The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
CLOTURE IN THE SENATE “ The minority veto in the Senate, with its power to prevent the majority from fulfilling its pledges to the American people, should end. The right to obstruct the public business by a factional filibuster must cease. The power of an individual Senator to coerce or blackmail the Senate must he terminated. These national evils can no longer be con cealed by the false cloak of ‘ freedom of debate.’ ” SPEEC H OP IION. ROBERT L. OWEN OF OKLAHOM A IX THE SENATE OF TIIE UNITED STATES JU LY 14, 1913 W A SH IN G T O N 21124— 123SG 1913 ==s S PEECH OF IION. R O B E R T L. O WE N . A M EN D M EN T OF T H E B U L E S. Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I offer tlie follow ing resolution fo r reference to the Committee on R u les: R e s o l v e d , That Rule X IX o f the standing rules o f the Senate be amended by adding the fo llo w in g : “ S ec . 0. That the Senate may at any time, upon m otion o f a Sena tor, fix a day and hour fo r a linal vote upon any matter pending in the S en a te: P r o v i d e d , h o w e v e r , That this rule shall not be invoked to pre vent debate by any Senator who requests opportunity to express his views upon such pending m atter w ithin a time to be fixed by the Senate. “ The notice to be given by the Senate under this section, except by consent, shall not be less than a week, unless such requests be made within the last two w'ecks o f the session.” For the foregoing stated purpose the follow in g rules, namely, V II, V III, IX . X, X II, X X II, X X V I, and X L, are m odified: “ A ny Senator may demand o f a Senator making a m otion if it be made fo r dilatory or obstructive purposes, and if the Senator making the motion declines or evades an answer or concedes the motion to have been made fo r such purposes, the President o f the Senate shall declare such m otion out o f order.” Mr. President, tlie m inority veto in the Senate, with its power to prevent the m ajority from fulfilling its pledges to the Am eri can people, should end. The right to obstruct the public business by a factional filibuster must cease. The power o f an individual Senator to coerce or blackmail the Senate must be terminated. These national evils can no longer be concealed by the false cloak o f “ freedom o f debate.” Those who defend the antiquated rule o f unlimited parlia mentary debate do so chiefly on the ground o f precedent. The precedents o f the intellectual world, o f the parliamentary world, are entirely against the preposterous rule which has been per mitted to survive in the United States Senate alone. W hat are the precedents o f other parliamentary bodies? PRECEDENTS. The precedents in the State o f Maine and in every New Eng land State, in every Atlantic State, in Gulf State, in every Pacific State, in every Rocky Mountain State, in every Missis sippi Valley State, and in every State bordering on Canada are against unlimited debate or the m inority veto. In both the sen ate and house o f every State the precedent is to the contrary. The precedent is against it in New Hampshire. The precedent is against it in Vermont. The precedent is against it in Massachusetts. The precedent is against it in Rhode Island and Connecticut. What Senator from the New England States w ill venture to say that the precedents o f every single one o f the New England States are unsound, unwise, and ought to be modified to conform to the superior wisdom o f the Senate rule? 21124— 1238G 3 4 The precedent is against it in New York, and in Pennsyl vania, and in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and W est Virginia. W hat Senator upon this floor representing these Commonwealths w ill venture to say that the people o f his State have adopted a false standard o f parliamentary practice which they ought to abandon for the superior virtue o f the minority veto established in the Senate by an archaic rule o f 1806? The precedent in North Carolina, in South Carolina, in Georgia, in Alabama, in Mississippi, and Tennessee is against it. W ill the Senators from these States say that the parliamentary rule and practice o f their own States, which they have the honor to represent upon this floor, are unwise and not safe and should be modified to comply with the superior rule o f the m inority veto? The precedents o f Louisiana, Michigan, Indiana. Illinois, and Kentucky, o f Missouri, Iow a, W isconsin, and Montana, o f the Dakotas, o f Nebraska, and Kansas, are all against this unwise practice o f the United States Senate. The precedents o f Colorado, Wyoming, and Minnesota, o f Idaho, o f Nevada, o f Arizona and New M exico, and o f the great Pacific States— Washington, Oregon, and C alifornia— provide for the closing o f debate and are against the evil practice which still remains in vogue in the United States Senate. Why, Mr. President, the