San Antonio light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1911-1993, 1923-02-21
WHEN ETIQUETTE" RULES

Every now ana lHen SolllSOll~ iiO'4'
I'D the British form OF government as a
model worthy OF being copied by liberty
loving. democratic peoples the world
over. He may be an anglophile who can
see nothing worth while outside OF the
British Isles. Or he may be a normally
patriotic American who has Just had
an unpleasant encounter with govern
ment official of his own country or who
has become disguised at the present.
dav tendency OF legislation.
As matter OF dispassionate fact,
Great Britain has a great government,
and one that is highly admirable-from
the BIRTHS viewpoint. That is, it suits
the British viewpoint. That is. it suits
course the Irish are in a class by them
selves. and the Scotch mind their own
bu5iness too well to become involved
in any Improbable argument
But there is one feature CT the British
government which even 4 pcevcd Amcrl-
can, bcrcft OF his liberties and sore at his
own country's governmental institutions
and its legislative tendencies, could not
consistently admire. Because OF it the
British people. through their rcprescn-
tativcs in Parliament, sometimes become
slaves to a kind of etiquette which out
RACES the ends of politeness and makes
OF democracy a sorry fiction.
During a recent sitting OF the House
of Commons the Liberal groups offered
Joint amendment to speech from the
TIL dakota orrnrdI,,r, 70 cable
reports, waXcd eloquent; proponents OF
the amendment, particularly, rose to
heights which the auditors deemed pro-
found. Former Premier Lloyd-George
delivered perhaps his most forceful
speech since the overthrow OF his minis
try: he, too, was in favor Of the proposed
amendment. In fact there was no doubt,
says the Associated Press report, that
the amendment embodied the sentiments
of the majority of the House.
Yet the amendment was voted down,
overwhelmingly. Such an outcome in
this country would be accepted as OBJ
vious proof that the sentiments Of the
majority were not embodied in the de-
feated measure. 1t sounds unreasonable
to say, in the fact OF an adverse vote,
that a legislative body undoubtedly fav-
ored proposed step.
But parliamentary etiquette plays
havoc with logic. In the case under con-
sideration it pIaScd the members of the
House of Commons in the position OF
irrational beings. They sacrificed their
judgment on an international matter as
a means OF saving appearances-and
that, too, when appearances could easily
have been explained by a frank express
sion of intentions.
The House voted against its own
Judgment because the adoption of the
desired amendment would have been in.
terpreted, in accordance with custom, as
censure Of the government, and the gov,
ernment consequently, would have fall
len-all despite the generally known
fact that the House did not desire the
governments downfall.
Why couldn't the proponents of the
amendment have stated specifically tina
the measure was intended merely as ;
suggestion and not as ccnsure? VIII,
did it have to be so disingenuous to sac
rifice to parliamentary etiquette" it
reasoned judgment on matter of inter
national Importance?
When one encounters such conduct o,
the part of men who are supposed t.
hold the destinies of nations in thei
hands, one is likely to be all the NOR
deeply impressed by the bcneficencc G
Providence.