Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1890-12-29
THE CLOTURE RULE.

Views on the Proposed New Meas
ure.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 2S.-The Post to-day
prints the following interview with Sena-
tor Edmunds on the adoption in the senate
of the proposed new cloture rule:
'"The constitution Provides" he said,
"and every constitution of a government
that is to be carried on must SO provide,
that the majority of any legislative body
has to do it's business. 1t necessarily i'm
plies that no minority, whether of one or
any other number, should or could unduly
obstruct the expression of the will of the
majority. 1t is not question of whether
q particular measure should be passed or
defeated, but it is question whether the
majority of a legislative body can have
the power to come to the disposition
of any subject that is before it other
wise than at the will of a minority
composed of one or more. In times
of extreme danger every lover of his coun-
try will agree that a traitorous minority
should not have the power, and could not
if there be anything in the power of ma
jorities to indefinitely delay the action
which the emergency might require to be
made-as has sometimes happened. The
just liberty of debate, in which every rep
resentative of constituency, whether the
whole people of state or the people of o
congressional district, ought to be con-
tinuously maintained, but liberty of de-
bate is one thing and liberty of obstruc-
ton and preventing a legislative body
coming to any resolution whatever
upon the subject before it, is quite
another. The rule proposed is not
rule to compel particular determi-
nation of any question. 1t is q
IL -, iIo fhoA Of hot no
ity consider a universal debate that
majority, whatever may be its opinion-in
respect Of the disposition to be made of
the measure shall be enabled to dispose
of it one way or the other saving to
every member of the body the right to
express his own opinion upon it within q
given time. How any man of any party
can find fault with such provision I am
unable to understand. The common par
liamentary law has always been that emo
man is to speak impertinently or beside
the question superfuously or tediously."
is based upon the considerations / first
| mentioned, that q parliamentary body
must be able to act-not to act in q
particular way, but to act in one way or
the other in spite of the determination of
any minority of its members that it shall
| act ALL"
EDO you favor the closing of debate by
| demand for the previous questions"
"No. 1 have always been and am still
opposed to any such thing as previous
| question as it has been within recent years
instituted-that is, previous question
which instantly terminates discussion; or
if any time be given puts the power of
giving members of a legislative body right
to speak at all, into the hands of the man
| aging members of committee or of a pre-
siding officer. The proposed rule pereludes
of more than eighty members that if such
a rule had been proposed when the serious
questions were pending or foreseen as i'm
mediate it would have received almost un-
animous approval"
"Do you believe that the country will
sustain the republicans in passing such q
rule overturning the senate's precedents
for the sake of passing an elections billf'
81 have to say, in the first place, that
what the country, with the information
that it gets from partisan newspapers OF
all kinds, may think in respect to the pro
priety of such rule is entirely imma-
terial to me, in the sense of affecting my
conduct in doing what think is my duty
in the promotion of the general public in
terest. 1 am sure that the country, when
it understands the precise scope and force
of such a rule, that it means that the rep
resentatives of the country have the power
to do what the country thinks ought to b,
done one way or the other, after every
member of the minority shall have had tbs
opportunity to state his views, will bt
more than satisfied that its representa-
tives in the senate have done wise ant
right thing"