precedent o f every city, big and little, in the United States is against the right o f m inority veto under the false pretense o f “ freedom o f debate.” Every one o f the 48 States o f the Union, while permitting freedom o f debate, has set us the wise and virtuous precedent o f permitting the control by the m ajority. I remind every Sena tor in this body that in his own State his legislative assembly, whether in the house or in the senate, does not permit a minor ity veto under the pretense o f freedom o f debate. It is the rule o f common sense and o f common honesty. In the House o f Representatives o f the Congress o f the United States the right to move the previous question and limit debate has been wisely and profitably practiced since its foundation. E N G L IS H L E E C E D E X T S. The rule o f the m ajority is the rule in all the parliaments o f English-speaking people. In the Parliament o f Great Britain, in the House o f Lords, the “ con ten ts” pass to the right and the “ not contents ” pass to the left, and the m ajority rules. In the House o f Commons the “ ayes ” pass to the right and the “ n o e s ” pass to the left, and the m ajority rules. (E n cyclo p edia Britanniea. vol. 20, p. 856.) The great English statesman, Mr. Gladstone, having found that the efficiency o f Parliament w as destroyed by the right o f unlimited debate, w as led to propose cloture in the first week o f the session o f 1882, moving this resolution on the 20th o f February, and expressing the opinion that the House should settle its own procedure. The acts o f Mr. Gladstone and others o f like opinion finally led to the termination o f unlimited de bate in the procedure o f Parliament. In these debates every fallacious argument now advanced by those who wish to retain unlimited debate in the United States Senate has been abun dantly answered, leaving no ground o f souud reasoning to recon sider these stale and exploded arguments. 21124— 1258C 5 The cloture o f debate is very commonly used in the Houses o f Parliament in Great Britain, for example, in standing order No. 26. The return to order o f the House o f Commons, dated December 12, 1906, shows that the cloture was moved 112 times. (See vol. 94, Great Britain House o f Commons, sessional papers, 1906.) FRAN CE. In France the cloture is moved by one or more members cry ing out “ La cloture ! ” The president immediately puts the question, and if a member o f the m inority wishes to speak he is allowed to assign his reasons against the close o f the debate, but no one can speak in support of the m otion and only one member against it. The question is then put by the president, “ Shall the debate be c lo s e d ? ” and if it is resolved in the affirmative the debate is closed and the main question is put to the vote. M. Guizot, speaking on the efficacy o f the cloture before a committee o f the House o f Commons in 1848, s a id : I think that in our chamber it was an indispensable power, and I think it has not been used unjustly or im properly generally. Calling to mind what has passed o f late years, I do not recollect any serious and honest com plaint o f the cloture. In the French Chamliers, as they have been during the last 34 years, no member can imagine that the debate would have been properly conducted w ithout the power o f pro nouncing the cloture. He also stated in another part o f his evidence that— Before the introduction o f the cloture in 1814 the debates were pro tracted indefinitely, and not only were they protracted, but at the end, when the m ajority wished to put an end to tne debate and the minority would not, the debate became very violent for protracting the debate, and out o f the house among the public is was a source of ridicule. The French also allow the previous question, and it can al ways be m oved; it can not be proposed on motions for which urgency is claimed, except after the report o f the committee o f initiative. (D ickinson's Itules and Procedure o f Foreign Par liaments, p. 426.) G ERM AN Y . The m ajority rule controls likewise in the German Empire and they have the cloture upon the support o f 30 members o f the house, which is immediately voted on at any time by a show o f hands or by the ayes and noes. AU ST R IA -H U N G A R T . In Austria-Hungary motions for the closing o f the debate are to be put to the vote at once by the president w ithout any question, and thereupon the matter is determined. I f the ma jority decides for a close o f the debate, the members whose names are put down to speak fo r or against the motions may choose from amongst them one speaker on each side, and the matter is disposed o f by voting a simple yes or no. (Ibid., p. 404.) A U S T R IA . Austria also, in its independent houses o f Parliament, has the cloture, which may be put to the vote at any time in both houses, and a small m ajority suffices to carry it. This is done, however, without interrupting any speech in actual course o f delivery; and when the vote to close the debate is passed each side has one member represented in a final speech on the ques tion. (Ibid., p. 409.) 