The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1901-03-13
As to DeliberatiOn.

Objection to closure in the Senate Of
the United States is made on the
ground that the Senate, closure adopted,
would cease to be deliberative body,
as under the Reed rules the House is
no longer deliberative body. Closure
would be the application Of the gag to
the Senate.
To people opposed, for one reason or
another, or for no reason in particular,
or from some mental crick or fancy,
any old thing some time goes to sus-
tain the opposition. That the Senate
would lose its alleged standing as a de-
Lucrative body, or that the House has
become body from which debate has
been banished, by the adoption of
wholesome rule for closure of debate on
any question, are propositions that re-
quire proof. What is deliberation? In
the minds of the DIRECTORS to closure it
appears to be opportunity, after the
discussion of measure has exhausted
every sensible reason, argument or
consideration that can be urged agains
it, to prolong opposition by the employ
ment of parliamentary tactics, or brute
force, opposing to it physical endur-
ance, capacity TO talk indefinitely, with
out rhyme or reason. The Reed rules
in the House have preserved the de-
Lucrative character of that branch of
Congress; the Senate's rules, permit
ting unlimited debate, which in the
last resort becomes unlimited factional
opposition, destroys the deliberative
character of that body.
Under the old rules of the House,
and under the existing rules of the
Senate, unlimited debate became rev
olution, usurpa.ion. The right of the
majority to legislate was destroyed in
the House, as it may be, and sometime s
is,iu the Senate, by as mall and factional
minority Under the Reed rules the
legislation the industrial and CONNER
cial interests Of the country impera-
lively demanded was enacted. The
Democrats had proclaimed their pur-
pose to use the rules of the House to
prevent the enactment Of such laws.
SO the rules were amended after the
6ercest and most notable parliamentary
battle in the legislative history of the
nation.
This rule of the Senate allowing the
course OF debate to run so long as any
Senator can continue talking has
rarely, if ever, been used for the best
interests of the country. 1t has often
been invoked for the country's injury
1t could not prevent the enactment OF
the fugitive slave law in the old times
of slavery; it could not prevent the
abrogation of the Missouri compromise
and the passage of the Kansas-Ne.
braska bill. In recent times it was EN-.
ployed to prevent the repeal of the sill
yer purchase act and the rescue OF the
country from financial discredit. Il
has not been instrumental in the pas
in preventing the adoption of meas
ures fatal to freedom, fatal to the peace
of the Union; it has been the refuge Of
the enemies of the country's best in.
terests, and is the instrument now of
a partisan minority, as it has generally
been, to make its opposition to the
administration effective.
The majority ought to be RESPONSE
BILE to the country for it's use of power
1t ought not to be necessary for true
ulent minority to teach the majority
virtue. Beyond the senatorial major
ity is the President with his veto. Re
sponsible for all its acts, with the pow
er to act decisively after the period Of
elaboration ends and the period of fac
tional and irrational opposition begins
the majority would be put under heav
Ter bonds to decids with wisdom ant
act with caution.
The Senate rules ought to be amend
ed and rule provided that when de
bate has fully run its course, talk shall
end and action begin. And wayfar
ing man, though never Senator of the
United States, ought to be able to dis
Germ the dividing liue between deliber
ton and drivel