The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, February 26, 1899, Page 17

S~ ) \ !L u 114 ) B e Hhrl g ey Nt SENATOR INASON Gertrude Atherton says women think more than men do, because they have more time for thought. This makes them keener observers. It explains why woman’s point of view is often so widely divergent from that of man. Lately Mrs. Atherton has been studying the United States Senate from the visitors’ gallery.- She has reached the conclu- sion that collectively and in its component parts it is highly inter- esting. Every halo of Senatorial dignity. Senator is invested in. the public mind with the toga and Mrs. Atherton has cast these aside and looked at the real man—alw: from the standpoint of the gallery, which is that of the public. She passes the men whose names are household words in review and notes their characteristics in the pass- ing. They are her views, to be 'sure, but they are decidedly analytic. In h i . e-she never mentioned party. She-talked of men, purposes and principles. ‘What Mrs. Atherton says distinctly feminine. She is not schooled in the game of politics. She says Senator Davis is the Senate’s clearest thinker, because that is what her judgment tells after comparative study. In her analysis she omits the names of several of those whom the public considers among the chief notables, but that makes what she says all the more interesting. . Guided judgment is seldom worth while. It is time for congratulation when criticism rings true. A great editor once said that the Senate was always interesting. Mrs. Atherton shows it is, and that much of interest is lost through the dry-ds-dust methods of viewing the Senate that are generally in No man has ever thought the Senate interesting from the vogue. standpoint of its bald heads, and Mrs. Atherton gives Senators Jones and Stewart a brand new title when she calls them Father Christmases. It is merry, but true, and when the shaft of truth is tipped rwith mer- riment it splits the willow wand of impression in twain. A S e Special to The Sunday Call. HE Senate is the genesis of dignified disorder that never reaches chaos. When you look down from the gallery you are not quite sure in your mind whether the Senators are in session, until you see Mr. Hobart bring his gavel down in a very orderly way to command silence. If you have been in the House and heard Speaker Reed hammer his desk and bellow for order you are amazed at the contrast, until you see the effect is about the same—very little comes of it. % Then you fall to studying the heads of the Senators—the bald heads. They are so interesting—a regular symphony in pink, white, brown and yellow. There are those dear old Father Christmases, Senator Jones and Senator Stewart, whispering together, and their heads are as pink as can be. Senator Perkins’ head looks as if it had the jaundice. Senator Hoar is one of the pink ones, and there are others of varied hues. After awhile you forget about that and fall to wondering why it is that in a body of men of that sort no Senator seems to pay any attention to the one who is speaking. While the debate on the peace treaty was in progress Senator Bacon had the floor_one Senator was holding a levee in another part of the chamber, others were talking among themselves, and still othters reading. Every once in a while Mr. Hobart would rap for order. He was the only one who paid attention. Senator Bacon’s speech was masterly. I think he is the best speaker in the Senate. In the gallery where I was every person listened. intently. ' Down below Senator Hoar would jump up now and then and talk to some one or walk around. He is a lovely old but he can’t keep still two minutes at a time. m really at a loss te know how the Senators keep in touch with the proceedings. Of course they are not as disorderly as the House. That is a regular bear garden, and Speaker Reed has to be severe, just as when the ayes and noes are being taken he thrusts his gavel toward one after the other of the members, seeming to say: “You, you, you,” in a rgular bulldog way. man, I a Sometimes I have seen the effect of criticism by one Senator seem- to fall flat, because the man who ought to hear what was being said was absent. During one of the debates Senator Mason spoke in criticism of Sentlor Hawley. Most people get mad gradually, but Senator Mason doesn’t. He just beunces, all at once. That day he was in a terrific rage, and roared and stormed tremendously about Senator Hawley. * Just as he had finished the Senator came into the chamber. He had not heard a word except the last sentence or two. Senator Hawley is a dignified little man, and when Senator Mason sat down pe addressed Mr. Hobart in his impressive way and said: “I.am in- formed that the Senator from Illinois has been indulging in criticism of my remarks. I would like him to understand that my criticism was not of him personally, but of the principles he advocates.” Senator Mason had learned by that time that Mr. Hawley hadn’t heard him. Of course the effect of his speech was lost on Mr. Haw- ley, and more than that it could not be effective if made over for Mr. Hawley’s benefit unless it was delivered in just the same way and tone. Any other man I ever saw would have been discouraged, but Senator Mason wasn’t. He simply got mad all over again and at once and stormed at Mr. Hawley precisely as he did before. I never heard anything so funny. - But then Mr. Mason is the standing joke of the Senate. Every organization of that sort has a jester, yott know. 4 The more you study and compare the Senators, the more posi- #tive is your conviction that Senator Davis has the best mind. In saying that I mean that he is the clearest thinker. He arrives at his conclusions quickly, and yet he always knows why he thinks as he does. He seems to be a master of his subject, and if he makes an assertion it is sure to be’ well grounded. He is not gifted in oratory, like Senator Daniel, but Senator Daniel is frothy. Senator