The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-12-28


the empire to its foundations is only question
of time.
The Necessity of Freedom in LegisIa-
tive Debate.
THE recent extension of the motion for the
previous question in the House of Representa-
tives, is cause of sincere regret to all thinking
men. 1t will be noticed by the readers of the
papers, that in the Congressional reports we
seldom if ever see any account Of a speech in
the lower House on the passage of an impor
tant resolution. We see that certain gentle
man introduced the measure, made a short
speech, and at the conclusion he ''moved the
previous question" The resolution was then
either passed or defeated, with no further
investigation of its merits than the address of
the mover. This fashion of imposing ''gag
law' is no new invention of any political
party, but was conceived years ago and car
ried into active operation In the days of An
drew Jackson. But it has grown with the
progress of the nation. Whenever either
political party secures a decided ascen-
dancy, it resorts to it to cut off the de-
bate of the opposition and secure party
legislation. There can be no doubt that
its origin is due to a desire to prevent dilatory
and factious opposition to measures, and to do
away with the power, which was vested under
Parliamentary law in an obstinate minority
to delay, if not ultimately defeat, any mea-
sure which might be really required for the
public good. But it has outgrown its useful
ness. 1t has degenerated, so that it is too fire.
quently used to defeat all frank and necessary
debate, rather than to check the clergyman
dering" of factious opponents. The remedy
is now worse than the evil, and the days of
spirited and intelligent discussion of public
measure seem to have died with the parties of
the last generation. Where would be the
reputation of Clay, Calhoun, and Webster, if
the rule had been enforced against them
What chance would oratory have to lay its
eloquence before the audience if it was liable
at any moment to be cut short by blow from
the Speakers gavel? What force would be
exercised by the most convincing logic if the
speaker was limited to seven or eight minutes,
as the will of the mover of the resolution die
tated2 The more the evil of this system
is examined, the more loudly will it call
sent to the National capital not to merely vote
on a measure, but to confer together and dis
cuss its merits and defects. If the casting of
vote was all that was required, we might
have lot of proxies who would do the duty
cheaply and quite as efficiently. 1t is desired
that these members, selected for their peculiar
qualifications, should act after being informed
by the wisdom of each other. But where is
there any opportunity for such an end if the
previous question is to continue to rule What
opportunity for well-posted speaker to in
struct his fellow-members 1t may be that
there is in the House some member who is
peculiarly versed in the working Of a certain
proposition, he may have made it a special
study, yet when the question comes up he has
no chance to tell those who do not possess his
knowledge of the objections to the proposed
law. 1t is passed. A grand mistake is made,
which could have been prevented had the
| spirit of free debate not been legally violated
This evil has grown now to such an extent
that repeal, or at least a modification, of the
rule is imperatively demanded. committee
! to investigate proposed law is excellent, and
| lts reference Is proper, puL tne committee is
not the House of Representatives. 1t does
not represent or speak for all the people,
and it is fitting that the merits should be dis
cussed at large in the House. We are heartily
glad that the Senate has never recognized any
such rule. There exists in that body no such
thing as previous question. There is no end
to the debate on an important issue until all
that desire have spoken. By this means the
only really satisfactory result possible is
reached. The concurrent opinion of the mem
bers decides the question. Yet we do not find
any unnecessary delay arising therefrOm, and
even If there did, it were better to submit to
the boredom Of a stupid speech than
remove from the House one of its
distinctive characteristics. We therefore
favor the repeal of the present rule,
and the substitution in its place of one that
VIII prevent inordinate debate, but will not
act as gag law. Thus, for instance, the
previous question should not be moved on the
same day on which motion comes up for con-
sideration, that is to say, allow day to the
debate on any important topic. This is little
enough, and would be great improvement
' A. Ia