The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-08-06
CLoTURE. IN THE SENATE.

Blair's attempt to set limit to debate in
the Senate may yet prove successful. HIS
motion, as readers will remember, was to
embody in the rules Of the Senate pro-
vision resembling the previous question in
the House, under the operation Of which
rule discussion Of pending measure would
be stopped at a given point and the vote
taken. That rule was adopted by the
House to prevent filibustersm by minor
ity in the shape of speeches against time.
1t was dictated by the obvious principle
that majorities should govern. and that
minorities should be deprived of the means
of defeating legislation. The rule has
worked to the satisfaction Of both parties.
No motion to suspend the operation Of the
previous question would now be enter
tanned for moment.
similar rule obtains both in England
and in France. Under the last days of the
Empire, when FIVE members moved the
cloture of the debate, the President de-
clared further speeches out of order. and II
the cloture was noted, vote was at once
taken ON the main question. The rule is
still in force in modified form. In the
British Parliament the cloture grew out OF
Mr.. Gladstone's Coercion Bill for Ireland.
The Irish members, under the lead of Par
nell, refused to submit to the Speakers
ruling that the debate was exhausted, and
that he could recognize no more speakers.
On this Mr.. Gladstone moved and the
House adopted resolution declaring that
whenever the Speaker informed the House
that subject had been adequately dis
cussed, motion that the question be now
put would be in order; that that question
was not debatable, and if decided in the
affirmative the main question should then
be put.
In the Senate of the United States no
such limit ON debate has ever been known.
a Senator may speak against time as long
as his strength holds out; there is no power
either in the presiding officer or in the
Senate itself to make him stop. Thus it
has frequently happened that bills which
were acceptable to a majority of the Senate
have failed to become laws through the i'm
possibility of closing the debate so as to
reach vote. And more than once the
dominant party has been driven to sit all
night or two nights and days successfully
in order to wear out Senators who were
speaking against time
What benefit this method of obstruction
confers upon the nation is not readily dis
cerned. The talk about gagging members
is rather specious than sound. Votes are
rarely made by speeches in Congress- by
the time bill has reached its third reading
everybody has made up his mind how he is
going to vote. Senators aud Congressman
speak not to their colleagues but to their
constituents and their aim is TO make a
record rather than to convince the persons
whom they address. In France the clOture
was undoubtedly used to silence members
of the opposition. In this country there
has never been an instance when the use OF
the previous question in the House of
Representatives has really stified discussion
or hindered an opposition party from stat
ing its views fully and deliberately. And
no person of repute regards the rule as an
invasion of the freedom of debate.
There will probably come time when
majority of the Senate will make a sacrifice
of dignity and adopt the rule which has been
found useful in other legislative bodies.