THE plan unfolded on Friday evening is notoriously different from that which Mr. Gladstone originally formed, and the objections to it from the point of view of the Irish Nationalists are serious and patent. What is the use, then, of a measure that contents neither landowner nor tenant? Its use was unmistakably demonstrated by its reception, for instead of being hotly fought over for four days, like the twin project of home rule, it passed the first reading almost without debate. We may take for granted that the double-faced halting scheme for buying out the landlords was meant to do the very thing which it seems to have accomplished, namely, to avert further defection on the part of the Whigs by a certain amount of deference to Lord Spencer and the other magnates assenting to home rule, and at the same time to provide a bridge for the return of Mr. Chamberlain to the Cabinet, an event which would insure the restoration of Ireland's legislative independence.

N. Y. Tribune (Rep.), April 18.

It seems to be generally conceded in London that the second measure, with all its uncertainties and mathematical contradictions, has not impaired the prospects of home rule. Mr. Parnell, while reserving judgment and suggesting needed modifications, dealt with it in a conciliatory spirit, and Mr. Chamberlain, while offering much destructive criticism, was very careful, as our London correspondent states, to leave the door open for his return to the Liberal side. It is evidently a more favorable measure for the landholders than either the Radicals or the Parnellites are prepared to pass, and a reduction of the basis of purchase from twenty to ten years' rental is altogether probable. Superficially it looks like an elastic scheme fashioned for the express purpose of furnishing abundant room for compromise.

St. Louis Republican (Dem.), April 18.

THERE are good reasons for believing that the Irish people of to-day are far more tolerant and reasonable than the English of two hundred years ago were. Their leaders are among the most intelligent and sagacious public men of the day, and it is a fact not to be lost sight of that many of these leaders are Protestants, and the home-rule movement is warmly supported by a large body of Protestants in Ireland, Scotland and England. And even if the Irish people cherish some resentment for their oppressors, the oppressors are responsible for the fact and it would be a singular exhibition of English injustice if the oppressors should make a feeling imparted by themselves a pretext for holding their victims forever under their heel.

St. Paul Press (Rep.), April 18.

Memphis Appeal (Dem.), April 18.

Boston Journal (Rep.), April 19.

THIS is a far less formidable proposal than Mr. Gladstone had been credited with; indeed, as he frankly admitted, the criticisms of Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Trevelyan led him to modify his first scheme. So marked is the change that Mr. Chamberlain's letter of resignation, which he at last found an opportunity to read, had little relevancy. Ultimately, if the proposals are accepted and executed in good faith, the expenditures from the imperial treasury would be reimbursed. Moreover, as Mr. Gladstone shrewly suggested, the establishment of contentment and social order in Ireland, which may reasonably be looked for as a result of the new policy, means a saving of the three million pounds per annum which it now costs to maintain an army there.

N. Y. Star (Dem.), April 18.

Philadelphia Press (Rep.), April 18.

Philadelphia Press, April 19.

GLADSTONE'S voice no longer troubles him. It is troubling the Tories now.
Boston Journal (Rep.), April 20.

HALF a century would seem to be full long enough for the experiment of coercion. As things now are, not only is there no hope of an improved state of things in Ireland, but there is and will be what Mr. Gladstone aptly describes as a famine of needful legislation for England and Scotland. The Irish question obstructs all other questions, and to attempt to dispose of it in the Churchill fashion by declaring it insolvable savors equally of audacity and helplessness.

Chicago Mail (Ind.), April 19.

Pittsburgh Dispatch (Ind.), April 20.

GLADSTONE'S Irish measures seem to be gaining ground; and the opinion seems. to be general that if he can get Lord Randolph Churchill to make a few more fireeating speeches against them, their success is assured.

The Independent, N. Y., April 22.

