The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-05-13
CURTAILING DEBATE-THE RIGHTS AND POWERS
OF MAJoRITIES AND MINORITIES.

Ii is no longer question Of doubt that majority of
the House Representatives in favor Of the passage of
the Nebraska bill This has been distinctly shown to be
fixed fact by the proceedings of the last few days that
the natural inquiry amongst the people will be- why is it
that a measure which command a known majority
does not become law Why dc not the majority
ert power which belongs TO them and pass the bill
The these inquiries is furnished in the
binary proceedings which have been fully reported in
columns for the last few days These proceedings win
cessarly attract the popular attention. and win be under
stood exhibit the eypedients 10 which minority may
under the parliamentary law TO defeat the viii of
majority 1t viii be observed with surprise that the
test has ceased to involve intellectual collisions but that
for the last twentour hours it has degenerated into
trial Of physical endurance II is SO seldom that
the spirit Of opposition becomes sufficiently ctious
rely upon physical power 10 thwart the viii of the
ority, that the great body Of the people win be
founded not only 10 learn that the opposition the
Nebraska bill has assumed so revolutionary char
acter, but especially that the rules of proceeding in
Congress authorize the minority shift the Issue from
intellectual to physical tribunal What spectacle
do these proceedings present to constituency that calm
impartial and unmovcd BY passion They that a
orty Of their representatives have determined that
ought to be enacted into law they all attempts
resi, its BY and argument abandoned
and exclusive reliance had by the minority upon their ca
paty to endure fatigue and to manifest per-
severance and fortitnde, than The majority.
We admire the spirit which impes a minority TO resist
which they irreconcaby opposed by per-
sisan efforts Of and argument We are so strong
advocate Tor the largest liberty OF discussion that
we readily minority for resorting to par
hamenary cxpedents in order to proong debate But
when the privilege Of discussion ia conceded and
yet is rejected by the minority because the conccs-
sion Is not ilmitable there he other conclusion
than that resort TO physical force is deliberately rc-
solved upon Such will be the view necessarily taken Of
the Of the opposition to the Nebraska bill When
Colonel Richardson proposed 10 terminate the debate there
had been than eighty speeches made the question
When II is remembered that Of the great questions
which have a3iiaed the public mind for quarter of
century with possibly cxccption) underwent as full
discussion rs thswhen It Is further remembered that
such measures as the annexation of Texas the passage of
United States Bank bill the passage of bankrupt law
the establishment OF the independent treasury system have
been determined Gar less debateere was surely nob
ing unreasonable or bcral in the proposition Of Colonel
Richardson In other days and under other crcun,san
ces, the who complained that the privilege ~
debate about TO be curtacd have sanctioned resort
to the rule whose enforcement they now denounce
despotc IS rule which is essential the exercise by
majority, Of its legitimate power and for the prevention
OF the consequences Of factions opposition But in spirit
OF hoefay which will not fail mako iis impression on
the pubic mind, when Me proposition Of Colonel Rich
arcson was objected to curailment of debate Il
was distinctly proposed by Mr. Kerr friend Of
the ball. n'at the time for debate should be pro-
longed for another week, IL its opponents ,vo,1a -
then TO take the vote This proposition was as promptly
rejected by them that of Col Richardson We do
sire TO impress this fact upon the country because We look
upon The mode OF resistance resocd by the minority as
involving principles connected with the rights and duties
mores as little less important than the great principle Of
popular sovereignty involved in The Nebraska bin II Ia
coincidence which will not fail make s impression that
the same men who are aycd against the principle Of non
uar sovereignty as asserted in the bill ARE also srrayed
against the exercise Of the which belongs to the