The Kennewick courier-reporter. [volume] (Kennewick, Wash.) 1914-1938, 1935-09-12

compromise, Senator Long also de-
feated appropriation of something
like $100,OOO,000 which the admins
tration was going to use in setting
up machinery under its so-called
security laws, the Guffey bill for
regulation Of the soft coal industry
and the board created theoretically
to settle labor disputes. All of these
bills were pressed hard by the adj
ministration, if one had not had its
antagonists in congress. They were
and are strictly New Deal measures.
AS a result Of the Long filibuster
none of them can be made fully OPP
erative until congress convenes
again next January and appropri-
ates the money. So, it can be seen
how the pride of the New Deal pro-
fessors was wounded. It can be seen
likewise why they, along with the
President, did SO much squaking
about the Long filibuster. Senator
Long was an ideal goat for the sit
uation. - ~
Unnecessary Barking
It is not my privilege nor is it
within my power to say whether the
legislation which Senator Long vir-
tually nullified is SO important that
five months of delay is the differ
ence between life and death in this
country. Indeed, cannot see any
reason for all of the haste that is
eXemplified by the shouts and the
criticisms suddenly brought forth
because of that filibuster. The bills
which were brought to final passage
only few days before adjournment
had been languishing in congress
since last January. The President
had repeatedly urged their enact
ment but the congress saw fit to
delay. Consequently in various quar-
tiers in Washington heard the in
quiry as to why so much damage
can be done by delays of five
months when there has been delays
of seven months preceding enact
ment of the measures.
So, without defending a filibuster
in any wise, it occurs to me that we
ought to look back into history and
see the benefits accruing from UNI
limited debate in the senate, a pro-
cedure which the New Dealers now
want to change. Through all of the
years that congress has existed the
senate has moved in deliberative
way. It has been slow, to be sure;
yet, records Of the past make it ap-
pear that this slow procedure has i
resulted inevitably in better legis-
lation. Many are the schemes that
surged forward on the ballyhoo of |
a minority to passage in the house
of representatives only to be blocked
and properly examined in the sem
ate. Many are the times as well
when the deliberative character of |
senate debate gave time for ex-
preston of q majority sentiment in |
the country and saved it from being
precipitated into policies of nation
al legislation that would have
worked untold harm. I cannot but
believe that the privilege of unlim-
tied debate in the senate has more
good features than bad.
Time after time in years past, de-
mands have been made for liberal
ization of rules in the house of rep
resentatives so that individual
members might voice their views at |
length. The house never has yield
ed from the position it has taken
that it's numbers were too great to
permit free-for-all discussion such
as takes place in the senate. The
house does it's work in committees
and those committees are generally
under the guidance Of the political
party in control of the government. |
The house, therefore, invariably
votes the will of the administration.
In consequence of this, it is hard to |
believe that the senate ought to