Barry on Bribery

"Contrary, perhaps, to the popular belief, there are not many crooks in Congress, that is, out and out grafters or those who are willing to be such; there are not many Senators or Representatives who sell their vote for money, and it is pretty well known who those few are; but there are many demagogs of the kind that will vote for legislation solely because they think that it will help their political and social fortunes."

Such was the opening paragraph of an article entitled "Over the Hill to Demagoguery" which appeared last week in the February issue of Editor Alfred Emanuel Smith's New Outlook. What followed was a pedestrian piece of journalism about the conservatives' loss of Senate control. The article would have attracted no public attention, but for its byline: "David S. Barry, Sergeant-at-Arms, U. S. Senate."

For his implicit charge of Congressional bribery, Author Barry last week found himself suspended from his $8,000 Senate job, with an excellent prospect of losing it altogether this week.

David Barry, 73, began his Washington career as a Senate pageboy. For 37 years he was the Capitol correspondent for such newspapers as the Detroit Evening News, Chicago Times, New York Sun, Providence Journal. When they organized the Senate in 1919, the Republicans made him Sergeant-at-Arms, a position the chief duty of which is to round up absentee Senators to maintain a quorum. Jobless after March 4, Republican Barry turned back to his old profession with last week's disastrous results.

Always touchy about its honor, the Senate first heard about the Barry article from Republican Leader Watson who rose and read the opening paragraph to a packed and palpitating chamber. Declared Senator Watson: "It is very difficult to believe that Mr. Barry meant what he said in this article but here it is in cold type--I move that he be brought before the bar of the Senate. . . ."

The sharp voice of Senator Moses in the chair announced: "The Senate is now resolved in a court of trial to hear the Sergeant-at-Arms."

Mr. Barry entered, stood at the end of the reading clerk's long desk in the well. He was smartly dressed in an Oxford grey suit. His manicured fingers occasionally stroked his waxed mustache. Only a slight twitching of his cheek muscles betrayed his nervousness.

Amid a mass of legalistic bickering by indignant Senators the following questions & answers occurred:

Senator Borah: What are your desires about your trial? Do you wish counsel?

Mr. Barry: I have no desire to have counsel. There is no real explanation to make. The article stands for what it says.

Senator Watson: Who are these Senators and Representatives who you know have sold their votes for money?

Mr. Barry: I haven't the slightest idea. I had no Senator in mind.

Senator Watson: What, then, did you mean by that language?

Mr. Barry: My idea was to defend the Senate from the popular belief that there are crooks and grafters here. . . . My motive was entirely in defense of the Senate.

Senator Elaine: Do you think the article is false or true?

Mr. Barry: I think it's true. I don't apologize for it.

Senator Barkley: Did you write it at the request of this magazine?

Mr. Barry: Yes, sir.

Senator Barkley: What are you to be paid ?

Mr. Barry: $250.

Some Senators feared that if Mr. Barry were peremptorily dismissed, the Senate would be publicly condemned as hot-headed and vengeful. Others argued that unless the Sergeant-at-Arms were quickly ousted, the country would interpret the Senate's delay as a confession of guilt. Senator Norris moved immediate dismissal. The Senate divided on party lines and the motion was lost 31-to-40. The Barry case was referred to the Judiciary Committee. A helpful newshawk reminded Mr. Barry of a statement made last May by Senator Carter Glass concerning branch banking. To the committee, Mr. Barry quoted the Senator in his own defense: "'. . . They hired some Congressmen, to my positive and documentary knowledge, to oppose even that small measure of branch banking.'" Meanwhile, Senator Walsh of Montana suggested that criminal libel proceedings be started against the New Outlook.

In Manhattan busy Publisher Frank Aloysius Tichenor declared his New Outlook had used the Barry article "in good faith," that its author had a "long record for reliability, accuracy and integrity." Mum on the whole affair was Editor Smith.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.