VERY much less interest attached to Mr. Gladstone's presentation of his plan for the purchase of the Irish lands than to that of his plan for home rule. And yet it is the former, and not the latter, that broke up his cabinet, and that has frightened the English people. But there is a great moral significance in the magnificent effort to do justice to Ireland, and to trust the high instincts of the Irish people, which is not found in the proposal to buy their lands for them of the English landlords. The proposal is really in the interests of the landlords quite as much as of the occupants. It provides that lands actually held by tenants may be purchased for them by the State, at a rate not exceeding twenty times the rent, and from that down, as the valuation may be made. The tenant acquires the land in fee simple when he has paid, in rent to the State, the amount of the purchase money. To make these purchases there are to be issued fifty million dollars of funds in 1887, and one hundred millions in 1888, and as much in 1889; in all two hundred and fifty million dollars. Now there is nothing terrible or dangerous about that scheme. The amount is not excessive, and the interest is provided for in the rent, although the principal will finally be a charge against the Empire. That much is doubtless due to Ireland as a partial atonement for the oppression and injustice of centuries of foreign rule and absentee lanlordism Two parties will benefit by such a plan as that now proposed. One is the Irish farmer, who will thus become as independent as a French or an American freeholder. He will not buy unless he wants to; and he will buy at reasonable rates, and pay on the easiest terms. The other benefited party will be the landlord, who has had a rapidly deteriorating property, who has found it difficult to collect his rents, and has been in danger of actual impoverishThe real burden comes upon the State in the increase of its interest-bearing debt by fifty million pounds, although the burden of interest will not begin until the tenant purchasers shall cease to make their annual payments.

ment.

The Irish American, April 24.

MR. GLADSTONE'S deliberate denunciation of Irish landlordism and the methods. by which the felonious Union was passed is the most terrible indictment of England's misgovernment that has fallen from the lips of one of her own statesmen since Edmund Burke arraigned the tyranny of her rule of India. It is even more telling and effective; for while the great Irish orator, as the advocate of an oppressed people, stood alone, confronting a solitary criminal official, Gladstone impeaches the whole governmental policy of England in Ireland for three hundred years, and proves by her own records that the class in whose interest that policy has been administered have been the curse of the country, the fruitful source of all its evils, and must now, at last, be finally got rid of, whatever may be the immediate cost, even to the English people themselves.

Harper's Weekly, April 24.

IF the demand for home rule really means separation, who can doubt that an Irish Parliament, once established, would presently claim an authority which the British Parliament could not acknowledge, and that the attempt to repeal the law establishing the Irish legislature would produce serious trouble? It is fair to assume, however, that such objections have been foreseen by Mr. Gladstone, and that the due explanations will be made. But, in any case, the alternative is now clear: either Ireland must be governed by England with the strong hand, or the general policy indicated by Mr. Gladstone must be carried out. There is, indeed, one

other supposition, namely, that the Irish agitation means nothing, and will vanish at the first "firm" blow. That is the serious belief of many intelligent English

men.

London Special Telegram, April 17.

IRISH members are not prepared to express an opinion on the measure as a whole, but they dislike the idea of a receiver general, and insist that a 20-years' rental purchase is altogether too much. But they drew great hope from the tone of Gladstone's speech, which was as pro Irish in statement and color as Parnell himself could have made it, and also from the stress which he laid on the importance of vesting the state authority with large discretionary powers so that they could reduce the rate even below a 10-years' purchase if the condition of the estate warranted it. This points the way to what, from the start, careful observers have believed to be a great essential in dealing with the land, namely, an honest and intelligent revaluation. This will probably be one of the things engrafted in the bill. The Irish members are not disposed to grumble at the almost onerous completeness of the precautions taken to guarantee the British tax payer against loss. Criticism on these points came instead from the English Radicals, who confess that the willingness of the Irish to accept even such harsh conditions as the price of self government is an eloquent proof of how fervent and passionate is their desire for home rule. It is easy to see how this feeling will make friends for Gladstone's measure. For the first time in the history of the two countries the Englishman has come to regard the Irishman with respect as a serious being, willing to pay his way and entitled to be intrusted with a check-book.

A London Special, April 17.

THE whole tenor of Chamberlain's speech and the talk of his friends show that he intends to assume credit for all the modifications made in the original scheme and after voting for it on the second reading to try and take the lead in the work of remodeling it in committee in the direction of the Radical land programme. It looks now as if he would slip up in this undertaking. Irish members hate him with a virulence difficult to describe, and Gladstone's words and tone alike bespeak an implacable enmity toward him. The subordinate Radicals who used to salaam to him are now openly elated at his discomfiture.

Smalley's London Cable to N. Y. Tribune, April 18.

