they will not turn their finger over to decide as to who shall be chosen at the general election. The history of the country is full of such examples."

Weeks' Bad Break

There is no man in our public life who feels more deeply or thinks more clearly than Norris upon the question of political institutions and instrumentalities. He has demonstrated this repeatedly, but never with greater force than on this occasion when he set forth the meaning of Weeks' position, which is that of the administration.

Let us quote further from Norris' speech:

"Abolish the right of the people to name their candidates and the effect will be the abolition of the right of people to elect their public officials. The Secretary of War when he advocates the abolishment of the primary is in reality advocating the return to a monarchial form of government. The men who want to take away from the people the right to nominate their candidates do it on the theory that the people are not sufficiently intelligent to select their officials. The same argument, with the same weight and the same logic, applies to the general election. So, Mr. President, often it turns out that the election is nothing in the world but a choice between two evils. The machinery that has controlled the nominations has indirectly but effectively controlled the election.

"No man can get any other impression from reading his address than that the Secretary of War believes that the only way to save the country is to stop the demand of the people for self-government. A people who are too ignorant, who are too unintelligent to nominate their candidates for office, are not entitled to vote at elections, are not entitled to office, are not entitled to self-government, and ought to be living under a monarchial form of government. If I believed that our people were not sufficiently intelligent to nominate their candidates for office, I would advocate the establishment of a monarchy in America; I would be consistent at least; and, if I were not able to get a monarchy, I would surrender my citizenship in the United States of America and go to some country where there is a monarchy, if I liked a monarchy better.

"Every one of the amendments the Senator suggests is basic, goes to the basic principle of government. I think he had reference to all of them.

"Secretary Weeks and President Harding may be opposed to the primary for the same reason, opposed in reality to the people selecting their officials, opposed to the amendment to the Constitution which gave the people the right to elect their own Senators. Secretary Weeks was elected to this body by the Legislature of Massachusetts. While he was here the Constitution was changed, and the first time the people of his State got a chance to vote in his case when he ran for reelection they defeated him. For the same reason that I may be unconsciously prejudiced in favor of giving the people power to select their officials it is possible that he, unconsciously of course, may be prejudiced and biased in the other direction.

"President Harding, when he was running for President, never got to first base wherever there was a presidential primary. I remember in the great State of Indiana, where they had a presidential primary, practically all of the candidates were in that State in person making a canvass. There was Senator Johnson, there was General Wood, there was Governor Lowden, and there was Senator Harding, all of them in the State in person, and everybody else they could get to go there to advocate their cause. They had a primary there. The result was a very close vote between Senator Johnson and General Wood. It took a good while to know who was ahead, and there is some doubt yet as to which one of those men was ahead. Governor Lowden was a very good third, but nobody thought about Senator Harding unless the newspapers announced that he also ran. So, without knowing it, and unconsciously, the President may be prejudiced against the primary for the same reason that I am prejudiced for it."

branch of Congress? Is that what they are driving at? Does it cost more to control a primary than it does to control a few in a convention? What is it back of this drive from the White House down through the members of the Cabinet to do away with the primary and popular government in parties? That is what they are seeking to destroy, to take this power away from the people and give it to a favored few for their control and manipulation." Said Trammell:

"I deplore any effort looking to a repeal of the primary system or any effort that looks to taking from the people the right to express their will in regard to their public officers at the polls, and it will be a sad day for this country if we should return entirely to the old system."

In the House on the same day, June 16th, Garner of Texas began the denunciation of Weeks for his Tincher reactionary attitude. But it was Hits Weeks Tincher of Kansas, a Republican, who was most scathing. He said: "I am sure that every Member of Congress, regardless of party, agrees that the Secretary's speech and advice to these young men that were being graduated from school was as untimely, if not wholly unsound, as could be contemplated.

"Here is a man whom the President has taken up after he has been repudiated by his people, whom the President in the kindness of his heart is trying to make a man of, goes out to Ohio, talking to students of a school, and cites prohibition as an instance to prove that if those graduates ever get into public life and occupy positions of trust they should follow not the wishes of the people that they represent but they should carefully avoid supporting a proposition because it is popular to do so."

Tincher closed his speech with this resounding slap at Weeks:

"Some people think it is a sin to be in politics and have political sense and judgment; if that is a sin, Secretary Weeks will never be punished for being guilty of that sin." (Applause.)

We oppose "Pairing"

Congressman H. S. Ward of North Carolina has written The Searchlight, reminding us that "your last issue had me recorded on the Liberian Loan as 'not voting'. My correct record is 'not votingpaired against'." That is true. Mr. Ward is a highly intelligent, independent and courageous congressman. His attitude is consistently on the side of public interest. There is no doubt as to his stand on this question.

But when a member does not answer a roll call, whether or not he is "paired," The Searchlight has in the past and will continue in the future to record him as "not voting."

A paired vote in no way affects the result of a roll call. Its only parliamentary meaning is that of not voting.

Moreover, in most cases of pairing, there is nothing to indicate the attitude the members would have taken had they voted.

The Searchlight is against the practice of pairing. It does not recognize any legitimate reason for that method of "making a record."

Pairing is a barbaric relic of the old partisan days when Republicans and Democrats were supposed solidly to oppose each other on every question before Congress. Partisanship has always been an evil influence in legislation, but it did a generation ago provide at least a flimsy excuse for pairing. Then one could determine with some degree of accuracy the attitude of each party to a pair.

Now, when divisions of the House are no longer along party lines, a pair means little beyond the desire of members to "protect" their records, which in most cases they may "interpret" as best suits their campaign needs.

Pairing should be abolished. If a Congressman or Senator has a legitimate excuse for not voting, instead of "pairing" let him state in the Congressional Record why he is absent and how he would have voted.

should be fully investigated.

The result might place such lobbies as the packers and railroads have had far in the rear.

Mr. Arthur Altridge, in his article in this issue, again stresses du Pont influence over the administration of the Alien Property Custodian.

He also touches upon the scandal connected with the retirement of Senator Wolcott and the appointment of T. Coleman du Pont as Senator from Delaware. Certainly this episode should have the sunlight of publicity.

The du Ponts appear to hold the State of Delaware in the hollow of their hand. If that is true, it is a national disgrace and danger. Corruption is so infectious that its ravages can never be confined to a single commonwealth.