Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1925-06-24

who says:
at had served with your permits
sion for 20 years in the House Oh
Representatives. had been the ieau-
err of that body; was responsible TOT
the legislative conduct OF great
party; and I have gone to the con
ference table with senate amend
ments on my bill, and convinced
conference.-the representatives OF
the senate in conference-that their
amendments were wrong and tnen
they would calmly tell me they woula
not Weld because Senator So ana
So would talk the bill to death IL =!
did not accept his amendment anu
with great governmental issues at
stake, have been compelled 10 &C.
cept minor amendments to great
bills. that will not say were gra1t
but they were put there for the pur-
pose of magnifying the importance
of one man with his own constltu-
ency. at the point of jeopardlzlng
good legislation in America
"In the attempt to change the SEN
ate rules, we combat one OF the deep
est instincts of selfish human nature
"a desire to retain personal preroga-
tives. Human nature, when there Is
involved the release OF individual
power for the common good, Is weak:
1.-THE power of filibustering and OF
debate without limit of time. maze
possible under the present detective
rules of the senate, has produced
such continuous and such serious
distractions to legislation that since
May -, 1910, in Sc instances the ma
jority and minority leaders OF the
| two parties have been compelled to
consent
agreements to enable the considera-
| ton of important legislation. This
means that they must go like sup
plants to every individual member
of the senate to get his consent that
| the majority shall act on important
| legislation, and consider the condi-
| tions in regard to other legislation
which the individual senator may de-
! sire to impose as the price OF his
agreement.
ut was the great public resentment
which was aroused by filibustering
in the 63rd congress during 1914, In
an effort of the minority to prevent
| legislation by the majority which. in
my judgment, led to the only serious
condition of reform in these rules
which the Senate has given in recent
years. In that Gard congress the
| river and harbor bill had been debat-
| ed for 80 days; the Panama canal bill
for 80 days; the federal trades COM
mission bill for 80 days: the Clayton
amendments to the Sherman act for
Fl days and the conference report on
the Clayton act for nine days.
Accordingly, in the early days of
the 64th congress, because of this
pressure of public sentiment arous-
! ed by the intolerable legislative sit
uation in the Senate, provision to
close debate by a two-thirds vote
was reported by the Senate Rules
| Committee and, during the special
session of the 65th Congress, in 1917,
| after a conference of the Republican
and Democratic leaders, the present
| rule enabling a two-thirds majority
| to bring a matter to vote was
adopted. But this change in the
| rules did not cure the evil, and in
that very Congress, with this rule
| in force, six major appropriation
bills were defeated by the filibuster,
to say nothing of eight other meas
ures favored by the administration.
An extra session of Congress was
called as result. ~
Filibustering, or the use of 1t as a
| threat. proceeded in the usual course
| in the 9th and 6Sth Congresses,
despite the alleged rule reform.
Chiefly because of the filibuster
in the last eight Congresses. seven
extra sessions have been held. A
moments thought here will convince
one of the lack of foundation for the
claim that filibustering initiates
against multiplicity of laws. No one
can justly claim that these seven
extra sessions of Congress did not
result in large addition to the
number of laws which would have
been passed in the 16 regular ses-
sions as compared with the % ses-
sions actually held. AS a matter of
fact, during these extra sessions a
total of 3S6 bills and 9S public reso-
lutions were enacted.
When in great matters 1t Is pos
sible for a selfish human instinct
to crafty itself at the expense of
the common good it leaves a trail
so broad and so deep that when
once pointed out only the blind can
see it.
1T stands to reason that anybody
which at times must grant conces-
sions to individual members in or
der to secure the right to act as a
whole will pass more laws in pro-
portion than a body not under that
handicap.
Now, what are the facts?"
I'm the last five congresses the
senate bills and resolutions passed
by the senate. with 96 members, ex-
ceeded by 1872 the house bills and
resolutions passed by the house,
with 435 members. The exact fig
ures are BIB for the senate and 2931
for the house.
But more significant event than
this, as evidence of the inevitable
exactions of selfish human nature
when given chance, is the fact that
the senate passed these 3113 bills
and resolutions out of total of 90
So introduced, while the house
passed its smaller number Of 2931
out of total of S2,632 introduced.
During the last five congresses,
therefore, the senate passed 10 1-2
of the bills and resolutions introduce
ed IN the senate. while the house
OF representatives passed only 3 1-2
per cent of the bills and resolutions
introduced in the house. In other |
words, of bills and resolutions in
troduced, the senate, without effec- |
tive cloture, passed in proportion |
three times as many as did the |
house of representatives, with clo-
ture.
There have been vague claims
made by the opponents of reform in |
the senate that the absence of eff |
fective cloture tends to prevent null |
tiplicity of laws. My contention is |
that the figures have given estab- |
lish the fact that the absence of |
effective cloture tends to increase