THE truth is that the Radicals think that they see the chance to execute their long meditated coup. They propose to treat Lord Hartington's presence on Wednesday at what they call a Tory meeting as the final severance of his connection with the Liberal party. Most of the Whigs are going with him. This they think leaves the way clear for "Radicalizing" the whole organization and insures a Radical succession to the leadership on Mr. Gladstone's retirement, which cannot be long postponed. But Mr. Chamberlain is the only possible Radical leader. He must, therefore, resume his relations with the party, while Lord Hartington remains outside. He must take his place under the Gladstone umbrella, ready to receive the mantle in due time. Mr. Chamberlain, however, whose political hon esty is of a higher type than that of some of his followers, still adheres to objec tions which he regards as objections of principle, and still declares himself opposed to the central features of both Mr. Gladstone's measures.

Dublin Tress Dispatch April 18.

AT a meeting of tenant farmers at Kildysart to day the land-purchase bill was denounced as simply a measure for the relief of the landlords. It was de clared that if the farmers got their holdings on the lasis of four years' rental their position would be very little improved, as they are without the necessary capital with which to obtain a start. A resolution was adopted asking the Parnellite members of Parliament to oppose the bill. Four hundred tenants of the Earl of Bessborough's Kilkenny estate held a meeting to-day to consider the Earl's offer of a reduction of from ten to twenty per cent. in rents. The tenants had asked for a reduction of thirty-three per cent. At to-day's meeting 335 of the tenants voted in favor of accepting the Earl's terms.

London Special to Philadelphia Press, April 18. SALISBURY was compelled despite himself to join in what was really an exaltation of Lord Hartington into the leadership of the composite opposition. The secret story of the intrigues which led up to the demonstration will be told some time and will show a cabal stretching up to the throne itself. The Queen joined in the pressure under which Hartington finally consented to assume the lead of the movement and to try to form a coalition ministry when Gladstone should fail and the Queen should refuse him a dissolution. Luckily we can speak of the whole thing now as ancient history. Gladstone is not going to fail.

London Special to N. Y. Times, April 18.

by its violent assaults upon liberty of conscience, and Prince Bismarck openly avows that policy of good-will toward the Catholic Church which, with the help of Baron von Schloezer, the Prussian representative at the Vatican, Germany has steadily developed during the past few months. The contest in Scotland will probably decide the fate of the Irish measures. The oppositson there is certainly more intense than it is in England. On the night that Mr. Gladstone introduced his home-rule bill Mr. Russell, a leading Scotch Liberal, addressed a great meeting at Sterling. He received a telegraphic account of the bill as it was introduced, discussed each provision as it was wired to him, and took the sense of the meeting amid great excitement and overwhelming hostility.

James Redpath in a Speech, April 17.

LET the Irish people here in America take care that nothing shall be done to mar the glorious prospect. Let no man or set of men attempt to dictate to Parnell, or adopt measures that would interfere in any way with the great work he has in hand. The Irish race must stand behind him as one man, without a break in the ranks or a murmur of discontent, until Ireland's right to make her own laws through her own representatives is recognized by England. There is no room for two policies now, and Parnell's policy is Ireland's.

Justin McCarthy's Cable Letter of April 17.

LORD HARTINGTON, people say, is already very sorry he committed himself against Gladstone. I am told on authority that I cannot question that he has advised doubtful men to support the scheme. "I have already committed myself”— such is the substance of his argument-" You are not committed; you had better support Gladstone." To do him only justice, Hartington has a robust, manly, straightforward character.

James O'Kelly to New York Herald, April 13.