21124— 12586 Iii Belgium they have the cloture, and if the prime minister and president o f the Chamber are satisfied that there is need o f closing the debate a hint is given to some member to raise the cry o f “ La cloture,” after a member o f the opposition has con cluded his speech, and upon the demand o f 10 members, grant ing permission, however, to speak for or against the motion under restrictions. The method here does not prevent any rea sonable debate, but permits a termination o f the debate by the w ill o f the m ajority. The same rule is follow ed in the Senate o f Belgium. (D ickinson’s Rules and Procedure o f Foreign Par liaments, p. 420.) In Denmark also they have the cloture, which can be pro posed by the president o f the Danish chambers, which is decided by the chamber without debate. Fifteen members o f the Landsthing may demand the cloture. (Ibid., p. 422.) N E TH E R L A N D S. In both houses o f the Parliament o f Netherlands they have the cloture. Five members o f the First Chamber m ay propose it and five members may propose it in the Second Chamber. They have the m ajority rule. (Ibid., p. 401.) PORTU GAL. In Portugal they have the cloture in both chambers, and de bate may be closed by a special motion, without discretion. In the upper house they permit two to speak in favor o f and two against it. The cloture may be voted. (Ibid., p. 469.) S P A IN . The cloture in Spain may be said to exist indirectly, and to result from the action allowed the president on the order o f parliamentary discussion. (Ibid., p. 477.) S W IT ZE R L A N D . The cloture exists in Switzerland both in the Conseil des Etats and Conseil National. Many o f the ablest and best Senators who have ever been members o f this body have urged the abatement o f this evil, including such men as Senator George G. Vest, o f M issouri; Senator Orville H. Platt, o f Connecticut; Senator D avid B. H ill, o f New Y ork ; Senator George F. Hoar, o f M assachusetts; and Senator H enry C abot L odge, o f Massachusetts, who in troduced resolutions or spoke fo r the amendment o f this evil practice o f the Senate. (Appendix. Note A .) Mr. President, the time has come in the history o f the United States when Congress shall be directly responsive to the w ill o f the m ajority o f 90,000.000 o f people without delay, evasion, or obstruction. W e are in the midst o f the most gigantic cen tury in the history o f the world, when every reason looking to the w elfare and advance o f the human race bids us march fo r w ard in compliance w ith the magnificent intelligence and humane impulses o f the Am erican people. W e have the most important problems before us— financial, commercial, sociological. Fifteen great propositions o f improve ment o f government were pledged by the recent I>emocratic platform , and almost a like number were pledged by other party platforms. W e have work to do that means the preserva tion, the conservation, and the development o f human life, o f 21124— 12586 I 7 human energy, o f human health. W e have before us the great problem s which mean the development o f this vast country, and we should have the machinery o f government by which to respond with reasonable promptitude to mature public opinion, but the rules o f the Senate have been such as to prevent a ctio n ; the rules o f the Senate are such as to prevent action now w ith regard to the great questions before the country. The rules o f the Senate have put the power in the hands o f a small faction or o f a single individual to obstruct, without reason, and to pre vent action by Congress. I favor the right o f the m ajority of the Senate to control the Senate after giving every reasonable freedom o f debate to the opposition, so that the people o f the country may have both sides o f every proposition. But I am strongly opposed to the m inority veto, or to a single Senator obstructing and preventing the control o f the Senate by the responsible m ajority. In a short session o f Congress the Senate w ill appropriate a thousand million dollars in less than 350 working hours. Each w orking hour means the appropriation o f $3,000,000 o f the hardearned taxes taken from the labor o f the Am erican people. Every two minutes the Senate averages an appropriation o f $100,000 o f taxes, and yet, instead o f addressing itself to a comprehension o f the necessity for such taxes, fo r such expendi ture, a single Senator, or a small faction or a m inority, may detain the Senate fo r hours and for days and for weeks while great questions o f public policy wait, leaving the Senate to be thus distracted by filibustering tactics, discussions o f immate rial or trivial