Evening star., 1925-04-26

limited and measures forced to a vote,
is that a majority is responsible for
the legislation of each session of Con-
gress, and therefore should possess
the right to secure a decision on its
legislative proposals. 1t is contended
that the work of and control by the
majoritY should not be obstructed
by methods which are far removed
from the domain of legitimate argu-
ment.
Vice President Dawes and others
who are opposed to the present mode
of cloture in the Senate would still
further modify the rules governing
debate. They would put sharper
teeth in Rule %. Instead of requir-
ing two-thirds of the Senate member
ship to consent before debate may
be limited they would provide that
a bare majority be given power to
force a pending measure to a final
vote.
In most legislative bodies debate
is ended by motion from the floor
ordering 1.-The previous question"
This is the method pursued in nearly
all State Legislatures, and in the Ma
tional House of Representatives; also
in most of the legislative bodies OF
Europe. The adoption of that method
in the Senate has no support at all
posal will fail to receive the support
of a majority of the present Senate.
Much Time Is Wasted.
Ny own attitude is that under the
present rules time is wasted, and that
there ought to be reform. Though
perhaps no vital piece of legislation
has ever been blocked by filibus-
ter, the delay in reaching vote upon
a pending measure frequently results
in crowding other important meas
ures off the calendar. In the last
session several important measures
were denied consideration before ad-
journment
l believe. therefore, that there
should be further limitation of de-
bate in the Senate. At the same
time | do not by any means believe
that the present system has had Sc
riously detrimental results, and | do
believe that the open forum should
be preserved.
l favor changing Rule % so as to
restrict the privilege of unlimited de-
bate, permitting it for a fixed pc
riod-say six calendar days-and
providing that at the expiration OF
this period debate may be limited to
one hour for each Senator on any
bill or any amendment to bill by
a majority instead of a two thirds
vote, as at present required.
l would not, however, require
rule of relevancy. Senators restricted
to one hour in debate can not, after
all, cause very great delay by in,
dulging in oratory irrelevant to the
measure under consideration.
x X X
Value of Present System.
In the last session, the outgoing
Senate, was considering the Muscle
Shoals bill as unfinished business.
While the debate was in progress
leading statesmen of France, speak
ing in the Chamber of Deputies, set
forth the attitude of the French gov
ernment toward the French debt to
the United States.
On the following day Senator Borah,
chairman Of the foreign relations com-
mittee, took the floor during the prog
ress of the Muscle Shoals debate in
our Senate and in very able and ad-
mirable speech stated the American
view (at least the foreign relations
committee view toward the French
debt. Senator Reed and others joined
in the discussion.
It seems to me that this served a
useful perpose. Here was an informal.
democratic exchange of views on an
important international problem be-
tween influential leaders of two coun-
tries.
Had the rules of the Senate required
Senators to confine their remarks to
the measure pending in that body,
Senator Borah could not have replied
at least not officially-from the