The Wizard of Hawarden has once more won the astonished admiration of his countrymen and brought them under the influence of his marvellous power. Mr. Chamberlain's venomous opposition has failed to wreck the measure, but has succeeded in narrowing its character, and thereby diminishing its power for good as a final settlement between the two nations. Mr. Chamberlain's attitude is singularly dishonest. Evidently he believes mankind mostly made up of fools. At one moment he rails at the Irish members for accepting a small settlement derogatory to the national dignity, and a few minutes later he denounces Mr. Gladstone's scheme as a peril to the British Empire, and certain to lead to the absolute separation of Ireland from England. He denounces the Irish party for accepting too little, yet, in the same breath, declares we are obtaining too much. With these dishonest pretences he hopes to arouse suspicion and disunion in the Irish ranks in order to defeat Gladstone's settlement, and compel Ireland to follow at the tail of the radical party in the delusive hope of obtaining better conditions. In the meanwhile Ireland is perishing. Five hundred thousand souls have left Ireland since 1880. Our population is now barely five millions, yet, I am sorry to say, Mr. Chamberlain is not without hopes of finding traitors within the national ranks to help him. Lord Hartington's coalition with the tories has been an unmixed blessing. It utterly destroyed his Parliamentary influence, and aroused an almost savage feeling against the whigs among the English democracy. Seeing the liberal aristocrats uniting with the tories against Mr. Gladstone's Irish scheme, the English democracy felt themselves almost irresistibly impelled to make common cause with the Irish people against their oppressors. All men begin to perceive that the aristocratic party are more interested in securing their rents than in maintaining the honor and power of the British Empire. Liberals of all shades are also beginning to recognize that Gladstone's defeat means the disruption of the liberal party and the indefinite postponement of popular reforms. This consideration has been conclusive with many minds Mr. Gladstone's speeches on the two bills dealing with home rule and the land purchase have also produced an enormous effect. With unmatched eloquence and power he stated the case of Ireland and shriveled up his opponents, who returned to suggest alternative schemes.

"A Member of Parliament" to the N. Y. Herald, April 18.

THE murder is now out, and upon the whole I am inclined to think the public is not so alarmed as most people anticipated. They see how skillfully the plan was presented and everything likely to excite suspicion covered over or presented in an innocent light. Mr. Gladstone does not ask for £120,000,000, as proposed in the cabinet, but only for £50,000,000, and even this is spread over a period of three years. He cannot buy all the Irish land for £50,000,000, but he leaves it open for Parliament to give more when this is gone. Thus the British taxpayer will feel a hand in his pocket, but never know how much is taken out, it is wrapped up so adroitly. If the Liberals can manage to present the scheme to their constituencies the party may again unite, and even Chamberlain, perhaps, be brought back into the fold. Looking at the facts only, I must report that the financial part, as doctored, is not materially injured in its prospects. All depends on the view taken by the great body of the public, and this you will ascertain dur

William Henry Hurlburt, cablegram, April 17. THERE is much speculation as to the real attitude of the Catholic Church in Great Britain upon the Irish question. The fact is worthy of notice that M. Herbe, by far the ablest Royalist and Catholic journalist in Paris, is decidedly favorable to Mr. Gladstone's policy, while the Vatican consistently refrains from indicating its opinion, and preserves the attitude enjoined upon the Church by Leo XIII in his famous letter to Cardinal Pitra last summer. This is most important to the interests of the Church at this moment, when the authorities of the French Republic are arousing the indignation of all liberal and intelligent men of all shades of belief

waverers in the Liberal ranks. I attach great importance to the declarations of several Scotch members on Friday night in favor of the bill. If Scotland holds together, I do not see how the scheme, when further modified, can be defeated. There will necessarily be fluctuations in opinion on either side, but day after day clearly the Liberals are getting more together on the question. Present indications, therefore, again incline in favor of the scheme. I believe the Liberal whips are confident of a majority at the second reading of between 40 and 50. The Nationalists agree with this estimate, while the Conservatives are equally sure the bills will be defeated. I am unable to understand on what grounds other than conjectural. The speech that struck me as the most important on Friday night was Parnell's. It was delivered in his usual slow, half-hesitating way, with much smoothing of his black hair, his favorite action. All parties hung on every word that fell from Parnell's lips.

SECRET SENATE SESSIONS.

Senator M. C. Butler, of South Carolina.