matters, reading o f worthless papers and statis tics— in a deliberate obstruction o f the m ajority by the minority. EX TR E M E D IF F IC U L T Y I X O B T A IN IN G L E G ISL A T IO N TITAT IS OF V A L U E , EVEN W IT H O U T A F IL IB U S T E R . C O N FESSE D LY Mr. President, before a bill can be passed that is desired by the Am erican people, no matter how worthy, it must first be carefully drawn, submitted to the House o f Representatives, and by the House submitted to a committee, and almost inva riably such a bill is sent from the committee o f the House to the executive department fo r a report; and when the report comes in it is considered in the committee, and finally and usually, where the m ajority desires the bill passed, it w ill be reported back to the House—abundant opportunity having been thus given to discover its weak points or defects. When it goes to the House it takes its place upon the calen dar and awaits the time with patience when it can be taken up on the calendar. It must be read three times in the House, it must be printed, it is discussed in the House, and. finally, if after having passed every criticism and scrutiny it be approved by the m ajority o f the House, it is signed by the Speaker and finds its w ay to the United States Senate. When it reaches the Senate it is again sent to a committee, the committee further considers it, and, finally, if a m ajority favor, it is reported back to the Senate to take its place upon the calendar. And many a good bill has died on the calendar in the Senate because o f a single objection to it— what might be called the private right o f veto by an individual Senator. I f at last it is permitted, by consent, to come before the Senate and does not excite any prolonged de ll 1124— 12580 bate, it may become a law by reason o f a m ajority vote o f those present. But if anywhere along the line o f this slow, deliberate procedure any serious objection is raised by a minority or by a Senator either can by dilatory motions, by insisting upon hearings, by making the point o f “ no quorum,” by using a Senator’s right to object and demand the regular order, by using his position to ask reconsideration and a rehearing, or, perhaps, an additional report from the executive department, and then demanding hearings in the executive department while the report is delayed, and in a thousand other ingenious ways a single Senator, much less a faction or w illful minority, can make it almost impossible to pass a bill o f great merit. For three years I have been trying to pass a bill to establish an improved organization o f the Bureau o f Public Health and have been unable to get any action for or against by Congress. I only refer to this as an example o f many meritorious meas ures which have never been acted upon, and for which there is a powerful matured public sentiment urgently insisting upon action. The Senate o f the United States has rules for its conduct that make it almost impossible to get a bill through, except by unani mous consent, where a resolute m inority is opposed to the pas sage o f the bill. Under the so-called privilege o f “ freedom o f debate ” a group o f Senators can hold up any measure indefi nitely by endless talk in relays and by the use o f dilatory mo tions, making the point o f “ no quorum,” moving to “ adjourn,” moving to “ take a recess,” moving to “ adjourn to a day cer tain,” reading fo r an hour or so from Martin Chuzzlewit or Pickwick Papers, making the point o f “ no quorum,” moving to “ adjourn,” making the point o f “ no quorum,” moving to “ ad journ to a day certain,” moving to “ take a recess,” moving to go into “ executive session,” and, under the rules, may read a few chapters o f Huckleberry Finn— and this puerile conduct is dignified by the false pretense o f being “ freedom o f debate,” when, in point o f fact, it is nothing o f the kind. It is the minority obstruction and the personal veto under the pretense o f freedom o f debate, under the false pretense o f freedom o f debate, under the contemptible and odious pretense o f freedom o f debate. It is not freedom o f debate. The country has been very greatly harmed under the pres ent rules, as I shall show before this debate concludes. At present I am simply laying a preamble for the consideration o f this matter. It is going to take much time. It is going to be debated at considerable length in this body. It is going before the country fo r the country to determine whether or not men shall be permitted by the people o f the United States to stand upon the floor o f the Senate and favor the control o f the m ajority by the m inority and favor a policy o f making it im possible fo r party pledges to be carried out in this Republic. I w ill not say there is not the possibility, under some circum stances. o f some good ensuing from a vigorous protest by the minority. I am perfectly willing