Evening star., 1925-04-21
Continued from First Page.)

VI 1Ilc OeIdIS Oh the Cnlleu oldleS IL
non-partisan. non-sectional and patri-
otic. An improvement in these rule:
to expedite the conduct of business i:
as impersonal and nonpartisan 6
question as was that of the adoption
OF the budget system improving the
conduct of routine governmental bust
ness.
AS emphasizing this partisan.
ship, on the day after / had called the
attention of the Senate to the neeC
for change in the rules Gas a Vice
President who happened to be a Re-
publican), that able and distinguished
Democrat, Senator Underwood of Ala
bama, long an earnest advocate of re-
form in the business methods of the
Senate, reintroduced a resolution ir
the Senate providing for better cloture
Kellogg Raped Rule.
'The absence of cloture has beer
by Senator Kellogg. now Secretary of
State under Republican administra.
tion. In the platforms OF the Demo
cratic party adopted in 1916 and 1920
was plank which reads:
We favor such alteration of the
rules of procedure of the Senate of the
United States as will permit the
prompt transaction of the Nations
legislative business
1T is evident from all this that the
advocates of this reform recognize ii
as non-partiSan. 1t cannot be ac.
complished except it is accepted in the
hearts and consciences of all citizens
as non-partisan and patriotic re,
form demanded by the people in the
interest of all the people. 1t should
not De discussed from any other stand
point than that of non on-partisanship.
The issue Is this: Shall the Sen
ate continue unchanged it's existing
rules, which admittedly make possible
at times, the exercise by a minority or
even one Senator of power to block
the purpose of a majority of the Sen.
ate to legislate?
Sees Claims Irrelevant.
OF what material relevancy is the
claim that this power of blocking leg.
lslatlon desired by the majority, act.
ing under its constitutional rights, is
sometimes check to mistaken legis.
lation, II that check involves the use
OF power the existence of which is not
contemplated by the Constitution and
is inconsistent with the principles OF
representative government? OF what
relevancy are the claims that because
the power of unlimited debate in the
early, days of the Senate, with its
sman membership. was not abused
that this power, with its consequences
should have existed then or should
exist now?
Because it could modify the con.
duct or Government business, as in
tended by the Constitution, the ex.
nf hn
the past as both its existence and ex.
ercise are wrong at the present time,
Who can justly claim that the pro-
lection of the country against hasty
legislation demands not only a con
currence in legislative action of the
two houses of Congress, the veto pow.
er of the President of the United
States and the power of revision by
the Supreme Court of the United
States, but, in addition, a power dur
ing the end of session of Congress
on the part of a minority, or even
at times of one of the 96 Senators, to
block and destroy legislation by con-
suming time necessary for decision by
debate until the session
ends-a power the existence of which
the Constitution of the United States
does not contemplate-a power which
at times puts into the hands of minor
tiles and individuals the ability to
modify or control legislation by
barter? The reserved power of the
States in the Constitution does not
include the power of one of the States
to elect a Senator who shall control
a majority or even all of the other
States.
Says Argument Despotic.
mo argument is sound to the effect
that to protect a majority of the Sen.
ate and of the American people from
themselves it is necessary to put them
at the end of a session at the mercy
of either a Senate minority or of any
one United States Senator. It is In
effect and in changed form the old
argument upholding the principles OF
and despotic government
the argument that minoritieS or in
dividuals know better what Is good
for the people than the majority OF
the people themselves. All the lawful
restraints the people have imposed on
themselves should be and are found
in the limitations of the Constitution
and not in the rules of the Senate
Any restraint upon the people i'm
posed by a Senate rule is q usurped
governmental power not found in the
Constitution.
Perhaps there was time when the
discussion of incidental phases of this
question might have created oratorica
fog banks and smoke screens around
the real issue, hiding it from the
mind and conscience of the American
people, but for years the average cit
izen has had the operations of the
United States Senate under his eye
and he understands what is involved
He knows there is at question the
possession, in certain circumstances
of power by minorities and individual
members of the Senate which /:
greater, at times, than the veto power
exercised by the President of the
United States. He 'ealizes that these
extra-constitutional powers which
have been gradually built up ant
which, from time to time he has seer
exercised, are subversive of the prin
ciples Of representative constitutions
government.
Would Make Majority Tell.
"This reform does not mean that the
right to be heard at length upon any
any Senator. The purpose is not tc
prevent Senators from fully debatins
a question, but to make impossible
the prolonging Of debate to prevent &
majority from settling a question
The purpose is not deprive a minority
of the right to be heard, but to bestov
upon the majority the full right tt
Iegislate. The purpose is not to in
terfere with the protection of al
proper rights of senatorial minority
but to prevent the improper use o
a minority right under the Senate
rules from rendering the Senate 1t
self impotent 1t is important tina
these rules give every Senator 6
square deal, but it is imperative tina
they give the American people s
square deal.
Under the Constitution, the two
houses Of Congress make their owl