Minneapolis spokesman. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1938-02-11


Few men in Minnesota public life |
have met the ideals endorsed by |
this paper so fully as Hon. Ernest
Lundeen, junior senator from this
state. This, because of his earn
est advocacy of human welfare and
his outspoken and courageous de-
tense of minority rights.
Recently the senator voted
against invoking the cloture which
would have ended the filibuster
against the anti-lynch bill engen-
dered by senate representatives
from the Southland.
In answer to a telegram sent by
this paper asking him to clarity the
reason for his action, Senator Lun-
deem explains his vote was in de-
tense of minority rights always en-
dangered by majority gag" rule.
Quoting from his telegram the Sem
atOr states: when l voted against
cloture l was voting for your
minority and perhaps some of your
group do not understand this matter
and it is your duty as a writer and
editor to explain that the elder
RObt. M. La Toilette and other
warriors for minority rights al
ways manfully battled against clO-
ture and did SO successfully
throughout our national history I'M
til the war hysteria of 1917"
The Senator correctly states the
privilege and duty of this editor,
not necessarily to accept the ex-
ample of the elder La Toilette as
being conclusive, but his duty to
expound to his readers the real eff
feet of a failure to support the clo-
ture.
In passing it may be remarked
that the younger La Toilette, now
a member of the Senate, radical
like his father and equally es-
teemed, cast his vote for the clO-
ture.
1t may be pointed out too, that
if those defenders of minority
rights did fight manfully in their
behalf, there did come time in
1917 when they concluded it was
no longer expedient to do so.
In all lawful assemblies the basic
rule is that the will of the ma
jority must prevail. Equally i'm
pOrtant and prevailing is the rule
that the minority must have free
and unhampered opportunity to
present its views with the purpose,
If possible, to change the majority
opinion before the decisive vote is
cast. But when each side has had
and accepts full opportunity to
give its argument, it is the privi-
lege of any member to move the
previous question, which if adopted
stops all further discussion and
forces a vote upon the question at
issue. This, of course, permits the
majority to carry out its will.
But the United States Senate is
a power unto itself. 1t establishes
its own rules of procedure. But
its rules still recognize the basic
principle of majority rule and min
ority privilege to argue its own
convictions. Thus when a senator
gets the floor he may hold it as
long as he is able to talk, thus in
surfing the minority full opportu-
nifty to present its reasons for its
own stand. But there is no previ-
Gus question to be ordered. So,
when the minority has exhausted
all of it's legitimate arguments
against the action the majority has
indicated it expects to take, it con-
tinues on in filibuster the object
of which is to obstruct the ma
jority from deciding the matter at
issue. 1t talks of anything that
comes to mind, reads from the BIZ
BILE or other books, discusses arti-
cles of recent or ancient comment
from the press or other source.
In short, it does anything it finds
possible to keep possession of the
floor that it may keep the majority
from a vote that it (the minority
knows will result in its defeat. Yet
the majority has it's rights which
may justly be enforced. So when it
realizes that legitimate arguments
have been fully presented and the
talk has degenerated into a fill
buster, its avOwed object to OBJ
Continued on page g.