The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1915-02-22
SENATOR NATHAN P. BRYAN'S
POSITION ON SHIPPING BILL.
Senator Bryan, in Jacksonville State.

With the European war practically
eliminating the British and German
ships from engaging in commerce
American interests have materially
suffered from the lack of an American
merchant marine, and the bill which
seeks to have the Government acquire
ships for this emergency Is most nee
essary for the prosperity and good OF
the nation. When the Associated Press
dispatches included Senator Bryan in
the list of boiling Democrats his
friends in Florida were unusually up
set and disappointed.
Now that the truth is known, 1t will
be seen that had it not been for Sena-
tors Bryan and Hoke Smith, the bill
would have been defeated. The follow
ing is letter to one Of Senator Bry-
ans friends which explains his position
thoroughly:
l received your telegram yesterday
afternoon and sent you telegram in
reply. find that the telegram / sent
states that I voted against the motion
to recommit. OF course that motion
has not been voted upon ! intended
to say that it was my intention to vote
against it as offered by Senator
Clarke.
I had heard before receiving your
telegram that Senator Smith and I
had been represented by the Associated
Press as being included with the seven
senators who had joined with the Re-
publicans to defeat the shipping bill
The headlines In the Times Union state
this as fact. but the dispatch itself
does not bear out the headlines, and of
course it is contrary to the fact, for
the very simple reason that the motion
has not been voted upon. The only
vote that has been taken has been
upon the parliamentary status of the
BILL The constitution provides, as
you know, that one-fifth of the mem
bers present can require the yeas and
nays to be entered upon the record
This demand had been made accord
ing to the usual custom of the senate
by holding up hands. Senator Clarke
subsequently moved to recommit the
bill. Senator Fletcher raised the
point of order that the motion could
and nays had been ordered on the sub
SlllutC. 4u0 vice pICStQcIlJ SuSLdluGu
the point of order. Senator Clarke ap-
pealed from the decision OF the chair.
The question then was should the de-
cision Of the chair stand as the decis-
ion Of the senate. Senator Smith and
I voted NO" That is to say, we did
not believe the point of order was
well taken; and we only had to wait
our position to be justified by events
because, within that time, the Demo
cratic caucus decided that the only
way to save the bill was to move to
recommit with instructions to put on
amendments, in order to secure the
votes of Norris and Kenyon. So the
pending question now is the Clarke
motion to recommit with amendments
insisted upon by Norris and Kenyon,
as the price of their support of the
bill. Now, If the vice president was
right a vote WOULD have been taken
upon the substitute. and. admittedly,
it would have been defeated.
: This but illustrates again the abb
surdity and folly of constituting the
rules in order to accomplish tenn
porary purpose. If the position taken
by the vice president and sustained
by all but nine of the Democrats pres
ent were correct, consider what it
would mean. Let US take a house bill,
which has been referred to a commit
tee, the committee reports it with