THE SEATING OF MR. STECK

Their committee having finally made the recommendation a year and one half after the disputed election the Senate has voted to replace Mr. Brookhart with Mr. Steck. And although the committee voted ten to one in advising this choice, the Senate ratified it by a margin of only four ballots. The matter had been left suspended so long that it involved not only the politics of the last election and of the Senate generally, but also of the coming mid-term campaign. Despite the unanimity of the committee, there was no certitude of the actualities of the lowa election sufficient to preclude the play of political preference on the floor of the Senate.

Yet even though the narrow vote cannot be said to reflect the complacency that evidently pervaded the committee action, neither does it reflect partisan bias. Sixteen Republicans voted for the Democrat, Steck, while nine Democrats sought to keep Brookhart in the Senate. If political preference did play a part, it was not along party lines.

Some significance may lie in the circumstance that a majority of the Republicans who voted for the conservative Steck hailed from the east, while a majority of those Democrats who favored Brookhart were westerners. Thus the division as occurred earlier this season on the amendments to the appropriation bill. It is a reminder that while the two party system in America is a persistent tradition, it often assumes the properties of a phantom. In yet another light, the recurrence of this sectional line-up, which is essentially an arraignment of farm against town indicates a cleavage not unknown to American politics. In 1800, 1828, and 1896, it culminated in new party alignments. Now with the House falling under urban sway as the population of the cities grows, it would be hardly surprising to see the farmer make the Senate the scene of his last stand in much the same manner that the southerners checkmated the north long after the latter had outstripped them in population.