The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-04-30
LIMITING DEBATE IN THE SENATE.

Senator Hoar. Of Massachusetts. is con-
sidering the problem OF making the Sem
ate "A body in which business can be
promptly transacted. lie would make IT a
deliberative and at the same time an act
ing body. He became a member Of the
Senate on rules with that pur-
pose in view. Recently he made an adj
dress 10 the Massachusetts, Board OF Trade,
ia which he discussed the problem. Those
who read that address will discover that
the eloquent senator and able lawyer has
not solved the problem. He has in view
an amendment to the Constitution which
will bring Congress together I'm October
rather than December. and its terms will
expire I'm April instead OF March. lie has
also under consideration n plan of limiting
debate upon any given topic In some manner
not made clear, but. unfortunately. under
tine rules OF the Senate continuous debate
h possible. since a senator may offer a
resolution and speak upon IL as long as
he desires.
IL is evident that Mr.. Hoar is not max
ing progress In the solution of a ques-
1919 E'''Nh ~ ~ tFtR VI 'ht Rp'tAA -
a growing evil. Twenty years ago the
talking-to-death tactics were scarcely
known I'm the Senate. During recent ses1
sions of Congress. particularly the sec
ond sessions. threats TO defeat measures
by talking them to death. or of forcing
favorable action upon subjects the SEN
ate does not favor by threats OF prevent
foov tho Noeco.o 80 htff. ~. t...-,,A. ,u
appropriation bills have been frequent.
Senator Tlllman declared I'm n speech OUT
side the Senate that IL an appropriation
was not made for the Charleston exposi-
ton he would prevent the passage OF ap-
preparation bills. 1t Is understood, even
charged by the late Senator Pettigrew,
that the Democrats permitted the Plat
amendment to be added to an appropri-
alton bill with the understanding that
the extravaganza river and harbor bill
would be allowed TO come up. Ex-Sen-
ator Carter. assuming the talk-to-death
role. prevented the passage of the river
and harbor bill.
Senator Hoar's difficulty lies In the fact
that he would believe that all the sena-
tors are statesmen and gentlemen. and
that. being such. they should be treated
with all the courtesy that freedom OF de-
bate requires. And yet. Mr.. Hoar. in
order to wear out the senators who ig-
more the rights OF majorities and trample
on all considerations of courtesy, will join
In holding those unscemly. interminable
sessions TO force a vote. When II comes
TO a question OF courtesy and the right
of debate. which Is most discourteous, TO
fix py vote OF the majority an hour for
taking "A vote. or to wear out senator's VINO
are exercising the right OF continuous
sessions? Could anything be more dis
courteous than that senators should leave
one Of their number TO address empty
seats? And. talking OF courtesy, what can
be said of the action of a minority I'm
giving the majority notice that IL will not
be permitted To pass this or that meas
ure until the minority sees ft TO allow
a vote. or on the condition that "a very
bad bill wasting millions Of money shall
be allowed TO come up? II courtesy is to
rule the Senate Ii should be broadened so
as TO require a recognition of the rights
OF the majority: now it's chief use is either
TO overawe the majority or. as In the
case of the river and harbor blu, to black
mail il.