to agree to that. But yielding that point in no way affects the validity o f the argument that the m ajority should be charged with the responsibility o f gov2 112 4 — 12080 9 em inent; and I in no wise m odify the comment I have made upon the' odious pretense o f “ freedom o f debate ” in this body, which has served as a cloak for a m inority veto and for im proper processes in this body. I say it is not freedom o f debate. The minority veto is, in effect, a denial o f freedom o f debate. A man in charge o f an important bill is driven to refrain from debating the bill because he would be playing into the hands o f the opponents o f the bill, who are trying to kill the bill by exhausting the patience o f the Senate by endless volubility and unending dilatory motions. This thoughtless rule o f unlimited freedom o f debate was adopted in 180G, when there were 34 Senators, who met together to discuss their common affairs in courtesy and good faith, when only a very few bills were brought before the Senate. They had no conception that unlimited freedom o f debate really meant a minority veto. Now that the Senate has 9G Members, repre senting 90,000,000 people, when its interests are o f the most gigantic importance, when its modern problems o f stupendous consequence are demanding prompt and virile action, when hun dreds o f important bill3 are pending, this hoary-headed repro bate rises up and strikes a posture o f inscrutable wisdom and admonishes the w orld not to touch this sacred principle o f un limited “ freedom o f debate.” The venerable age o f this foolish precedent shall not save it from the ju st charge o f im becility and legislative vice. The power to obstruct the w ill o f the people by the Senate rules is the last ditch o f privilege. In the House o f Representatives the party in power w ith its m ajority is carrying out the w ill o f the m ajority, per mitting reasonable debate and wide publicity to the views o f all Members. But in the Senate, while we have reorganized the committees and have made important improvements in the rules, there still remains the point o f unlimited debate, o f ir relevant debate, o f dilatory motions, whereby the minority can still prevent the action o f the m ajority placed in power by the people. The United States Senate is the only place where the people’s w ill can be successfully thwarted, and here it can be obstructed and denied by delays, by dilatory motions, by irrele vant debate, and unlimited discussion. It is easy to pass unobjected bills in the Senate; and there are a great many bills that are brought up in the Senate that are unobjected bills. But I w ill say that objected bills do not pass through the Senate. The new m ajority o f the Senate is honestly pledged to the people’s cause, and they must carry out their pledges if they wish to retain the approval o f the people o f the United States. I am in favor o f m ajority rule. I am in favor o f making the national w ill immediately effec tive. I am in favor o f the Senate o f the United States having the opportunity to do the things required by our great Nation. I am opposed to the m inority veto. I am opposed to the discouragement o f honest discussion by the invitation to minority filibuster which this rule o f unlimited debate invites. 21124— 1258G I am opposed to legislative blackmail, which this rule o f un limited debate encourages, for w e have all seen the Senate con sent to appropriations and important amendments to important bills which ought not to have been made, but which were made rather than jeopardize the bill by the endless debate o f a Senator proposing and insisting on an amendment. The m inority veto permits the m ajority to be blackmailed on the most important measures in order to conciliate the un ju st demands o f the minority. The time has come to end this sort o f unwise parliamentary procedure with its train o f evil consequences. I believe in the freedom o f debate. I invite the freedom o f debate, but liberty is one thing and gross abuse o f liberty is another thing. Freedom o f debate is a valuable principle, wrnrthy o f careful preservation, for the m ajority is often in structed by the m inority; but freedom o f debate is one thing, and uncontrolled time-killing talk and unrestrained verbosity used to enforce a factional veto is another thing. The amendment to Rule X I X which I have proposed does not prevent reasonable debate by any Senator, but it does permit the m ajority, after due notice, to bring a matter to a conclusion whenever it has become obvious that the debate is not sincere, but is intended to enforce a m inority veto. Senator Vest, December 5, 1894, well sa id: That these rules “ coerce the Senators in charge o f a bill into silence.” That “ with the people o f the United States demanding action we have rules here that absolutely prevent it.” That these rules “ facilitate