Goldsboro weekly argus. [volume] (Goldsboro, N.C.) 1885-1909, 1893-10-19

As the Philadelphia Times says,
the contest of physical endurance
on which the Senate has embarked
is humilatiag to the people of the
United States, and in every way
discreditable to the Senate itself.
That body OF gentlemen, governs
ed by traditions of the highest Dig
nifty and courtesy, should be sub
jected to such .indignity by a small
group of parliamentary uffians, is
an outrage; that they submit to the
indignity without a vigorous asser-
ton Of their self.respect is un wor-
thy OF the Senate's reputation.
The custom of the Senate, which
has attained the authority of rule
assumes that when a number ol
gentlemen are met to discuss q
given subject they will all listen tc
what each one has to say and will
not decide till all the arguments
have beer heard. This is simply
the rule of courtesy, to~which all
gentlemen are subject. But the
moment courtesy is abused and
Senators begin to talk for the
avowed purpose of annoying and
wearing out their associates, that
moment the rule of courtesy is dis.
solved and the inherent right OF
the majority to govern becomes
paramount.
Unless the Senate have the cour-
age to assert this right, a small and
determined minority can defeat any
majority whatever, precisely as a
group of rowdies can defy fiye times
their number of gentlemen as long
as the latter rely solely upon the
observances of polite society. The
only way to deal with rowdies is to
meet them with force, and the one
way to deal With obstructionists is
to meet them boldly and vote them
down.
The rules OF the Senate apply to
decent debate; they haye no appli-
cation in mere physical contest
such as the silver men have invited
at this time. No rules that the
Senate has power to make can
divest it of its constitutional right
and duty of legislation, and whens
ever the majority shall fully resolve
to put an end to this abuse of cour-
tesy they can bring the issue to
vote.
The Speaker of the House of
Commons laid down this essential
principle very clearly against the
Irish obstructionists in 1881. The
House had been in continuous session
for two days and nights. There
was no rule Of cloture and there
were still members anxious to talk;
but it was evident and avowed that
they were talking only for obstruc-
tion. At length, in the morning
Of the third day, the Speaker inters
tered, saying:
A necessity has arisen which de~
mands the lnterposiriol of the
Chair. The usual rule has been
found powerless to insure orderly
debate. An important measure,
declared to be urgent in the interest
of the State by decisive majority,
has been impeded by the action Of
an inconsiderable minority of mem-
bers, who have reported to those
modes Of obstruction which have
been recognized by the House as a
parliamentary ofense. The credit
and authority of this House are
seriously threatened; the legislative
powers of the House are par.
alyzed.
The Speaker thereupon put the
main question and it was ordered,
and the minority, after some show
Of protest, succumbed. The action
of the Speaker was sustained by
the country, because it was re-
cognized that an extraordinary
necessity required this resort
to the inherent authority of the
House, and precisely the same
principle applies to the present
situation in the Senate, There is
no question OF the authority of the
majority. it is only q question of
its orderly exercise. Hitherto this
has been best secured in the Sens
ate by the rule of courtesy, but
that has failed. It is time that the
Senate direct the Vice President
to put the pending question to
vote.