Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1891-03-13
+ Continued from 9Th page.

at was impossible that any rule could
be more completely settled. both by un-
interrupted usage and solemn deliber-
ate adjudicatons, than was the rule of
the previous question in this House. 1t
was rule perfectly consistent with
good sense, with the requisite indepen-
dence of the members of the House and
with the right of the free people whom
they represented. 1t preserved decorum,
it had a tendency to prevent unnecessary
discussions, it suppressed improper ques-
tions, while it left perfectly untouched
the fundamental principles of pariam-
entary and political freedom. Thus, Sir,
it continued the more firm, for the i'm
potent attempt which had been made to
pervert it, and the better understood
from the blunders which its examine
ton had exposed. Such was the state of
things when on the memorable night of
the 9th of February, 1911, the monster
which we now call the previous question
was ushered into existence, and utterly
supplanted the harmless, useful being
whose name it usurped."
Mr.. CASTOR stated in detail the facts of
the case here referred to. The subject
under consideration was the non-inter-
course act with Great Britain. 1t was a
night session. Debate arising upon a
certain amendment, Mr.. Gholson of Vir-
ginia moved the previous question,
which was adopted. Mr.. Gardiner of
question. Mr.. Ghoson objected to the
right of the gentleman to debate the
main question. The speaker decided
that, according to the practice of the
House, it was in order to debate the main
question after the previous question had
been adopted. Mr.. Gholson appealed
from the decision of the chair, and was
seconded bv two members, aid the
question was decided in the negative.
And thus was finally overthrown the
time-honored previous question, as it had
been known and practced on for tw ,
centuries, and the gag law," as John
Randolph styled it, established in its
place.
The following extract from letter of
Mr.. jefferson to Mr.. Madison is in point.
The letter is dated Paris, Dec. 20, 1877.
The extract is postscript:
"P. S.-The instability of our laws is
really an immense evil. | think it would
be well to provide in our constitution that
there shall always be a twelvemonth
between the engrossing a bill and pass
ing it; that it should then be offered to
its passage without changing a word,
and that if circumstances should be
thought to require speeder passage, it
should take two-thirds of both houses
instead of a bare majority"
This may be thought an impractical
mode of legislation, but it is, at any rate,
a good way removed from the snap
judgment plan of the modern previous
question.
But the previous question as an in
strument OF the despotism of maiorities
was in those days as the weight of the
little finger to the loins compared with
what it is at present. Both parties have
sinned in this regard, but the present
Congress most of all, and has most
reason to begin the work of reform be-
fore it is too late. Maorities can never
be in danger of losing their rights by
the action of minorites-unless it be by
pursuing a course of policy which tends
to place them in the minority.