People's party paper. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1891-1898, 1893-12-08
OBSTRUCTION IN THE SENATE.

iate years engaged pupHc attenOAoA
to degree quite unusual for sub
ject so technical III its nature. Not
only in many States of the Union,
but in England, also, the matter OF
parliamentary obstruction has reach
ed the proportion OF a great and a
very grave public question. This
was neither accidental nor the result
of partisanship; it was the outgrowth
Of conditions which had been slowly
developed.
When parliament rules were f1rst
formulated, the preservation OF tree
dom of debate was rightly considered
to be Of the last importance, and, 50
far as these original rules, which
were II a great degree haphazard'
could be said to have any principle,
the protection Of freedom OF debate
was their controlling purpose. All
danger to freedom Of debate, IN
English speaking countries, at least
has long since vanished, and the ten
dency Of the old system is to encour-
age debate, OF which there IS now
too much, and to prevent action OF
which there is now too little.
The primary, and the only proper
and intelligent object Of all parlia-
mentary law and rules is to provide
for and facilitate the ordinary action
Of public business. When any setof
parliamentary rules ceases to accom-
plish this object, they have become
an abuse-and an abuse Of the worst
kind. They not only prevent action,
but, what is far worse, they destroy
responsibility; for, if a minority can
prevent action, the majority, which is
entitled to rule and is entrusted with
power, is at once Invested Of all re-
sponsibility.
This question has been fought out
in the English House Of Commons,
and the passage of the Home-hSule
Bill is conclusive evidence that the
system of enforcing action is not
only necessary in England, but that
it is finally and firmly established.
The came battle has been fought out
also, and the same result attained IN
our House Of Representatives. The
great reform which Mr.. Reed carried
through, and which marks an epoch
in parliamentary government in the
United States, has been in principle
finally established. The last stage,
the acceptance of the reform 10y Inc
opposite political party, has just been
passed. Mr.. Speaker Crisp, with q
large Democratic majority at his
back, has enforced Mr.. Reeds prln-
ciples by stopping dilatory motions,
ard bringing the House to vote.
The right OF the majority to rule,
and to pass after due debate such
measures as it sees fit, has been firmly
established in the House Of Repre-
sentativos.
As a practical pubic question in
the United States, parliamentary OBJ
struction has now shifted to the
Senate. The case In the Senate IS
very different in many particulars
from what it was either in the House
of Commons or the House of Repre-
sentatives. The Senate Of the United
States is still small body; it has
great powers conferred upon it by
the Constitution, and weIghty respon-
sibility. It is properly very conserva-
tive in its habits, and very slow to
change those habits III any direction.
The rules Of the Senate are practl-
c&lly unchanged from what they
were at the beginning, They are
the same now, TO all intents and pur-
poses, as when they were first adopt
ca, more than a hundred years ago.
There las never been in the Senate
any rule which enabled the majority
to close debate or compel q vote.
The rules of the Senate rest neces-
sarily on courtesy. For this reason,
obstruction IN the Senate, when 1t
has occurred, has never taken the
form Of dilatory motions and contin-
ual roll-calls, which have been the
accepted method OF flibustering in
the House. The weapon Of obstruc-
ton III the Senate is debate, upon
which the Senat3-rules place no
check whatever. A time cannot
even be set for taking vote except
by unanimous consent. But the
essence OF d system Of courtesy is
that it should be the same at all
points. The two great rights in our
representative bodies are voting and
debate. Il the courtesy Of unlimited
debate is granted, it must carry with
it the reciprocal courtesy Of permit
ting vote after Cue discussion. To
vote without debating is perilous, but
to debate and never vote is lmbecile.
If the system Of reciprocal cour-
tesv could be established, there need
be no change in the Senate rules.
AS it is, there must be change, for
the delays which now take place are
discredjting the Senate, and this is
something greatly to be deplored.
No extreme or violent change is
needed. A simple rule, giving the
majority power to fix a time for tax
ing vote upon any measure which
has been before the Senate and IN
der discussion, say for thirty days,