The Washington times., 1913-06-16

point was dropped. and business re-
sumed without determination OF
whether a presiding officer may OF
may not be presumed to have eyes, ana
to know how to count up to ninety
six.
But that tremendous question, along
with some others affecting the Senate
rules, is daily. demanding attention. The
party division is SO close that they
menace all business. There Is very real
threat that an effort will be made to
modernize them.
In Illustration.
One of the funniest illustrations of
how the Senate gets tangled up in Its
rules was given in an executive session
soon after the Jones trouble was set afoot.
The President had nominated a collector
of Internal revenue for North and South
Dakota, naming a South Dakota man
to whom there was much objection. The
North Dakota Senators being absent
when the nomin ation was reached in ex-
ecutive session, the South Dakota Sem
ators asked that II go over. Then the
Senate entered 4 unanimous consent ar
rangement that 1t go over one week,
and then be voted on.
The week expired Friday last, and in
executive session Senator Gronna made
a statement of substantial reasons
against the nominee. He asked that the
matter go over again. for further con-
sideration.
was right; there ought to be more time
and knowledge.
But how could it be done? The Senate
had entered into an unanimous consent
pact with itself. to vote at that time:
How could unanimous consent De set
aside?
Somebody proposed that 1t could be
set aside by unanimous consent. The
Senate actually debated q good part OF
an hour on that proposltion; Couia .ne
Senate by unanimous consent vacate
previous unanimous consent order?
Much erudition was brought to bear,
ard it was finally decided in the mega
tive. The Senate couldn't change It's
mind. Wise men might; the SENATE
never.
John Sharp Williams, making an ex-
cellent plea for what he considered the
common sense view, protested that OF
course the Senate could by unanimous
consent set aside It's previous ORDER; 1u. .
he added that in the procedure OF the
body tor half century there was no
record that 1t had ever done such
thingi
Everybody wanted to avoid vote at
that time: but nobody knew how! To
vote would either be to ignore serious
charges. or else to reject the Presidents
nominee: a painful dilemma. Then
Senator Simmons conceived wise Idea.
Let Mr.. Gronna withdraw his obJec-
ton. and let the Senate vote on the
confirmation, as 1t has agreed to do:
then Mr.. Gronna can move to recon-
slider. and everybody viii join In and
pass IL for him.
That seemed the only way out, but
Mr.. .Gronna was afraid there might be
a trick in it. He demurred.
Ser ator Simmons reassured him, and
finally. by way Of making his good
faith perfectly certain, said;
He Promises.
IF the Senator will withdraw his OBJ
lection and let The matter be voted on.
I will promise, myself, to make the
motion to reconsider
There could be no withstanding such
guarantees. Gronna withdrew the OBJ
lection, the Senate voted to confirm
the appointment, and then Senator
Simmons solemnly rose and moved to
reconsider. The motion to reconsider
carried by unanimous voice-and the
Senate was out OF the awful scrape.
For FIVE, seconds that appointment
had been confirmed.
That performance occupied the Sem
ate's time about one hour in executive
session. The humor of II reached a
few members, and they have been dis
posed to sympathize with Jones In
fact, the feeling that something must
be done about the Senate rules before
long is gaining ground. and the new
element, rather unfmpressed by prece-
dent, is ready to help revise them.