The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-10-24

| ES.Gov. stewart OF Vermont recently addressed
ietterto ex-senator Edmunds Of that state asking bi
opinion na to the power OF tho presiding ooer of tn
Senate under existing rules and consistently wit,
established principles Of parliamentary law to farm,
nato debate and bring pending question TO n vote
and also rs to the existence OF such power in the pre
siding onicer wnen the pending question is itself
change In the rules OF the senate To that letter Mr.
| Edmunds returned the folio wing reply:
New YORK Oct 90 1922.
| MY DEAR STEWART: have yours Of 18th inst
| You are right in thinking YOU heard ma say
, ,nat any change In the rules OF tho Senate was
the Senate in ISUG '''' '''ee 'H''''u
were using obstructive debate to preveni
tT on the hill to almond the national cleo
ard was fortified In my previou us opini HSs.
qpove stated and pointed out TO the then Vice.
npSnr en- mr.. Morton the stat. Of the law
in liar ur tar lay consistent thorrwti. what
cIesri, the rules ana the law appeared TO me
his duty; under the circum stances, II tho Gues-
ION OF obstruction should be formally raised.
t ror reasons quite apart from any doubt about
raised.
:, will answer your three uuestions regarding
olncer. as the administrative officer OF the
SSe ehate' to repress and terminate obstructive
{, The rules Of the Senate do not say that a
senator senator may speak indennite!y. either on the
n bt pending or at large; they do not say
Judge OF whether his remarks arc pertinent
to the question. They only say frat. that no
same debate on the same point in one day.
;Lhey only say that when question is pend
, ing 10 o. motion snye certain enumerated ones.
is al that the Senate rules contain having
Any Any bearing on the question; all the rest
genera! rules OF parliamentary law. These
r41ies. IN u eonhensed form, are embodied in
nizod as part OF the law Of the senate ever
since since the organization OF that body in l7Slt.
Me- sngstancs Of what is said In 'leflersons
so only speak from recollpction-is that no
memher OF the legislative body shall hs dis
shhll speak to the roint. II. however. any
Senator or any number Of Senators shall ap-
pear 10 the presiding officer. or to any mem
sions. he may be called TO order. and II tie
p3nt OF order he Sustained by tho presiding
oinerr or 10y the Senate. he cannot proceed
The result Of all this is what both common
namely, that ii is com retent for the senate to
determine nj any time whether any Senator or
any number Of Senat are abus ne the privi-
ana earnest course OF the business Of the
body H. in the unfortunate and notifying
state Of circumstances now existing In the
Senate. any senate should raise the question
Inat inc debate had become obstructive. ami
I,isst upon a vot" being taken on whatever
he duty OF tn" presiding officer to ruie
a Nd n that t,o Gnsstion Of order whichever
Do subject TO the Judgment Of the Senate on
appeal. That appeal would be .debatable. but !
debated obstrurtiveIy. and when thus debated
,nd the debate on the appeal should. in the
udsmcns Of the Senate, become obs ructive
leeided rs before That decision could also
,e the subject Of appeal. but the second appeal
ime. day or two nj most. the Senate could
ONE to determination whether 1t wished to
10 . ynSness or not. and it could come to it
VIII evory existing rule Of the senate. '1,'
'l course such power in the majority Of the
able TO- abuse: and besides In such Il case Of
nstruction every Senator voting ON tho uues:
hat he would feel that he was acting upon n
urstion that might very soon be- repeated
M naer d, circumstances wherein he; and more or
nIple timo for honest discussion. so that the
anger OF abuse in cases ot this sort in n small
ody like the Senat is comparatively small
1t perhaps may be well that the senate ut
ome TIM" when no urgent question shall bo
eh n,n . should make hrmi:" rn!e upon III.
oeral character. IN ord"r that It should not
= IN =. me rover OF TIE MAJORITY under a lxel
ave had n !air and full opportunity for dis
,rture and would overthrow the courtesy OF
e senate which has prevailed tor n cen
Try. l do not think So The courtesy OF
@ Senat" has almost always Teen that
men shur!j rrcvai in the small body So
"led 10y the states to rcprasen. both States
I'd people; that is. ths courtesy Of giving to
cry Senator, cons istently with the fair de-
'atch "i public dut ies. an cpportunitvtn state
= views on the subject under consideration
Is contradiction in terms to say thrt cOur-
sy requires majority to allow the minority j
determine whether public business shnll he /
FRIED on or not. Al thar has happened hith-
to IN the whole history OF the Senate in cases ,
lkin& against time. &C.. has happened be-.
use the senate has not been called upon to !
eide the question. Yours very truly.
-, GEORGE I. EDMUND. {
The Hon JOIN w. STEMART MiLIlehurY II 1