Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1891-01-01
EDMUNDS AND HOAR.
The Two Senators Differ Over a
Cloture Rule. ..
PURE FOOD PADDOCK'S BILL.
He Would Sidetrack the Elections Blu For
That or Financial Measurable Ex-
plains His Relations and Contra
.. diets Certain Reports. ... ..

WAsHINGToN, Dec. 2G.-The Post pub
fishes the following: THERE'S at pres
ent an interesting point OF difference
between Senators EdInunds and Hoar
regarding the future programme in the
Senate. Senator Edmunds believes
that it would be perfectly right and
proper for the Presiding Officer of the
| Senate to refuse to recognize minor
ity Senator and thus bring the elections
course of procedure should be the
same as the English House of Com
! mons, where the Speaker has the
power to close debate, and he justifes
his belief with the statement that a
body organized to transact business
should transact it. Senator Hoar and
others do not go this far, but claim that
the Presiding Officer has the power to
bring to a close any flibustering pro-
ceedipgs which have for their object
the defeat of a rule. They assert that
forcible measures in this case would be
constitutional, because the Constitution
gives each house the right to determine
its rights This distinction between
cloture for bill and cloture for rule is a
fine one and has not hitherto been com
mented upon"
The Post also says: Senator Pad
dock, of Nebraska, was in earnest when
he warned the Senate few days ago
that he would soon move to lay aside
the elections bill and take up the pure
food bill, and he will before long take
occasion to renew the warming He
will first give his party, however,
ample opportunity either to pass the
elections bill or conclude to lay it aside.
In this connection it may be interesting
to state that Senator Paddock has been
misquoted from the beginning in re-
gard to his position on this
bill. Indeed he has almost deter
mined to make a personal explanation
owing to the utter falsity of a dispatch
originally sent from this city. The dis
patch described with some detail an in
terview alleged to have taken place at
the White House between the President
and the Senator in which the former is
said to have upbraided the latter for
not supporting the bill. The interview
thus related not only never occurred,
said Senator Paddock, but the Presi-
dent has never mentioned either the
elections bill nor the tariff bill to me-
d" I have never said that would not
vote for the elections BILL continued
the Senator, although I have been
quoted as saying so. The truth is there
is nothing in the provisions of the bill
Objectionable to me. My position is
that regard the consideration of the
bill at this time as unwise. I think it
would be better to discuss and pass a
financial measure. The elections bill
is purely a political matter in
which only the straightout Re-
publicans in the country are in
terested, while the financial legislation
vitality concerns all business men and is
sadly needed. have not yet received
letter from my State either for or
against the elections bill, which is a
sure indication of the lack of interest
in it. Another thing against the cleo
tons bill is that it is regarded with
suspicion that may not be well founded,
but which is certainly operating to dis
turb the business relations between the
North and the South