If

Is it not somewhat remarkable that this Government, boasting of the sovereignty of the people, of its representative character, its free institutions, the direct responsibility of its officials to the people, the freedom of discussion on public matters, the influence of popular opinion, should be the only one in the family of great nations to close the doors of one branch of its Congress while considering questions of administration vital to the people's interest? Is there anything connected with the conduct of the affairs of the people more important to them than the character of the officials who are appointed to discharge a public trust? not, why should the consideration of their appointments be concealed from the eyes of the public? There is really no good reason for it. The Constitution does not command it. There is no law directing it. The contemporaneous discussions do not disclose the object for which they were first adopted or why they were continued. The deliberations of the Continental Congress from 1774 to 1789 were all conducted in secret session, and the first three Congresses under the present Constitution, to 1794, were also held in secret. I can account for this on no other hypothesis than that at the time this Government came into existence there was among the despotic nations of the Old World great jealously of the principles upon which it was founded, and a corresponding caution in its deliberations and conduct to baffle the designs and thwart the intrigues of its enemies and strengthen the faith and confidence of its friends. Absolutism, despotism, imperialism, monarchy, feudalism, or by whatever name you may call it, had not relaxed its hold upon the throats of the people. France had made a spasmodic, desperate effort for liberty, but licentiousness, mistaken for "liberty and equality," paved the way for the first empire. Our struggle and success filled the crowned heads and despotisms with alarm, and they would spare no pains to obstruct the march of liberty regulated by law. Under these circumstances, the statesmen of that early day no doubt felt justified in hedging their deliberations about with the mystery of secret sessions, profiting by whatever protection they afforded the young Republic against its enemies. Secret sessions, a necessity perhaps at first, grew into a practice, and have been handed down as institutions sanctioned by custom. If this hypothesis be correct, the reason upon which the custom was founded no longer exists. We were then weak, more or less timid in dealing with foreign nations, not sure of our foothold as a government even with our own people. Not so now. We are strong, independent, and fully abreast of the great nations of the earth, and except in transactions involving diplomatic considerations having nothing to conceal or fear from foreign powers, and surely nothing to conceal from our own sovereign. Is there anything in the administration of a popular government that requires concealment from the sovereign-the people? Surely not. We are here as the agents and servants of the people, exercising a trust for them. As I have already suggested, should they not have a full and complete account of how that trust is discharged? It would seem so; and yet when we come to transact administrative duties as important as any other, namely, pass judgment on public officials, we shut the doors, close the blinds, and shroud ourselves in the mystery of secret sessions-at least that is the purpose, although it is not always realized. Besides, there is such a thing as obsoleteism in government as well as in laws. What is wise and proper to-day may be wholly inapplicable and insupportable a quarter of a century hence. In the half-century just passed, steam and electricity have revolutionized commerce all over the world. discovery in science and art, labor-saving implements, popular enlightenments and intelligence, and popular demands have upset our old methods of doing business, Our modern system of banking, the clearing-house, checks, and exchanges, have set aside the business methods and established business relations entirely different from those in use before the late improvement-if they are improvements; many old customs in every branch of human affairs have yielded and passed away before the march of new ideas and habits and processes. So it is with many things in the administration of this Government and of all governments-the principle of obsoleteism obtains, and it obtains here. The rule sought to be repealed by these resolutions ought to be repealed. Every deliberative assembly has an inherent right and power to close its doors whenever a majority of its members so decide. A convention immediately from the people has the powerand sometimes in cases of great emergency exercises it of deliberating with closed doors, but there, as here, this course ought to be the exception, rather than as here where the open executive session is the exception. Instead of greater secrecy in our deliberations there ought to be greater publicity. None but those who could stand the focused light of the public gaze would be sent to us, and great good would accrue to the public service. Opportunity would not be given the assassin of private character to secretly ply his avocation. Many an improper person would be kept out of Government employment, and many a good man would escape slaughter in the darkness of secret sessions.

Senator O. H. Platt, of Connecticut.

Modern

THE popular sentiment is for open executive sessions with regard to nominations as a rule. It is not public clamor, it is real, true, and genuine popular sentiment. How is popular sentiment reflected in this country except by the press? I venture to say that of the nearly fourteen thousand newspapers in the land probably ten thousand of them, political or independent, a very large proportion of them, have declared their belief that this measure should be adopted. I am met by some Senator by saying that he does not care what the press says, that an issue has been raised between the press and the Senate, and he is not going to be influenced by any such consideration as that. I desire to say here one or two very frank words. With that journalism which concedes to public men neither honest motive nor private virtue I have no sympathy and no respect. It is a malignant kind of journalism which I cannot respect and which all right-minded men must condemn. But that is not the true character of the public press of this country as a whole. The country newspapers, the newspapers that have no special correspondent here, are all against these secret sessions. All over this land, without regard to section, these

