THE CONGRESS: Line-up for 1935

With election returns all counted, the line-up of the 74th Congress which first sits Jan. 3 definitely emerged last week. Party strengths in the next House:

Democrats 322

Republicans 103

Progressives 7

Farmer-Laborites 3

Instead of losing seats, the Democrats had made a gain of 13, practically all from one place. In the country-at-large they traded a seat or two here for a seat or two there with Republicans but in rock-ribbed Pennsylvania scored a one-sided sweep. The eleven seats gained in Pennsylvania were the gist of the election.

For the New Deal this victory was not as good news as it might appear. A team without opposition has little incentive to teamwork. The Democrats found it so in the last Congress and they expect to find it so again. They had two hopes of keeping their unwieldy majority in line: 1) the overwhelming national endorsement of the New Deal might warn Democratic playboys to stay on the Administration reservation; 2) the election of a strong new Speaker to succeed the late Henry T. Rainey might apply the lash of Party discipline. Unfortunately Representative Joe Byrns of Nashville, whose place last session as Majority Leader “entitles” him to succeed to the Speakership. proved anything but an able disciplinarian. Democrats did not know whether someone more effective could be boosted to the Speakership over his head.

In the Senate the Democrats captured nine seats from the Republicans, boosted their holdings from 60 to 69. Nominally the Republicans lost another seat when Senator “Bob” La Follette changed his label to Progressive, reduced their membership to 25.

A larger question in both Senate and House than the division between parties was the division between Conservatives and Radicals. Political observers were inclined to rate many a Democrat as conservative at heart, to wager that if the President calls for conservative support he can find plenty of it in both houses. There are, however, two kinds of radicals: inflationist-bonuseers and social innovators. Because there are more of them, the former group will be harder for the President to handle.

Pennsylvania’s Guffey is a good example of the difference in the radical ranks. As a Pittsburgher who made a fortune in oil he rates as a conservative on social questions. As a practicing politician trying to get elected he promised to support prepayment of the Bonus.

The social-radical Democrats in the next Senate will include Louisiana’s Huey Long, Mississippi’s Man Bilbo. Washington’s Schwellenbach. West Virginia’s Holt. Democratic social-conservatives, including such Senators as Tydings of Maryland, Gerry of Rhode Island. Copeland of New York, Gore of Oklahoma. McAdoo of California, far outnumber the social innovators.