Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1873-01-29
The Previous Question.


Probably many of our readers who
are unaccustomcd to take part in the
proceedings Of public meetings know
little OF the nature of what is called in
most deliberate bodies tho "previous
question" Yet this parliamentary
device, rs used in the United States
House of Representatives, has been
tho instrument with whose aid tho
business community has been harassed
and feeced times unnumbered. I'm
der its operation, too, rings have laid
plans to seize the property of financial,
scientific and literary corporations,
and have successfully carried them
out.
When bill or resolution has been
proposed for adoption, and is under
consideration, if those who favor it
fear to have it fully discussed before
the vote is taken, or are anxious to
have il passed quickly, one Of their
leaders moves tho previous question.
This, for tho moment, completely
stops, cuts off, all debate. Not one
can discuss tho pending proposition
question shalt be SoHdicd oorHdiccred. II tie emo mo.
ton to order it is carried Gas it usual
ly is), tho vote is next taken on tho
previous question itself, which reads,
"Shall the main question now be put Z"
If this question is carried Gas, once
being made, it most always is), the
main question is at once voted on
"Shall this bill (or rcsolution) pass p
Under this system Of motions, two
men who favor bill can, unless keen
iy watched and sharply opposed, often
carry measures of highly improper
sort Speaking themselves in favor of
their project, and springing the pre-
vious question without warning on all
who'seek TO expose the defects of the
scheme, they produce false impres.
sion on the assembly, in favor of their
measure. Nearly every Infamous
statute that has disgraced British or
American law-books for centuries past
has been enacted in this way. Had
they been fully and fairly debated,
very few OF them would have been
passed at all and those few might
have been SO amended as TO remove
some of their worst features.
Tho excuse for using tho previous
question is, that a debate often be-
comes wearisome and profitless, and
that some protection against bores is
necessary. This is specious, but dc.
coptive. There are several other mo-
tions which have the effect to close
debate and secure vote; but the diff.
ference is, that if there is any reason
why vote should not be taken ut the
time proposed, it can be stated
whereas, when the previous question
is called, nothing whatever can be
said. Also, tho previous question
method gives no notice of the close of
debate while other motions-such as
TO take the vote at an hour named, or
at the end of a specified time-give all
fair warning, and enable them TO
govern themselves accordingly. 1t is
easy to stigmatize debate as profit
less, or speaker as bore, when the
remarks do not tend to the profits of
tho friends of the proposition A sin
gle speaker, however, if not cut off
by this gag-law, can SO expose the
mischiefs certain to result from the
passage of the bill as often to convert
tho minority into majority and de-
feat the scheme. When q considera-
bic minority doggedly oppose meas
ure, it is prima fdcie evidence that
such measure is not properly maturcd
that it has not been so far perfected
as to be really fit to pass and its
postponement is usually good policy
The Quakors follow this plan in their
business meetings, and no meetings
are moro harmonious and useful TO
those concerned.
The Senate Of the United States
never uses the previous question, and
its proceedings are far better conduct.
cd than those of the House, where this
gag is frequently applied.