Evening star., 1949-03-15
Senate Debate Limit Held
Not Needed for Security
Other Effective Measures Could Be
Taken to Insure u. S. Safety
The Political Mill
Rv Gould LincoLn

By Gould Lincoln
The argument that old-time freedom and
unlimited debate in the Senate must be
sacrificed on the altar Of national security
has persuasive sound. It might occur to
those who make the argument, however,
that there are other. more effective meas
ures which could be taken to insure national
security without disturbing unlimited de.
bate in the Senate.
For example. the establishment of uni
versal military training system, providing
for . huge reserve force which under law
might be called into service by the President
the moment this country is attacked, would
be far more effective than choking of
debate in the Senate so that legislation
could be quickly enacted to begin to train
men for war.
Further, If this country is attacked, the
President and the armed forces of the
United States do not .laave to wait for
congressional action to fight back There
is no slightest doubt that the armed sery-
Ices have perfected plans for waging effec-
tive warfare against Russia. or some other
country. which would be put into effect i'm.
med1ately II Russia should attack this coun.
try. 1t would be bold Senator who rose to
filibuSter against a measure for national
defense after an attack has been made by
an enemy on the United States-indeed,
the supposition that Senator would fol-
low such course can be relegated to the
category OF suppositions contrary to fact.
Political Motives.
AS has been pointed out in recent debate
In the Senate over a proposal to make an
1ronclad rule to limit debate-and some
have urged a majority cloture-the rule of
unlimited debate has neither prevented at
tack on this country, nor has it prevented
Immediate hx,
armed forces. declaration of war by
Congress has followed actual hostilities in
Two great wars of the last half century,
And there has been no sign of q f1libuster
IN the Senate after hostilities were under
way.
The battle to break down the rule of
free and Unlimited debate springs, in the
present instance. from political motives. Al
though opponents Of unlimited debate and
the flibuster argue that efficiency of gov.
ernment and national security are involved,
there is no reason to believe the battle over
the Senate rules would have been started
at this time, or in this Congress, had 1T
not been for President Truman's campaign
pledge to put through his civil rights pro-
gram. including anti-lynching. anti-pol tax
and pro-fair- r-employment- practices legisla-
ton, buttressed by similar promises made by
the Republicans in that campaign.
The one time that national defense was
IN particular jeopardy on Capitol Hill was
In the House of Representatives where
there are the strictest rules to bring an end
to debate. That was in the summer before
the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. when
the House by only the barest kind of ma
jority was able to pass a bill continuing
the Selective Service Act, then about to ex.
pire. That was the law which made it pos.
sible for this country to respond much more
quickly to that attack.
Not Held Up BY Filibuster.
:" No flibuster in the Senate held it UP.
The national security argument against un-
limited debate in the Senate seems q bit
idle in view. of the record. 1t is true. that
In piping times of peace-if they ever come
again-a group Of pacifists in the Senate
might undertake a dlibuster against ma.
tional preparedness measure. But If ma.
jority Of the Senate favored the legislation,
in peacetime, it would have the time as well
as the inclination to break such fllibuster.
To give up freedom of debate, admittedly
a weapon which may be used effectively by
a minority to stall off legislation which they
deem harmful to their States and consti.
tuencies, or to the country as whole, in
search of so-called efficiency of government
does not add up to much. Nor does it seem
more undemocratic for third of the Senate
plus one or even for smaller group Of
Senators, to veto the demand of the ma.
jority especially for class legislation) than
it is undemocratic for single man, the
President, to thwart the will of the ma
jority as expressed by Congress, when he
vetoes bill passed by both houses.
A dictatorship may be more efficient than
a democracy-but is that good reason for
urging measures which at least lead the way
tnws ri dictatnrshin2