New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-09-24
MP. STEWART HITS AT TIE PRESIDENT.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE sENATE-ARGUMENTs ON
THE CLOSURE RESOLCTiON.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE-ARGUMENTs ON
THE CLOSURE RESOLUTION.
Washington Sept. %. AR Stewart Repr New
offered the following resolution and said that he
would address the Senate upon it next Monday;
Resolved That independence OF the coordinate de-
rartucnts Government the Legislative, the En-
ecutvc and Judicial, must be maintained and that
the use of the power and Of department TO
control the action another Is in violation OF the Con
sttutlon and destructive OF form OF government
The closure resolution was taken up, and Mr.
Turpie Dem Ind.) addressed the Senate in oppo-
sition to it, There had been, he said, but one way
since 1896 OF bringing about vote in the Senate
on any measure and that way Unanimous
consent" Theoretically it might be said that under
II one member Of the body might at any time pre-
vent vote. But such cases had been extremely
rare and uncommon in the Senate.
1t would be seen that practically one member OBJ
jecting TO unanimous consent became conspicuous
object Of attack, that whatever effect the rule
of unanimous consent had had IT had not had the
effect of menacing important legislation 1t had
been said that the majority in this country ruled
and that therefore the majority In the Senate
should rule. That statement was much too broad
when applied to the whole country or to the Sen
ate II would be much better put in this way
The will of the majority expressed under the
forms of law should rule" The first form Of law
for the Senate the Constitution Of the United
States and the second form the rules estab-
lshed by the majority which controlled action.
Closure. he declared. suppression, repression
and a member of the Senate depressed to
be sent back by the people, no longer in the minor
ity but In the majority vote by force not
vote vote by compulson not free action
He cited cases in the rogn Of the Stuart kings Of
England and argued from them that obstruction
was an extreme remedy But in his mind there
was no reason for either eXtreme-that Of closure
or that of obstruction. middle ground could be
found and adopted with much greater ease than
either.
Mr. Villas Dem. Wis., commented on state
uent of Mr. Turpe that the only rule in the
Constitution governing the Senate that pro-
yiding that on the demand Of one-lfth the ron
should be called. He suggested to Mr.. Turpe that
there was still another rule in the Constitution
applicable to both houses. and that was that either
house might. with the concurrence Of twO-thirds
expel member. lie asked whether Mr. Turpic
did not consider those two rules somewhat antag-
onjsic and contradictory.
Mr.. Turpie replied that he did not consider them
at all contradictory. because the rule to one
Nth applied to only Legislative business.
Mr. Hoar (Rcp.. Mass) asked him whether he
made any distinction. in the matter Of closure, be-
tween the Senate and the House
Mr.. Turpie admitted that he did. because he re-
karied the Senate the refuge and asylum Of
minorities and he wanted that asylum to be In
violablc
Mr.. Dubois Rep.. Idaho opposed to the In
PRODUCTION OF closure rule IN the MIDST OF an eX-
citing debate.
Mr.. Call Dem, Fla) opposed the closure resolu-
ton, because he regarded It as 4 proposition to
forbid debate and 10 close the only avenue OF In
tercourse between the Senate and the great mass
Of the people.
The closure resolution was then. on the motion
OF Mr.. Plat Rep.. Comm. its author. referred TO
the Committee on Rules. Mr.. Plat announcing his
intention to go before that committee and submit
an argument at greater length than he had done 10
the Senate.
There was an effort on the part OF Mr.. Voorhees,
Dem, lnd) to take up the Repeal bill; but Mr..
Jones dem, Ark reminded Senators that there
was a matter pending in executive session which
would occupy the remainder OF the day. 1t was
suggested by Mr. Voorhees, that it would be time
enough TO go into executive session at o'clock;
and Mr. Mcpherson Oem.. n. j. wanted TO know
whether any question OF appointments TO office was
OF sufficient Importance TO justify neglect or delay
as TO the Repeal bill The discussion. in the opinion
Of Mr. Chandler Rep. n. H) was drifting too
dangerously near to reve aton OF executive sc,
crets: and finally Mr. Voorhees, himself subratted
the motion, and the Senate proceeded TO executive