The Evening critic., 1882-03-08
sna,, the Minority Rute7


vented 90 aid him in his pet policy of
raralyzing legislation operate practically to
Keep the majority of the House under the
control or at the mercy of the minority.
Some days ago, in casual conversation on
this subject, our Hon. friend Blackburn
said to us that he T" should make fight for
the maintenance of the existing Rules, be-
cause they protected the minority
Whereupon we remarked that, in our
Judgment, 1t was the majority instead of
the minority that needed protection as the
Rules now stood, to which our Hon. friend
responded that the majority could always
take care of itself; that the fundamental
design of Parliamentary Rules was to pre-
vent the powers of majorities FROM being
made absolute; to compel a fair hearing for
the minority and, above all, to interpose
barriers Of debate or delay against hasty
enactments.
Now, all this is eminently proper, and,
if our honorable friend had stated the
case of the existing Rules completely his
position would be impregnable. 1t is
fair proposition that in q constitutional
government the legislative minority can
not have too many rights-as a minority.
They are entitled to full hearing of their
objections in debate. They can justly
claim the most abundant means of appeal
from the policy of the legislative majority
to the general constituency of the people.
They may even, in emergencies, be sus-
tanned by the best Judgment Of mankind
in dlatory or obstructive tactics, either for
the purpose of intensifying the record or
of giving time for a revulsion of public
sentiment or both. But this last is
dangerous prerogative, and the party exer-
cising it frequently suffers from its recoil.
In our observation of national legislative
affairs, covering considerable period, we
can recall but one instance of filibustering
that met the approval of what may fairly
be termed the best Judgment of the coun-
try, and that was the defeat of the Force
Bill in the last half of Grants Administra
ton. But such situations are not every
day events in the life of nation. On the
contrary, the epoch which gave rise to
the Force Bill and thereby gave sanction to
the extreme tactics required to defeat it, is
a thing of the past and nothing resembling
it is likely to come up again in our time.
That epoch was characterized by system
of policy peculiar to itself, generally de-
scribed as "Grantism," which was to all
intents and purposes martial law in dis
guise, or a military occupation adopting,
for the sake of convenience, civil forms and
agencies whereby to carry out revolution
ary designs.
These operations were manifest in as
saults upon the autonomy Of States, in eff
| forts to invade with Federal power the do
main of local self-government and in pros
titution of the Judiciary to the basest
partisan ends. The majority which re-
sorted to such practices forfeited its moral
| rights and thereby made respectable any
sort of tactics the minority might employ
| in patriotic resistance.
But the current epoch presents none of
| these remarkable characteristics. No as
| sault is meditated upon any fundamental
| feature of our constitutional system. Pro-
found peace prevails; sections have been
| abolished; Force Bills are not thought Of
and the legislative mind is busy with the
| contemplation of purely economic problems
| which, let their decision be what it may
cannot affect single inalienable right of 0
solitary citizen. The questions now before
the representatives of the people are
whether our Tariff system shall be pro
tective or " for revenue only"-in the un-
fortunate phrase of the late Dem
ocratic platform; whether the Gov
eminent shall encourage the resur-
rection of our national merchan
marine OF 90 on encouraging the existin,
British monopoly; whether the Unitet
States shall contribute to the enterprise o
joining the two oceans by an Isthmia
canal OF surrender its heritage on this con
tinent to the grasping powers of Europe
and KINDRED topics of discllssion-all inter
esting and important, but none dangerou
to the stability of our institutions.
Under such circumstances, we assert tina
there does not exist the shadow of reaso
why the minority in Congress should o
invested with any power of restraint owe
the majority beyond that of ample hearin
and full lappeal to the people. The faul
we have to find with the existing Rul,
of the House is that they not pnl
piotect tpe miuoiityt Dut bnat tuc
also can be employed to paralyze I'll
majority and to thwart its exercise of Il
legitimate and proper functions. /
short, under the existing Rules, the ms
!. jority is not majority except in nam
while the minority Is invested with pow,
which is none the less absolute and nor
the less obnoxious to the true theory of OF
+ legislative system because it happens to
: negative. We sympathize with all tn
our Hon. friend Blackburn says or can ST
about the propriety of Rules restraint
n the majority from the enactment of vicio
legislation. But we respectfully sugge
!, to him that it is or may be equally il
portant TO restrain the minority from b
: vicious prevention of meritorious legisl
!, ton, and right there is where we fl
: the great fault of the existing Rules. '
believe in Rules to protect the minority
"a as minority. But we do not believe
n Rules which, by comforting upon an
q responsible minority absolute power
"a negation, leave to the constitutional N
to jority nothing but the barren prerogati
,r Of helpless responsibility. Let samrandal
"a Rules be amended in accord with the spi
of the times
4