Davis does not thimk of the well-rounded periods, but the fact. Senator Daniel’'s speeches are more smooth and flowing, but when you analyze them they lack stamina. I think Senator Bacon more nearly combines polish and fact than almost any of the Senators. Senator Hoar is a very good speaker, too, and impressive—when he _isn’t jumping around. PERKINS 7SENATOR MAWLEY The one thing that Na¥ besn borme in on me, too, &S T have Jistened to the Senators talk, is that they are in earnest. I had really supposed that they were not actuated by principle, but I think with hardly an exception they are men of worthy purpose, according to their lights. I have watched them now for some weeks in the Senate chamber and met most of them socially, and the better I really know these men the stronger is my conviction that they are honest. Take Senator Perkins, for instance. I have been at his home town, Oroville, and I know he is popular there. The people think everything of him. Still I came to Washington really believing he was all sorts of dreadful things. I never was more surprised in my life in a man. On this treaty question he was among the antis in opinion, but he said to me: “Mrs. Atherton, the people I represent want that treaty ratified. Personally I am not in favor of it, but I tald those people when I was elected to the Senate that when they wanted me to do anysthing I would do it, and I am going to. There isn’t a Sepator who, when seeking election, would dare stand up before his constituents and tell them he’d do what he pleased re- gardless of the wishes of the majority. I say he has no right after he has been elected to vote contrary to their wishes.” Now I'm not for expansion. I don’t think I want expansion. But 1 can’t help thinking that Senator Perkins’ attitude is more creditable than the position taken by the other California Senator, Mr. White. Then again, I said to Senator Perkins one day: ‘‘Senator, what in the world do you want to do this sort of thing for when with all your money you could travel all over the world?” “Why, Mrs. Atherton,” he said, “to be a United States Senator is the crowning honor of a man’s life. There’s nothing more honor- able. We all think that.” T am satisfiel he veiced the opinion of all the Senators. Each in his own way acts as if he thought that. And no one need tell me that- men who feel that way are corrupt. I don’t believe it. They're not. There is all this talk about Senator Hanna. Now the fact is that man's personal record is spotless. Twice he has started in business on borrowed capital, and to-day I am told by ever so many people who are in a position to know that he could borrow untold sums and not even have to give any bond for their return. It seems to me that such facts as these give the lie to the ery that the Senators as a whole are corrupt. It is impossible that a body of men of this sort should lead such a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Naturally many of the things they do are not approved exisgence. am of, but that they do the best they can according to their lights I thoroughly convinced. The dignity of the Senate cannot be questioned, although degree is rather comparative than superlative. I think that the Senators are inclined to be rather cold to people, because eyery one asks favors of them. In the chamber there is, as I have said, an entire absence of the order one would naturally look for in such a body, but I think they constantly feel the dignity of their positions the ,in the world and act in accordance with what seems to them to be the proper line of conduct. All you want to do to convince yourself that the Senators are dignified is to go over to the House. I told Mr. Reed the other day that I thought Mr. Hobart kept very much better order than he did. “He ought to,” said Mr. Reed. “I have a most unruly body of men to look after. The Senators are quiet.” - I should think they were unruly. And besides that they have no idea of decorum in the House. Why, during a most important debate in the House one day I saw one of the well-known members leave his seat, go behind one of the screens, lie down on a couch, light a cigar, and then calmly go off to sleep. I thought it was very con- siderate of him to have a screen. 3 Socially Washington is the most crude place I ever saw. The custom of continual calls is a perfect bore. People have been as nice to me here as can be, but it is the ways I object to. In other social centers you are not bored to death in society but entertained. Unless you have done something to make you notable no one ever thinks of giving an entertainment for you or anything of that sort. The result is that the people bore you to death, and you feel an irre- sistible desire to run away f.om them. A young Englishman of high birth and standing whom I knew in London came to see me not long ago and said he was going back home—he was disgusted with Washington. “When I went to New York and Boston,” he said, “I had letters of introduction to people, and do you know, why they had something or other on for me every day. I began to think I was a good deal of a fellow. Then I came here with letters of introduction to the best people, and no one has even given a dinner for me. I am bored to death and going home.” . I told him the exact truth. The town reeks with notabilities. There are the Senators and the Embassadors and goodness knows what not. The socifl market is glutted with distinction. The result is that no one has a really good time in society, because they are tired to death with the procession of calls and keeping up with the notables. Now in New York and London no one ever thinks of paying formal calls in the social season. When you go anywhere you go with the jdea of-stopping an hour or so and being entertained. You don’t go out to be bored, nor do you caye to suffer martyrdom at your home. That is why I say Washington itself is socially crude. It is too ponderous and sacrificing. It needs a new system in its society.