country newspapers, which represent the real sentiment of the country, which go where the minister and the schoolmaster and where the voice of the Senate does not otherwise go, have declared in favor of this measure. The men who publish those newspapers think of our Government, they study public questions a great deal more than we suppose, and the fact that there is but one voice in the press shows where public sentiment is on this subject. Public sentiment compelled open legislative sessions of the Senate, and it now demands open executive sessions of the Senate. Whence arises this demand? It is not idle curiosity. It is not that a few reporters may look in on these proceedings and send the news to the journals which they represent. Oh, no, that is not it. It is a desire of the people for a better administration of the Government. It is the desire of a people that the standard of official life and character shall be elevated; and they know the only way to do it is by having the qualifications of men discussed openly in the Senate chamber.

I have said that secrecy begets suspicion. Go to a dinner party, to any social gathering, and see two persons whispering together, and you think they are saying something which they ought not to say, and probably about yourself. Secrecy begets suspicion; and it is only human nature which the public are exemplifying when they believe that something wrong is done behind these doors in the way of bargains and trades and arrangements by which men are confirmed to office. I say no Senator can afford to expose himself to any such suspicion. Every Senator knows it exists. Every Senator knows that very largely through this country the idea is that we bargain with each other about confirmations, or that we confirm nominees out of good nature, or that through some idea of Senatorial courtesy we fail to oppose men whom we ought to oppose or favor men whom we ought not to favor. Every Senator knows it, and I for one do not want to endure It. I donot want it longer to exist. A poet said:

O wad some power the giftie gle us

To see oursels as others see us!

I wish Senators would try to exercise that gift. I wish they would try to understand how they are regarded in this respect, what the people think of the way in which we conduct business here in the secret sessions of the Senate, and the motives which influence us in the confirmation of persons to office. I agree I am glad to testify that it is a great mistake in the popular mind, but as I said you cannot eradicate it. No record for honesty, no recore of an honorable life, no record which a man has made of pure motives and pure intentions exempts or excuses himself from this belief on the part of the people. If you doubt it, ride in the cars, in any public vehicle, listen to the conversations along the streets, hear what motives are attributed to Senators who we know are honorable by people in ordinary conversation. If there were no other argument but this in favor of open sessions I should insist upon it that the people might know what my motives were in regard to the confirmation or rejection of men. But there is no secrecy. We are hugging an old custom for its name rather than for its actual results. We are pinning the Senate to the skirts of an ancient tradition when there are no results to be obtained from it. There is no secrecy possible. There never has been any secrecy possible in any matter about which the public desired information that took place in executive session. I do not say how much or how little, or whether any at all of the reports which we see from day to day in the newspapers published after each executive session is true, but I think I am justified without revealing any secrets of executive session, without doing what the Senator from Vermont intimated was done in his colloquy the other day with the Senator from Kentucky, violating a Senatorial oath and becoming guilty of Senatorial perjury-I believe I may say that the secrets of this body are to a greater or less degree exposed and disclosed. Mixed they may be with untruth, mixed they may be with the fertile imagination of the newspaper reporter, nevertheless no Senator will deny me in saying that more or less of what occurs in executive session is disclosed. It is disclosed either by Senators or by officers of the Senate, and when I say that I do not mean to cast the slightest suspicion upon the officers of the Senate. I do not want to be in a body where I am subjected to the suspicion of dishonorable disclosure. We are a class here, as lawyers, as clergymen, as bank presidents, and as business men are a class; and when one does a thing that is discreditable we all suffer.

Senator John A. Logan, of Illinois.

Now, if the secrets are given away, why not open the doors and let the world know the truth? If they are not given away they are pretended to be. The newspapers are full of them every day, and they profess to give them correctly. If they do not give them correctly and practice a deception upon the country, is it not better for the country to have the honest version of the action of the Senate given than to be deceived and have a false statement in reference to it? Yet the newspapers say they give it correctly. I will not say that they do or that they do not, except in certain instances I am sure that they have not; but they do the best they can. They get here and there what they can. They get the statements from some one, I do not know from whom, probably from the spittoons, or desk, or cats, if there are any about the Capitol; but nevertheless they get something.

