Telegram-herald., 1891-01-03
OFFICIAL PAPER OF THE CITY.



just why the Senate Of the United
states should not have what every other
parliamentary body in the country has
"a rule to close debate-would puzzle
anyone but . partisan Democrat to say.
And 1t Is not at all likely that the parti-
san Democrat himself would object TO
such rule. If be could be assured that
Republicans would not use it. Consist
ency never counts with the Democracy
nor any regard for aught beyond the
present moment. As it happens to
subserve their party purposes to oppose
the adoption OF rule TO limit debate
just now. they oppose 1t, although they
well krow that the United States Sem
ate needs such rule As well ~ any
otner legislative body.
Senator Edmunds, in . recent inter-
view. well stated the principle under
lying such q rule. He said: "The Con-
stitution provides. and every constitu-
ton OF . government that is to be car
RED on must so provide, that the ma
Jority OF any legislative body has to do
It's business. 1t necessarily implies that
no minority, whether one or any other
number, should or could unduly OBJ
struct the expression of the will of the
majority. IL IS not a question of
whether particular measure should
be passed or defeated. but 1t Is . ques-
ton whether the majority of legisla-
tive body can have the power to come
TO the disposition of any SUBJECT that is
before II, otherwise than at the will of
minority composed of one or more.
The common parliamentary
law has always been that no man is to
speak impertinently or beside the que.-
ton, supertlously or tediously. This
common rule of parliamentary law is
based upon the considerations / first
mentioned that the parliamentary body
must be able to act-not to act in par
ticulsr way, but to act IN one way or
the otheE in spite of the determination
OF any minority of It's members that IT
shall not act at all"
The questicn of limitation of debate
IS no new one IN the United States Sem
ate. stephen A. Douglass, when a sem
stor, proposed a rIle providing for the
previous question; SO did Senator Hale,
of New Hampshire. On the latter oc-
csslon It was not acted 1pon because, as
Senator COllamer said, Senators
always stopped talking when necessary,
without stump speaking" Senator
Hamlin advocated the previous aue.-
ton in 1870 and Senator Wilson little
later. Ia 1875 Senator Wright, of
Iowa, brought up the subject and had
Senator Sherman IS one of MS most
ardent supporters in the movement.
The latter IN a very forcihls speech,
after referring to the fact that two
thirds OF the time of the previous ses-
sion hsd been consumed in unnecessary
debate and that on that account the
great questions OF the currency and the
public debt could not be considered.
SAID "Thres or four or FIVE members
of the Senate may now defeat any
Measure. They can talk TO any length.
This shows the sbsurdity OF ctinging
now 10 old IDEAS that prevailed when
the Senate was little company of
twenty-sx men, sitting IN secret ses-
son. There il no parliamentary bod v
In the ~D-id that hxs not sor1,e lrr,,t,
ton on debate. Even in the House Of
Lords the ministry SAY we wish dlvis-
ION on the question tonight aad It Is
bad. | never knew = night session
that was necessary" This shows that
men of practical business sense in the
Senate have long been restivs under
the tedious waste Of tae IN useless
talk.