SENATORIAL MANNERS.

Waikato Times, Volume 102, Issue 17222, 4 October 1927, Page 10

SENATORIAL MANNERS.

THEIR DECADENCE. CAUSE OF DEMORALISATION. Fifteen or twenty years ago those persons who followed the doings of Congress in the Washington dispatches were often regaled with accounts of the cantankerous performances of a member of the Lower House from the far South. Usually he appeared in the news as a boisterous participant in some unseemly uproar, the author of language which by its rude and primitive character and implications is frequently the preliminary to personal encounter, and in many other ways violently transgressed those conventions which have been devised to permit human beings to congregate in bodies without homicidal consequences. The impression created in the mind of the reader by the portrayal of the incidents in which Representative Heflin figured was that of a person uncouth in appearance, vulgar in speech, and savage in action, a character to be avoided by all discriminating people without even the preliminary of a hearing. The printed descriptions convened a greatly exaggerated idea, as they often do ; but there can be no doubt of the unfavourable conception of Die appearance and behaviour of the gentleman from Alabama that the public derived from them, (writes M. F. Murphy in the “Independent”). Representative Thomas Heflin.

Six years ago Representative James Thomas Heflin became United States Senator Heflin, and by re-election will continue to serve his State in that capacity until 1931. He is conspicuous for his size, his manner of dress, for the frequency and fervour with which he speaks, and by reason of the prominence of his seat in the rear row on the Democratic side; in every way he comes under the glare of public scrutiny, and yet it may be said with exactness and conservatism that in none of the elements which go to make up correct and dignified behaviour, in observance of the rules, in courteous demeanour toward his colleagues, in physical bearing, or in the choice of language, lias Senator Heflin a superior, in the entire chamber of ninety-six members. Not only that, but there are not many who equal him in looking, if not- in ail cases playing the part of a statesman.

This circumstance, which cannot fail to be noted by anyone with the memory and experience necessary to make a valuable comparison, is a phenomenon of sufficient weight to provoke inquiry. What has happened to produce this apparent change? Has Tom Heflin so immenscT improved over his earlier days, or has th. United States Senate which lias been exuberantly described as “the most august •‘gislative body in the world” deteriorate' in manners? Or are both statements true? The answer, in the opinion of me who is able to oppose a picture oi wenty-five years ago to the present time, s that not only has Tom Heflin grown ,n the graces of behaviour, either as the emit of inner resolve or by contact with he cosmopolitan life of the national capit 1, but that the general level of depor! ent in the Senate has been so striking . epressed as to offer just cause to national chagTin. Homely Manners.

Once upon a time, thirty or more year :.go, a comparatively new Senator sough relief from the discomfort of an acbmfoot in tho homely but effective way known and practiced by the humble when ! hey are among their own. Oblivions o his surroundings and careless of conscquericas, he removed his shoe and raised tho stockinged foot to the top of hi? desk, where he let it rest. The shock to his colleagues, even though tempered by an understanding sympathy, was as violent as that given to the members of lh< : Frencft Debt Commission when Senatoi Reed Smoot with friendly intimacy el? vated his feet to the top of tho coune: table, and tho newspaper correspondent? of the day sent an account of the inci dent to all points of a scandalised country. It was a breach of decorum so egregious, so unheard of as almost to win forgiveness by its very rarity and enormity. The exact counterpart of this distant episode cannot be pointed out in the actions of tho Senators of the present day, but it is a distressing fact that performances which equal it in lack of dignity and breach of manners are of such common occurrence that they not only excite no adverse comment, but also, for the most part pass entirely unnoticed.

Bad Faults of Speech and Behaviour. The faults of posture and speech which are daily committed in the Senate would bring shame to any well-drilled grammarschool pupil of twenty-five years ago, and the disregard of the Senate’s own courteous parliamentary procedure is so frequent and flagrant tiiat it must cause twisting and turning in many an ancient Senatorial grave. Half of the ninety-six Senators seem unable to stand erect while speaking, but must put a foot on a chair or lean on a desk or keep shifting their weight from one foot to the other with an obvious lack of ea.se. One of the new and younger Senators whose educational and social opportunities have been so exceptional that lie should be a paragon of good behaviour habitually seeks the support of a desk for his elbow, and leaning over decidedly, as he must in order to maintain this attitude, lie bends one leg so that it is in front of the other with the foot cocked up and resting on the toe. Another, whose bearing in most respects is without blemish, seems to feel the need of backing up against a desk on the centre aisle in order to get inspiration; while still another will place his foot squarely in the seat of a chair, rest his forearm on the raised knee, and speak in a careless, colloquial way as if lie had his foot on the hub of a farm wagon and was conversing with a neighbour.