Is it honest, is it right for the Senate to do that which induces falsehood to be sent to the country, if they say it is falsehood? Is that proper? If there is no harm to come from opening the doors of the Senate, is there not good to come from it? How? By the country having the truth instead of having that the truth of which they suspect. Is it not encouraging the men who are engaged in newspaper work to state things that are not true; and in that respect is not the moral of it bad? The newspaper men must have something to send to their papers; they send what they can get; and are we not thereby encouraging them to scatter over the country that which is not true unless they should in some way get the absolute truth? Is it the part of honorable men to so act and without any reason whatever, so as to justify falsehood, and not only justify it but induce it, encourage it, and in fact force it, because it is forced and compelled by reason of the fact that if they do not give the facts they are expected to give something and something is given, so that the Senate to-day is responsible for every falsehood that is uttered in the newspapers in reference to executive sessions on confirmations. And why? Because they maintain that there is something mysterious, something that requires secrecy

in the confirmation or rejection of men whose names may be sent to the Senatesomething mysterious about it, so as to make the people believe that great consequences might grow out of the fact that what Senators say or do here shall be known by the people. There are no great consequences to grow out of what may be said, no great consequences to grow out of what may be done, and my judgment is that if the doors were opened there would be less said than there is said in secret sessions; that our sessions would be not only more orderly but debate would be of a more dignified and elevated character than possibly now.

I believe, and I think we all do, in honest and in fair dealing with the people that we represent. I am not afraid of any of my official acts being exposed to the people. I may not do what my constituents desire always; I may fail in many respects in representing their wishes; I may fail to know what their wishes are; yet I am not afraid to have them see my votes, and I vote as often as any Senator. I am perfectly willing they should see my votes on confirmations, and if I dared do it I would tell every day what my vote was in every secret session; but I can not; this great and important secret must be locked up for all time in my breast. I have spoken about the inducement to have the truth always go before the country and the people undeceived. Sir, truth is a jewel, though not possessed by all men; let us give encouragement to all men to adorn themselves with that jewel, by opening the doors and letting that truth that ought to go everywhere be sent out to the world, so that our course and our conduct may be open to inspection.

It was said long centuries ago Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works." If we are to let our light so shine before men that they are to see our good works, we should not cover those acts in darkness; we should not throw over them the shade and darkness of night through which the light of truth can not penetrate; but, sir. we should let those acts of ours be such that the light should flow from them, and our constituents determine whether they are good or whether they be bad.

New York Times (Ind.), April 15.

It was easy enough for the Senator from Connecticut to show that the "executive session" in its present form dates from a very recent time, from the last year of Mr. Andrew Johnson's term of office, when the passions of party ran higher than ever before in our history, and when the great Republican party, flushed with its enormous power and animated by feelings at once sincere and deep and unrestrained, was beginning to fall under the sway of designing men who perverted its honest sentiment and misdirected, for their own advantage, its tremendous force. It was easy for him to show that there was nothing in the history of the work done in secret session to justify its establishment in the beginning or its continuance now. But Mr. Platt's most effective argument for the abolition of the secret session was that it is not in reality secret. The Senators do not observe their solemn obligations to lock in their own breasts the facts and the sayings of the executive session. The mysteries of the "closed doors" are peddled in newspaper row. Human nature in individual Senators is more than a match for the dignity of the Senate as a body. The thing is a farce, and the Senators are only calling down on themselves the merciless ridicule of the people by their pompous insistence in regarding it as a sacred rite.

New Haven Register, April 15.

BUT it is in the confirmatory powers of both the national and State senates that the evil of the secret-session system most clearly discloses itself. Many an unworthy public official is imposed upon the community by the Senate to please the whim and caprice of "a brother Senator" because the responsibility for his confir. mation can not be fixed. Whereas if the country only knew what Senators indorsed the nominations of this class of servants, not one of them would dare vote for a confirmation. Moreover, the secret session encourages a disreputable class of politicians to seek public office. They know that whatever their faults are, they will not be held up to the contemplation of the country. They are sure to have "a pull" with either their own or some other fellow's Senator, which a secret session will permit to be worked for all it is worth in bargains and trades. The results are that the responsibility for bad officials is hopelessly divided, and bad officials get into office.

Brooklyn Union (Ind.), April 15.

