Rogue River courier. (Grants Pass, Or.) 19??-1918, 1917-03-08
BRYAN IS AGAINST
SENATE F|uBUSTER
BY William Jennings Bryan

to the fact that there are two rues,
tions instead Of one, The first In
wolves the fili0uster and the =. nnd
the merits OF the proposed legisla-
tion.
| ann against filibustering and have
for several years been advocating u
cloture rule In the senate. be-
lieve In the right OF the majority to
rule and am sorry to learn from press
dispatches that the senate Is inclined
to require two-thirds vote for the
closing OF debate,
A majority vote ought to he suf-
hcient, after each senator has been
given reasonable opportunity 10 ex-
press his views,
To require a two-thirds vote Is TO
give to the predatory interests the
lsame power that they now have TO
prevent legislation hostile to their
privileges,
As long as the rules permit n min
ority to obstruct legislation. we may
expect them to be employed to pre-
vent progressive legislation Just as
they were employed two years ago
to enable the shipping trust to de-
feat the presidents shipping bill.
Whether the senator's should use
the rules to defeat proposed mea-
sure is a matter entirely In the dis
erection OF the senators. who are re-
sponsible to their constituents alone
just as the president Is responsible to
the general public only. when he uses
his veto to defeat n measure favored
,by majority OF the senate and
house.
So far as have seen expressions
from the senator's nearly all OF those
who voted against authorizing the
arming of ships. did 80 for the pur-
pose OF compelling an extra session OF
congress. or because they objected TO
the phraseology OF the bill. Since the
president has power to call special
session OF congress at any time. and
ask for legislation he desires. the
lingo press will find II difYicult to
convince the public that there Is any.
thing reasonable in the desire to
have congress in session. Even the
most warlike OF the newspapers will
hardly insist upon the abolition OF
congress now. whatever they might
have the boldness to advocate In time
OF war.
The second question relates to the
merits OF the bill. So far as I am
able to Judge, the objections urged
were not giving authority to the pres
ident. but related to the language em-
ployed. and surely II congressional
authority Is needed. the members OF
congress cannot be fairly denied dis
cretlon al to the language to be em-
|ployed. Everyone recognizes that the
giving OF authority involves serious
risks.
The public has such complete con-
fdence in the president that congress
would not hesitate to confer upon
him any power that he could himself
use. but the president cannot ride
on the ships himself. or handle the
guns.
He cannot even direct the man who
pulls the trigger.
The expert gunner will be some
5000 miles from Washington when
he carries out the authority confer
red. He will not only have the ex-
pert's desire to test his skill. but
he will be under the immediate d.
rectlon OF ship owner who may
have large pecuniary interest in
landing a contraband cargo.
The president has not asked con-
gress to surrender to him authority
to declare war; is II strange that con-
gress should hesitate to put an ex-
|pert gunner In position Where. by
his mistake, or By a mistake OF an
interested ship owner, he may COM
nit an act OF war?
The senate and house did not agree
as to the phraseology OF the pro-
posed bill. The senate wanted to in
clude "other instrumentalities. "
which the house thought too vague a
description Of the power conferred.
The house alse expected insurance
from merchant ships carrying arms
and ammunition, and a minority OF
the house committee favored insert
Ing this exception In the paragraph
authorizing the arming OF ships.
am heartily in sympathy with the
minority OF the committee that the
exception should be extended to the