The Washington times., 1915-02-12
THE FlLIBUSTER


chase bill has done something to-
ward convincing the Senate and the
country once more that filibusters
are a relic of dark age in parlia-
mentary procedure. Every time
there is a great performance of this
sort the Senate has spasm of en-
thusiasm about fixing it's rules so
that they may expedite rather than
prevent business, as is the real pur-
pose of all proper parliamentary
codes. But, though there has been
recurrence of these outbursts of zeal
at intervals ever since the "force
bill" fight, nothing has been accom-
plished.
1t is not too much to say that ar
chaic parliamentary procedure was
the direct cause of the fall of one
of the greatest kingdoms of modern
Europe. Senators who may choose
to take the trouble, will be able, by
reading any thoughtful history of
Poland, to discover that the "liberum
veto" is set down by all of them as
the real cause of the disintegration
of the Polish state. The Polish diet
is described by all its historians as
the citadel of unlimited conversation
in it's time, just as our Senate prides
itself on its long-distance talking
facilities in our generation. Some
three centuries before Poland fell a
rule was adopted in the diet, or more
properly was permitted by piling up
of rulings and precedents to become
recognized, under which a single
member by the solemn declaration,
81 forbid" could veto any legisla-
ton. 1t was in short the substitu-
ton of unanimous consent for the
majority's control. 1t developed
even to the point where at least once,
at the end of a session of the diet,
the entire legislative product of the
session was permitted to be nullified
by the "llberum VetO."
1t seems ludicrous that a country
which tied the hands of it's kings as
Poland did, permitting them we'll
nigh no real power, should also have
sacrificed the legislative capacity of
it's parliament; but the Poles did just
that. The rule seems ridiculous to
US; yet within very recent. years a
speaker of the American House of
Representatives has said-and the
truth of it is common knowledge
that most of the legislation in our
House was accomplished practically
by common consent. 1t is also true
that any member may nullify an ef-
fort to restrict the use of funds
given by an appropriation bill, by a
"liberum veto" which consists in ris-
ing and saying "Mr. Speaker, a point
of order" Now, despite the persist
ent reiteration of protest against
Legislation on appropriation bills
the fact remains that the history OF
constitutional liberty and parlia-
mentary government is nothing but
the history of successive impositions
of legislative conditions upon the
use of the public funds. 1t began
there, and is still there. The bottom
fact is that the executive, who does
the spending, must have the money
or his government goes dry; he can
not veto the appropriation bills; anc
if conditions are written into then
which limit the use he may make o.
the cash, he has to accept the con
ditions in order to get the funds.
Again, there is an intimate rela
tion between the Senate rule of un
limited debate and the "liberun
veto" rule of unanimous consent
Time and again in our parliamentar,
history single man has taken tn
floor in the closing hours of sessions
and "talked bill to death" by tn
simple expedient of keeping on tn
floor and preventing business, unit
the session expired by limitation
This is nothing on earth but re
fnement of the Polish system tina
required unanimous consent.
The filibuster is the same thing il
another form; the privilege, given t.
a minority, often an insignifican
one, to prevent legislation by hold