New-York tribune., 1903-03-09
DELTBERATION OR DEL4Yf


The report that the majority of the Senate is
at a loss to find a way of transacting public
business against the opposition of one or two Of
Its colleagues suggests some pertinent refec-
tons upon so-called deliberation in legislative
body 1t is we'll that the Senate should be a de-
Lucrative body. In the very nature Of the case
1t is far better fitted to the performance OF that
junction than is the House of Representatives.
But it is we'll to bear in mind what deltberatlon
u.s. or perhaps. rather, what it is not. Dellbera-
ton Implies investigation, argument, consider
alton, in which processes there is not only
possibility but a reasonable probability OF er-
fecting a change Of mind for the better. or at
any rate of transforming uncertainty into con-
viction. Deliberaton is not mere talk, talk, talk'
lust for the sake of talking. 1t is not dam
nable iteration of wornout phrases by tongue
incapable Of persuasion to ears incapable OF
change. The chatter of parrot, the baying OF
a dog at the moon, the clatter and wnir of a
mill wheel are not deiberation. Neither is the
interminable speechmaking of even the most
eloquent orator and the wisest statesman when
it is done not with the hope of producing con-
viction but for the sake Of mere obstruction
With all due respect for the venerable and
learned Senator who. single handed, is delaying
the ratification Of the canal treaty with Colon
bia that is a fair characterization Of his recent
utterances. He knows perfectly well that there
is nothing new to be said upon the subject
All that can be said in favor Of Nicaragua and
against Panama he has already said. lie long
ago tried to persuade the Senate that the ran
anna undertaking is mistake and failed. He
knows now that he cannot do so. His daly
speeches are not convincing. They do not alter
by a hairs breadth the convictions and the de-
examinations of the overwhelming majority of
No do OofS Senator
self expects them to do so. He knows that his
colleagues are In favor of Panama, beyond any
mower Of his to change them. His present Of
forts are not really directed toward changing
them He is talking not in hope of winning
majority to his side, bat rather in hope of being
able through q shrewd manipulation of the
rules of the Senate and by virtue of scarcely
less than marvellous pertinacfty and physical
endurance, to tire out and dishearten the ma
iority and defeat it's will without convincing its
judgment
That as we have said is not deIiberation. In
suffering 1t the Senate is not showing itself to
be deliberative body. Rather is 1T conf ssing
itself to be an impotent body. It Is the consd-
tutionaI duty of the Senate to vote upon the
ratification of the treaties now before it. 1t
may ratify them or 1t may reject them. The
choice is entirely within its option. But it has
no moral option on the question of voting. 1t
must vote, one way or the other, or else be false
to Its constitutional duty. 1t can vote, too, If
it wills to do SO, and that, we imagine, Without
any revolutionary alteration Of its rules. II
one Senator the rules for his purposes,
the other eighty-nine can DO the same. II he
can resort to mere physical endurance to delay
a vote they can resort to the same to compel a
vote. 1t is impossible to avoid the conviction
that If the majority leaders OF the Senate were
as energetic and as resourceful in doing public
business as two or three Senators have recently
shown themselves in delaying 1t, the public
business would be DONE done promptly. and
done well.