New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-09-22
FOR MEDICINAL USE
NO EUSEL OIL

If the Senator from Indiana (Alr. Voorhees, were
to rise this morning and ask an agreement 10 take
a vote on the Repeal bill on the 10Th OF November
he could not get II.
Such an agreement could not be obtained III any
case where opposition serious. and where the
Senators in opposition believed that they had
right to struggle, and all parliamentary
means TO prevent vote
Next came what is sometimes known as the
process of Sitting it out" That was ior the
friends of the bill to remain In continuous session
until its opponents physically exhausted so
that they could not struggle any longer. lie sup
posed the case of a minority Of thirty Senators;
and said that ten Of them might occupy twenty
four hours in speeches another ten tWehty-ioui
hours more, the third ten twenty-four hours MORE
and then the first ten might begin again
Such a method of trying to reach a vote
Mr. Platt declared to be harsh-he might almost
say inhuman 1t would require the friends Oh the
bill TO keep a quorum present constantly during
continuous session. 1t smacked of the method OF
obtaining "a verdict by locking up the jury IL
was a proposition to force the minority 10 sur
render on a test of physical endurance. Inc re-
suit usually that 1t was the HiaJo''S "''
surrendered that test
OFFERED IN GOOD FAITH.
That being the case why might not the Senate
Just as well try change its rules He offered ms
resolution in good faith. AS one member OF the
minority side Of the Chamber, he would stand py
it through thick and thin He did not present IL by
authority of the minority. He onered IL III soou
faith believing that 1t practically the only way
by which n vote could be reached on the Repeai
bill Neither the fact that the Republican senators
who favored the bill charged with being Ad-
ministration Senator'S nor the fact that Democrats
in the House were forcing another bill. which he
looked upon as fraught with disaster, would affect
them They would stay here, ready TO second 'he
chairman OF the Finance Committee in any meas
ure which he would propose to get vote on the
Repeal bill.
Mr. Hoar Gep, Mass) thought that Mr.. Platts
resolution open TO criticism in that II gave
the Vice President who not even a member or
the Senate, the powe- of determining the action or
the Senate itsefue power OF fixing
day TO close de- and day 10 TAKE
the vote He suggested a substitute for IT, to the
effect that when any bill or resolution shall have
been under consideration for more than one day 1t
shall be in order for n Senator TO demand that de-
bate thereon be closed. and II such demand be sec
onded by a majority the question shall forthwith
be taken without debate.
Mr. Lodge REP Mass) said that there was
another right more sacred In a legislative body
than a right to debate. and that was the right to
vote 1t was to be assumed that If. by unwritten
law there 10 be unlimited debate, there should
be no obstruction to vote. When IT appeared
that unlimited debate-a right conceded by cour-
tesy-was used for the purpose Of obstruction
When a minority not only did not allow debate
TO come to a close. but would not even name any
date no matter how distant. at which II would
assent to close OF the debate. then il obvious
that courtesy had become entirely one-sided-that
unlimited debate to be permitted, but that the
right OF vote to be taken away. The ma
jority in favor Of repeal Mr.. Lodge continued.
did not proceed the same line as The ma
jority that controlled the conduct Of business in
the Senate. The conduct OF business rested alone
and absolutely on the Democratic Senators, and If
the Senate did not reach vote on the repeal bill
1t because the majority which was response
bic for the conduct Of business did not choose to
have that vote reached. To substitute for 1t the
test of physical endurance in a body like the Sen
ate Of the United States seemed TO him pablc
CLOSURE RIGHT FOR ALL MEASURES.
Was 1t not the more digniied and the better
thing to have stable rule to enable the body
through It's majority. TO reach vote at some time
Legislative bodies In this country were governed BY
voting and debating. 1t desirable to have
them both. Both Of great importance. But
IL only one of them were to be had. then the one
which led TO action was the important. To
! vote without debating might be hasty, might be
Ill considered, might be rash; but to debate ana
never vote was imbecity He was well aware
that there measures now pending the chanse
of the tariff and the repeal OF the Federal election
Iaws) which, If carried out. would do more injury
TO the country than the Sherman act had done or
was doing: and he knew that the proposed closure
rule would enable the Democratic majority TO put
them through the Senate; but he did not shrink
from the consequences. If 1t were right TO take
this closure step nCNy las he believed 1t was) IN
order TO pass a measure which the country was
demanding then it right to take 1t as to all
! the measures The most important principle in the
American government he believed to be that the
majority must rule. The majority he thought
! should rule In the Senate; not by violent methods
but by proper. dignhed methods. such as were pro-
posed by his colleague (Mr. HoaD and by the Sen
ator from Connecticut That was the reason why
/ he had desired to express his most cordial approba
ton OF the principle involved in the proposed
change of rules.
Mr. Hill Dem, " W suggested an amendment
/ to the proposed change of rules providing that
when bill has been debated on divers days.
| amounting in all to thirty days it shall be in
| order for any Senator to move TO fix date for
taking the vote; that that motion shall not be
amendable or debatable: and that II carried by a
| majority the vote the bill and pending amend
ments shall be taken without further debate or
/ amendment.
STEWART READY, OF COURSE.
! Mr. Stewart Q2ep.. New announced himself as
ready to prove. by many preceeenH the immense
advantage OF deliberaton in the Senate. and why
a gag rule should not be adopted. Mr. Teller Nep..
COLI also expressed himself as DESTROYS of speak
ing to the resolution; but he did not wish to
interfere with the Senator from California CMr.
White) who wished to address the Senate
The resolution then went over until Tomorrow
although II had previously been referred TO the
Committee on Rules.
The Repeal bill was then taken up. Mr. White
at the outset analysed the conditions that led up
to the present situation. paying especial atten-
ton TO the farming and laboring classes He de-
clared that 1t absurd to claim that the Sher-
man law or the presence Of 80 much silver was a
menace TO the country. 1t could only be injurl-
ous except the people have been led TO believe.
through representations made to them. that IL was
dangerous
Referring the Federal Election laws, he said
that the Democratic party had pledged itself "a
THE MODERN BEAUTY
Thryes good food and sunshine with peny Of eyer