The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-11-10
Senator Lodge on Senatorial OBJ.
struction.

Senator HENRY CABOT LODGE Of Massa-
chusetts has contributed to the North Amer
fcdn RepieD an article on the recent struggle
in the Senate. It does not follow that, be-
cause the struggle Is over, his comments
have merely an academic interest. On the
contrary, what he has to say about the pro-
posed change in the Senate's rules. Is of
actual political Importance. because it helps
us to foresee what will be the attitude OF his
party when an attempt is made to re-
sort to closure for the purpose Of passing
the Federal Elections bill and the Tariff
bill. 1t is obvious that, unless a change
In the rules Is made, the thirty-nine
Republican Senators can obstruct the pas
sage OF those measures for an indefinite
period. 1t Is equally plain that, II all
the Senators who voted for the repeal OF
the purchasing clause OF the SHERMAN act
will support the change in the rules pro-
posed by Senator HILL. such change can
be effected. OF these Senators. Mr.. LODGE
was one. and during the debate on the sill
yer question he declared himself ready to
vote for Mr.. HILLS amendment OF the
rules. Is he still ready to vote for that
amendment? After careful reading Of his
article in the North American Revie,o we
should answer in the negative. But we can
see no reason for such a change of front. ex-
cept that he wished the VOORHEES, bill to
pass. while he Is naturally opposed to the
Federal Elections bill and the Tariff bill.
Mr.. LODGE begins by admitting what no
sensible person denies. that the legitimate
purpose OF debate is not to defer voting for
an indefinite period. but to assure fulness
OF knowledge before voting. This unques-
ftnnahIa tr,ith ha in n
"To vote without debating is perilous. but
to debate and never vote is imbecle." He
goes on to say that no extreme or violent
change Is needed in order to avert unrea-
sonable obstruction. "A simple rule. Civ
ing the majority the power to fl time for
taking vote upon any measure which has
been before the Senate. and under discus
sion. say for thirty days. would be all sulti-
cient" This. as we scarcely need remind
the reader. is precisely the amendment pro-
posed by Senator HILL. What We wish at
this time to point out is Mr.. LODGES I'M
qualified admission that "such a change
should be made. and such rule passed. for
the majority ought to have. and must have.
full power and responsibility.
II Mr.. LODGES article stopped here. we
should have no doubt about the passage
of Senator HILLS amendment. We should
have a right to assume that sufficient
number of Republican Senators would CO.
operate with a majority OF their Demo-
cratic colleagues to make the proposed
change In the Senate rules. Mr. LODGE.
however. proceeds to justify the inference
that. although he would have voted for
Mr.. Hills amendment during the debate
on the silver question. he will not do SO
when 1t comes up at the next session OF
Congress. What has happened to cause
him to withdraw his support from a meas
ure which he pronounces righteous in
itselfp The pretext which he alleges is
curious In the extreme. 1t is. no has dis
covered. the exclusive duty of the Demo-
cratic majority to make changes In the
Senate's rules. That majority did not
change the rules in order TO repeal the
purchasing clause OF the SHERMAN act
They cannot. therefore. 80 he says. go on
and introduce closure to pass the Federal
Elections bill and the Tariff bill. They
must apply closure to all measures or to
no measure.
This attempt 70 Justify in advance an in
tended change OF front is not even plausi-