We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
Senators for the YJation
A Mutual network commentator advances plans for a Senate that will be for the states united, not just the state.
By STANLEY DIXON
CORDELL HULL has retired after serving as Secretary of State longer than any other man. He has vast experience and knowledge of foreign affairs, yet his health will not permit him to continue the arduous work as Secretary.
Why could not the voice of Cor' dcil Hull be heard in the United States Senate?
Wendell Willkie was defeated for the Presidency and retired into private life, yet his influence extended to the four corners of the globe. How useful he would have been in the Senate!
In Britain, opposition leaders retain their seats in Parliament. If they should be defeated, usually someone will resign to make way for them in a "safe" constituency.
Why could we not do something of the same nature? It would of course involve a change in the constitution, but this might be possible were sufficient public sentiment obtained for the proposal.
Guy Gillette, one of the best of our senators, was defeated because he is a Democrat in a firmly Republican state. There are first class men who could not go to the Senate because they arc Republicans from the solid Democratic South.
There are other men of great distinction who have no political connections, or who live in a state where
they would not wish to run against competent incumbents. Would not such men as Philip Murray ... or Eric Johnston ... or Sumner Welles have something valuable to contribute to our government?
There are a number of ways in which this could be done. The constitution might be changed to increase the membership of the Senate by six or eight members at large, whose names would be submitted to the electorate either every two years or every four years, with the names arranged alphabetically without party labels.
Another plan would be to permit each major political party to nominate four individuals who would then become Senators, but without the privilege of voting. They would, however, be able to speak, and in that way their views would be brought before the other Senators and before the people.
A large number of Americans find it impossible to hold closely to one political line. After all, there are liberals and conservatives in both parties. During the recent election, a liberal Republican senator supported the President, and a conservative Democratic Senator opposed him. That action might cost those men their political skins . . . yet they followed their conscience.
A party system is necessary and I