Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-04-22
THE PREVIOUS QUESTION IN
CONGRESS-ITS HISTORY.

Nothing marks the political degeneracy
of the times more than the frequency
with which the previous question is
called for in the Congress of the United
States, and the one-hour rule enforced, to
shut off debate. This is invariably done
on the most important subjects. Even
amendments to the Constitution of the
United States-amendments changing IFS
nature and character, and virtually sub
verting the Government-have been car
red by the operation of the previous
question. 4 gag has been put into the
mouths of members. In the earlier and
better days of the republic this was not
so. There was no restriction as TO the
length of speeches until the reckless
Wing Congress assembled in extra session
under the call of Gen. Harrison, in
1871. 1t was then passed in order to
thurst upon the people all the Old Fed
eral and scmi-mOnarchical measures,
such as the National Bank, high tariff,
distribution of the proceeds of the public
lands among the States, and the assump-
| ton of the debt of the States by the gen
eral Government. Unable to endure the
effects of discussion, the only thing Yves
| to shut it off and prevent its recurrence.
| But it was only introduced into the
| House. The Senate did not, and to this
| day has never adopted it. As to the pre-
yious question, it was not made rule of
The House until 1911, more than twenty
| years after the formation of the Govern
ment. 1t was then adopted in order to
check the long and interminable speeches
of one Gardiner, of New York. But so
| sparingly was it used that there are only
| four instances of its being called between
| 1911 and 1928, a period of seventeen
wears. From that time it became more
| frequent, but the abuses of it were not
| prominent until the institution of the Re
| publican regime, who call for it upon all
| occasions. In the British House of Com
mons the rule exists, but there has been
no instance of its enforcement for a hun
dred years. In the House of Peers it is
| unknown.
In 1S41, when the House rule to limit
debate was first passed, Mr.. Clay threat
ened to bring it into the Senate. He was
told by the Democratic minority-by
John C. Calhoun, Col Benton, Col.
King, of Alabama, DR.. Linn, of Missouri,
and others, that both that and the pre-
vious question would be resisted, not only
in the introduction, but in the enforce
ment. In other words, that they would
physically resist, and frequent
scenes of violence upon the floor of the
Senate would occur. Before this intrepid
determination even the imperious temper
and iron will of Mr.. Clay gave way, and,
despite his declaration, he never took any
steps to enforce it. 1t was at this time
Mr.. Calhoun made use of. the celebrated
expression, that those who were crying
''actionl actioni" meant ''plunder
plumber"
The session of 1841 to which we have
alluded, shows what can be done in the
influence of legislation by an able and
fearIesssminority. Its proceedings are
worthy of being studied and initiated by
the Democratic minority in the present
Congress. In 1S41 no long and elaborate
speeches were made against the system of
Federal measures then being pressed. But
caucus of the Democratic minority was
held nightly, and amendments agreed
upon that went to the gist and substance
of the questions involved. Upon these
amendments short and practical speeches
were delivered. When they we're disposed
of, others were offered, and the majority
was kept constantly upon the defensive.
Under this process the hold of the MAORI
| ty upon public sentiment gradually gave
way, so that it only required veto OF
two Of the acting President, Dir. Tyler, to
produce an explosion and destroy the ad-
hesiveness of the ruling party.-Cinct'l-
natl Enquirer.