parliamentary blackmail.” That the history o f the Senate is full o f important amend ments being put upon important bills, “ under the threat that unless placed there the debate would be indefinite and almost, interminable.” This rule has brought the Senate o f the United States into disrepute, has greatly diminished its Influence, has given it the reputation o f being an obstructive body, and many men have been led to believe that the Senate was coerced and controlled by a corrupt minority. Certain it is that if a m inority can exercise the veto, the corrupt interests o f the country could well afford com m ercially to promote the election o f men to the floor o f the Senate, so as to obstruct legislation to which they objected. It is the result o f these very rules which has led the people o f the United States to demand by a unanimous voice the direct election o f Senators, so as to bring public pressure o f the sovereign people on individual Members o f the Senate, and com pel them to respect the wishes o f the people, under penalty o f retirement from public life. I pause here to say that for 90 years the people o f this country have been trying to establish the rule o f direct election o f Senators, and it has always been the Senate that has pre vented the people from having their will with regard to this matter. Five times the measure passed the House o f Repre sentatives, the last tw o times almost by a unanimous vote o f the Members representing the people o f this country in the various congressional districts; yet the Senate stood like a 21124— 12586 11 stone wall, refusing under these rules to carry out the w ill o f the people o f the United States. The same thing has been measurably true in regard to many other important items. I venture now, Mr. President, seriously and solemnly to remind every Senator upon this floor who votes against this pro vision, who votes against m ajority rule in the Senate, who votes against a reasonable control by the Senate itself o f its own deliberations, that he w ill have to answer for such vote before the people o f his State, who will in the future elect the Senators by direct vote o f the people and who will nominate them by direct vote o f the people. And the Senator who by virtue o f any precedent or prejudice opposes in this body the free right o f the m ajority to rule w ill invite defeat by the m ajority o f the people in his own State, who surely believe in m ajority rule and w ill resent the support o f minority rule by their Senators on this floor. I have no fear o f m ajority rule. I never have been afraid o f m ajority rule. The only thing we need to fear is the rule o f the m inority by artifice and by wrongdoing. And I say frankly to my colleagues from the South that the black-and-white scarecrow o f the force bill is a ghost for which I have no respect. W e are entering a new era o f m ajority rule, which w ill deal justly and generously to rich and to poor alike, and with equal generosity, justice, and mercy to men o f the black race, as well as to the men o f the white race or to any other race. W e need have no fear o f m ajority rule. Mr. President, I wish it to be clearly understood that my demand for a change o f the rules o f the Senate is not at all due to the idea that the adoption o f such a rule is necessary in order to pass the tariff bill or any other particular bill pending or to be brought forw ard. My reason for this demand is that I think the w elfare o f the Nation requires it ; that the right o f the Am erican people to a prompt redemption o f party prom ises is involved. The right o f the American people to have their will expressed at the polls promptly carried out I regard as an imperative mandate from a Nation o f 90.000.000 people, and I think that a Senator who stands in the way o f that man date fails to perceive his duty to our great Nation, and that he should not be surprised if the m ajority, who will in future nominate Senators and elect Senators, w ill hold him to a strict account fo r a denial o f the right o f the m ajority to rule. I remind the Senate that in three years over 30 living Sena tors who opposed the wishes o f the American people for the direct election o f Senators have been retired by the people. * P A R T Y PLEDG ES. The Dem ocratic Party makes certain pledges to the people and appeals to the people for their support upon these pledges promised to be perform ed; the Republican Party does likew ise; yet neither party, if in a m ajority, can control the Senate so long as the m inority veto remains as a part o f the rules o f the Senate. I f this rule is not changed, then both parties in future campaigns should put the follow ing proviso as an addenda to their national party p la tform s: P r o v i d e d , h o w e v e r , That in making the above pledges to the American people it is distinctly to be understood by the