Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1893-10-27
Obstruction i'm the Senate.
An interesting and Important Letter
from ex-senator Edmunds.

from ex-senator Edmunds.
The following letter from ex-senator Ed
munds was written in answer to enquiries
made of him by his friend, Ex-Governor
and Representative in Congress John
w. Stewart of Middlebury. 1t relates to
the power of the Senate to control its own
course of business and will be read with
universal interest:
New YORK, Oct. 20, 1898.
| have yours of 18th inst. You are
right in thinking you heard me say that
any change in the rules of the Senate was
unnecessary to prevent obstructive debate
| have been of that opinion ever since |
entered the Senate in 1866. | will answer
your three questions regarding the rights
of the majority and the presiding officer as
the administrative officer of the Senate to
repress and terminate obstructive debates
together.
The rules of the Senate do not say that
a senator may speak indefinitely, either on
the question pending or at large; they do
not say that the senator having the floor is
| the sole Judge of whether his remarks are
pertinent to the question They only say,
! first, that no senator shall speak more than
once in the same debate on the same point
in one day They only say that when
| question is pending no motion, save GER
tain enumerated ones, shall be made.
! This, so far as | remember, is all that the
! Senate rules contain having any bearing on
the question; all the rest-like disorderly
conduct, etc.--is left to the general rules of
parliamentary law. These rules in a con-
densed form are embodied in Jefferson's
manual, which has been recognized as a
part of the law of the Senate ever since
| the organization of that body IN 17S9..
! The substance of what is said in Jeffer-
sons manual have not the book before
me, and so only speak from recollection--is
that no member of the legislative body
shall be disorderly, uncivil or obstructive,
and that he shall speak to the point. If,
however, any senator, or any number of
senators, shall appear to the presiding Of
ficer, or to any member, to be transgressing
any of these provisions, he may be called
to order, and it the point of order be sus-
tanned by the presiding officer or by the
Senate he cannot proceed without leave.
The result of all this is what both com
mon sense and patriotism necessarily i'm
ply, namely, that it is competent for the
Senate to determine at any time whether
any senator or any number of senators are
abusing the privilege of debate, or trans
! crossing the orderly and earnest course OF
the business of the body. IT, in the un-
fortunate and mortifying state of circum-
stances now existing in the Senate, any
senator should raise the question that the
debate had become obstructive, and insist
upon vote being taken on whatever ques-
tion might be pending, it would be the du-
ty of the presiding officer to rule upon that
question of order. Whichever way he
should rule, his decision would be subject
to the judgment of the Senate on appeal.
That appeal would be debatable, but, by
the same law | have stated, it could not be
debated Obstructively, and when thus de-
bated and the debate on the subject should.
in the judgment of the Senate, become OBJ
structive, a second point Of order could be
raised and decided as before That de-
cision could also be the subject of an ap-
peal, but the second appeal would not be
debatable. Thus, in a very short time, a
day or two at most, the Senate could come
to a determination whether it wished to do
business or not, and it could come to it
lawfully, regularly and in entire accordance
with every existing rule of the Senate.
1t may be said that such course of pro-
cedure as have indicated would be a new
departure and would overthrow the "court-
esy of the Senate" which has prevailed for
a century. | do not think so. The court
esy of the Senate has almost always been
that which should prevail in the small
body selected by the states to represent
both states and people. That is the court
esy of giving to every senator, consistently
with the fair despatch of public duties, an
opportunity TO state his views on the sub
ject under consideration. 1t is a contra
diction in terms to say that courtesy re-
quires majority to allow the minority to
determine whether public business shall be
carried on or not. All that has happened
hitherto in the whole history of the Sen
ate in cases where it might seem some sen
ator was talking against time, etc, has
happened because the Senate has not beer
called upon to decide the question.
Yours very truly,
GEO. +. EDMUNDS.
In paragraph here omitted Mr.. Ed
munds says that, while not absolutely nee
cessary, it may be well for the Senate, at 1
, time when no urgent question is pending
to make a definite rule on the subject o
closing debate, care being taken to guar,
! properly the rights of the minority.