The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-01-14
How the Members Voted.

was announced az 81 for reference to
the Committee on Rules and 81
against IT,
How the Members Voted
The vote was rs follows:
Ayes--Senators Bank head Bryan,
Burton. Clark of wyoming. Culherson.
Cummins, Dillingham;. Con-, Hard
wick. Hitchcock, James, Johnson.
Kern. La Toilette, Lee OF Maryland.
Lodge, Mclean, MARITIME, Nelson
, O'Gorman Overman. Perkins, Pitt
man, Pomerene. Ransdeil, Reed. RON
inson, Salisbury. Shively, simmons,
Smith OF Georgia, Smith OF Maryland,
Smoot. Stephenson. Stone. Thornton
and Tillman.
Bristow Brady. Burleigh. Chamber
lain, Chiffon, ciapp, Colt, Gallinser,
Gore, Gronna, Hollis. Jones' Kenyon,
Lane, Myers. Norris. Oliver. Page.
Poindexter Shaffroth. Sheppard. Sher-
man. Sterling. Swanson, Thompson,
Townsend. Vardaman. Walsh. Weeks,
White and Works.
Senator Swanson, OF Virginia. voted
against reference To the Rules Com
mittee and Senator Martin authorized
by long distance phone a pair against
reference.
| 1t will be noted that Senator's Bry.
an, OF Florida. 0verfnar and Simmons.
/ of North Carolina, Tjiman, OF South
! Carolina, ana other Senators who are
considered Ia be favora BILE to prohibit
tien for the District, voted to refer
TO the Committee on Rules. Indeed,
| Senator Smith, OF Georgia who ma de
the motion for reference, publicly
stated that he favored prohibition, but
did not favor the suspension of the
| rules
Rules Committee Reports Promptly.
But the reference 10 the Rules
Committee was not the final DISPOSE
ton of the matter for Senator Over
man, chairman of the Rules Commit
tee, called meeting Of the com mittee
at l:45 p. NJ, and at 2:30 the Rules
Committee made report favoring the
motion of Senator Sheppard to sus-
pend the rules. SO that a prohibition
amendment might be offered to the
District of Columbia bill
The opponents OF prohibition OPP
posed the immediate consideration of
the report of the Committee on Rules
and 1t Went over until "Wednesday
morning. On Wednesday. when the
question came up the Senate agreed
to the consideration OF the report OF
the committee, but point of order
was raised that 1t would require =
two-thIds vote to suspend the rules.
The Vice President declined to pass
upon the point OF order, but referred
the matter to the Senate for its de-
cision. A debate ensued In which
the opponents of the two-thirds vote
were ably led by Senator Swanson
and Senator Walsh Senator Swanson
took the broad ground that MAJOR
ity of any body Is competent to change
any rules OF that body unless the
power of the majority so to do has
been formally limited by its previous
action. He held that the fact that
the House of Representatives could
not suspend its rules without two
thirds vote did not affect the action
OF the Senate. because the rules OF the
House of Representatives clearly set
forth that two-thirds vote should
be required. while the rules of the
Senate were silent on the question.
The Senate finally voted. Al to "a,
that two-thirds vote would be Eec-1
easary 10 suspend the rula, and ~ Il
II clearly Impossible 10 secure 4 twa-
thirds vote tor such action, ~ Appeara]
IT this wfitinot inst tho effoft ~ ~
tha proh m g(1f1 r. ~ z =;