It is perfectly plain that but for the work which has been done under the civil service reform law against secret methods, public opinion would not have busied itself with the Senate's secret sessions, the consciences of so many Senators would hardly have been aroused, and this abuse, with the others, would have remained undisturbed. The present hopeful agitation of the subject is a striking evidence of the progress of reform, and goes far toward confirming the remark that Mr. Beecher is reported to have made, that "when Cleveland's term is over civil service reform will be so firmly fixed in the Government that it cannot be overthrown," and the practical abolition of the secret session will be the Senate's great contribution to the reform.

Chicago Herald (Ind.), April 15.

THE popular desire that all the business of the Government should be done in public has found expression of late in thousands of newspaper articles, interviews, and speeches, and there can be no doubt that a move in this direction by the Senate would do much to relieve that body of the suspicion under which it rests. The Government is the people's, and everything about it should be open to their inspection. No other course is consistent with a rule which springs from and must be in accordance with the popular will.

St. Paul Pioneer- Press (Ind.), April 15.

Washington Post (Dem.), April 16.

IF the question of secret executive sessions of the Senate had been submitted to that portion of the people who take an intelligent interest in public affairs, any time during the past twenty years, they would have been abolished. Members of the Senate may be able to show reasons why the custom should be continued, but we are not aware that any member has made it a point to give such reasons to the public. The reasons against the secret sessions are many. Such sessions are held for two purposes, the consideration of treaties and of the nominations of the President. In considering nominations why should secrecy be observed? The character and fitness of nominees are considered. The discussion should not be of a nature which cannot be safely or prudently given to the public. If there are objections to nominees, they should be stated as temperately as Senators discuss questions of greater importance. The only persons who can object to open consideration are nominees who fear to have the facts brought before the public, which is a cogent reason why the consideration should be as open as it well can be. If any nominee is so unfortunate as to shrink from such a canvass of his merits before the country, he should ask to have his name withdrawn. In that connection it may be added that the open discussion of the character and fitness of nominees would have a tendency to lead those who are responsible for appointments to be more careful in making them, since a series of unfit nominations, if exposed to the country through open discussion in the Senate, would be most damaging to the Executive. In regard to treaties, there is no good reason why they should be kept from the people until they have been ratified in Treaties usually have a bearing upon the commercial interests of the countries making them. Why should they not be made public as soon as they are negotiated; that is, when they are sent to the Senate? The public may know of reasons why a treaty should not be ratified which may not occur to a Senator, and there is no reason why public senttiment and interests should not be as fully consulted in regard to a treaty as to a tariff bill. But the best reason why the secret executive session should become a thing of the past is that it is not secret. N. Y. Tribune (Rep.), April 17.

secret.

SENATOR LOGAN speaks of secret sessions, as he speaks on every subject, boldly, sincerely, and with incisive directness. He believes that secret sessions for the consideration of appointments are unnecessary; that the Senate represents the people, and ought to let the people know what it is doing; that the traducers of character, the condoners of bad records, and the tricky bargaining of Senators with the President would go down if appointments were publicly considered; that the treacherous stiletto would give place to open and manly warfare; that Senatorial secrets already get out in true or false shape, and it would be better for Senators to have the truth known about them. These are all strong and substantial reasons, and should be fully weighed by Senators. There are other considerations, it is true, which should not be forgotten. But Senator Logan hoped, with some sarcastic emphasis, that the Senators who favored secret sessions would not hesitate to speak out their reasons freely. The suggestion calls attention to the fact that those Senators have seemed disposed to vote down the proposition for open sessions without giving their reasons at all. It would be a mistake to treat the subject in that fashion. Public opinion is already aroused to a considerable extent. The people are coming to feel that secret sessions cannot be for the public good. If those who still favor such sessions refuse to state their reasons, the public desire for a change may rapidly increase and it may soon become so strong and general that argument against the change may then be too late. If there are sufficient reasons for refusing to consider appointments in public, now is the time to state them fully and convincingly. In the absence of any such statement of reasons the people may soon conclude that sufficient reasons cannot be given.

Philadelphia Fress (Rep.), April 17.

THE Republicans have every motive for desiring publicity in this matter of executive nominations, and should be almost unanimous for open sessions. There are a few political traders by nature and profession who, of course, object and will