St. Paul recorder. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1957-07-05

| not do so ordinarily. I recognize
| mat most Of the rules are not an
| phed too rigidly, but when we are
faced with a difficult situation or
! controversy, the rules are applied
rigidly and firmly and, 1 trust al
way equitably.
might not like rule XIV If IL
were applied TO a bill to which
personally was opposed. am hui
man, | have my prejudices I have
my likes and disliles. II is en-
urely possible that il this rule
were applied to a bill to which ]
had serious opposition I would ar
que against the use of the rule,
saying many of the things which
have been said here today, but
that would still not mean that the
rule was not valid.
I do not like some aspects of
rule XXI Let me say that before
the present rule xxi was adopt
ed ii was necessary, apparently,
to revise the former rule on clo-
ture. Someone thought that IL had
loophole in IL. and that person
thought about II and made ii a
reality. Therefore we tried TO re-
wise the rule on cloture. We adopt
ed a compromise which was sup
posed to remedy a loophole. In
stead, we built a tunnel in the
rules Of the Senate.
/ have heard argument after ar
gument made about how we ought
to proceed through the Rules
Committee. I have always argued
that way myself. I think the Com
mittee on Rules and Administra-
ton may at long last come forth
with a rule. We have waited a
long time.
I say to my friends in the Sen
ate, who contend that rule XIV
supercedes rule XIV that the bur
den of proof is indeed upon them.
OF course, the rules which were
changed by the Legislative Reor-
ganiZation Act were changed
specifically by direct reference,
and not by innuendo or indirec-
ton. The only question one can
ask is, Does rule XIV supercede
rule XIV because the two are in
consistent?
think the truth is that rule
XIV stays intact.
There has been some argument
made today that the procedure
suggested would deny the Judici-
airy Committee judgement on the
House bill.
Let us take look at that argu-
ment. / repeat-and l believe the
record will bear me out-that
there is a bill before the commit
tee upon which hearings have been
held II is a bill which is identical
with the bill which was introduce
ed in the House of Representa-
tives, upon which hearings were
held by the House Committee and
which was passed by the House,
Has the Senate Committee on
the Judiciary heard all the facts
that ought to be heard on the So
called administrators civil rights
bill?
If there is any more evidence to
be obtained, l wish somebody
would bring it forth. Hearings,
hearings, hearings, and hearings.
Testimony at great length The
Committee on the Judiciary has
not been denied the opportunity
to make a judgement on any bill.
The Committee on the judiciary,
regret to say has refused to make
a judgement on a bill; it has not
been denied the opportunity. 1t
simply has not judged-and jus
tice delayed, gentlemen, is justice
denied. I repeat: Justice delayed is
justice denied.
The rules have been used in the
Judiciary Committee. The rules
have been applied in the Judiciary
Committee. / am not complaining
about the fact that the committee
has applied the rules. am happy
the committee has applied the
rules. But I say to my friends who
have applied the rules in the Ju-
dietary Committee that some Of us
do not like il. The committee has
been meticulous about the detail
II has followed in the application