Moments of Undignified Relaxation. One of the most attractive figures in the Senate both physically and mentally, whose speeches are listened to with eager attention, who stands erect and whose presence is both dignified and graceful, is able nevertheless, to go to the back of the Senate chamber, stretch himself at full length upon one of the leather couches there in plain view of all the galleries and apparently take a nap. It was while this same Senator was delivering one of his most interesting speeches that a young man in the gallery, the product of refined surroundings, broke the spell of intent interest with which he was listening by remarking to a companion, “I wish ho would not keep spitting all live time.”

It is not unusual to see a seated Senator swing half-way round and put one foot in the unoccupied chair of a neighbour; but sometimes this does not (gives adequate relaxation Then, to secure the fullest measure of icpose it is necessary to follow the example of the distinguished legislator who stretched both legs out in the adjoining chair, unbuttoned his waistcoat from top to bottom, and opening it wide, leaned hack in as sweet content as «i he had been in a country tavern among his native hills. “Do gustibus non est disputandum!’ ’exclaimed the old lady when she kurad the cow; and the people of SouLh Carolina must have lepeated the same phrase softly to them.-wlvos when they clii'So Cole Biease to represent them in the Senate.

Rules of Debate Ignored, But if there lias been deterioration in these little matters of personal habits, it ,is as nothing compared to that which | lias taken niftets in regard to the rules of debate. When punctiliously obeyed these formulas for parliamentary action create an atmosphere of dignified courtesy which has not been excelled even at royal courts. The simple practice of them which membership in the Senate formerly enforced, has changed many a rough, uncultivated jiewcomer into a man of poise and good mannefiS before bis term lias expired. Among the rides on debate theoretically governing the conduct of members are these*

When a Senator desires to speak he shall rise and address the Presiding Offi eer, and shall not proceed until he is recognised. . » No Senator shall interrupt, another Senator in debate without his consent, and to obtain that consent ha shall first address the Presiding Officer. . . No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive uu worthy or unbecoming a Senator.

Those prescriptions taken in connection with the customs that have grown up around them conduce to deliberation, case of manner, and consideration of*the rights and feelings of others. But the find two provisions arc constantly violated, the second one so persistenly that frequently a group of Senators are all chattering away at once in such a confused medley that the official stenographers are unable to get down all the conversation in sequence and sometimes not at all. There have been many occasions recently in which lire tangle of question and answer and assertion from half a dozen Senators talking it the same time and totally ignoring the chair was so inextricable as to invite the services of a boxing referee accustomed to breaking clinches. Fifteen or twenty years ago such scenes simply could not have happened. There were then too many Senators of long service to whom the traditions of the"body were dear.

The Cause of Demoralisation. If one were to seek the cause of this demoralisation lie would probably l>c furnished with a ready answer by those who are just now acutely distressed over the increased cost of buying Senatorships. In the minds of these the whole trouble would undoubtedly be clue to the “direct primary system.” It- is their reply to every accusation, but it would be a better retort in this instance if these who hold this philosophy were themselves more perfect examples But the responsibility for good order obviously rests not alone upon individual Senators. What they may do the presiding officer shall do, and what is their privilege is his express obligation. May it, perhaps, he true that the credit for the august atmosphere of the Senate of g few years ago was due to presiding officers whose knowledge of the rules and feeling for the dignity of the Senate wer® so complete as to make them fulfil their duLies with confidence and at tiie same time inspire the respect of the body whose deliberations they directed? It cannot but be a matter of regret that there are not enough hold-overs from the old Senatorial order to compel emulation in their newer or less favoured colleagues. A nucleus of such Senators, awakened to a sense of the present deplorable stale of Senatorial behaviour and determined to remedy it, might in a short time restore the Upper House of Congress to a condition which would command the respect, it once received and enable well-bred. Americans to look upon it not apokgctically, but admiringly.