people, that we make these pledges on the understanding that the opposite party does not forbid us to carry out our promises by obstructing the fulfillment o f our promise 2 1 1 2 4 — 1258G / to you by filibustering in the Senate, in which event we will agree to sustain the right o f the opposite party to veto the redemption o f our pledges to you, by leaving the rules o f the Senate in such a condition that the opposing party may veto our effort to redeem the promises made to you. I f the party trusted by the people is so imbecile as to leave the Senate itself subject to the veto o f the defeated party, it will deserve future defeat for such perfidious conduct. The people o f the United States have the right to rely upon the party placed by them in power to fulfill the party pledges made to the people, aud if the leaders o f both parties connive w ith each other in the Senate to sustain the m inority veto under the pretense o f “ freedom o f debate,” they w ill have betrayed the promises made to the people, both expressed and implied. I f this rule be not changed so as to establish m ajority rule in the Senate, and so as to enable either party to carry out its promises to the American people, then neither party responsible fo r such conduct deserves the confidence o f the people o f the United States, and the people may well say in regard to party promises made under such circumstances, as said by Macbeth in the w itches’ scene— And be these juggling fiends no more believ’d That palter with us in a double sen se; That keep the word o f promise to our ear And break it to our hope. Senator Vest, o f Missouri, in 1S93 introduced the follow ing resolution, the most moderate form o f terminating so-called de bate (C ongressional Record, p. 45, Dec. 5, 1S94) : Amendment intended to be proposed to the rules o f the Senate, namely, add to Rule I the follow in g section : “ S kc. 2. W henever any bill, motion, or resolution is pending before the Senate as unfinished business and the same shall have been debated on divers days, am ounting in all to 30, it shall be in order for any Senator to move that a time be fixed for the taking a vote upon such bill, motion, or resolution, and such motion shall not be amendable or debatable, but shall be immediately p u t : and if adopted by a m ajority vote o f all the Members o f the Senate, the vote, upon such bill, motion, or resolution, with all the amendments thereto which may have been proposed at the time o f such motion, shall be had at the date fixed in such original m otion without further debate or amendment, except by unanimous consent, and during the pendency o f such motion to fix a date, and also at the time fixed by the Senate for voting upon such bill, motion, or resolution no other business o f any kind or character shall be entertained, except by unanimous consent, until such motion, bill, or resolution shall have been finally acted upon.” Hon. Orville H. Platt, on September 21, 1893, introduced the follow ing resolution (p. 163G ): W henever any bill or resolution is pending before the Senate as unfinished business the presiding officer shall, upon the written request o f a m ajority o f the Senators, fix a day and hour, and notify the Sen ate thereof, when general del>ate shall cease thereon, which time shall not be less than five days from the submission o f such request, and he shall also fix a subsequent day and hour, and notify the Senate thereof, when the vote shall be taken on the bill or resolution and any amendment thereto w ithout further debate, the time for taking the vote to be not more than tw o days later than the time when general debate is to cease, and in the interval between the closing o f general debate and the taking o f the vote no Senator shall speak more than five minutes, nor more than once upon the same proposition. And, among other things, s a id : The rules o f the Senate, as of every legislative body, ought to fa cili tate the transaction o f business. I think that proposition will not be denied. The rules o f the Senate as they stand to-day make it im possible or nearly impossible to transact business. I think that propo sition will not be denied. We as a Senate are fa st losing the respect 21124— 12586 13 o f the people o f the United States. W e are fa st being considered a body that exists for the purpose o f retarding and obstructing legislation. We are being compared in the minds o f the people o f this country to the House o f Lords irt England, and the reason fo r it is that under our rules it is impossible or nearly impossible to obtain action when there is any considerable opposition to a bill here. I think that I may safely say that there is a large m ajority upon this side o f the Senate who would favor the adoption o f such a rule at the present time. Mr. Hoar, o f Massachusetts, 1893, submitted to the committee a proposed substitute, as follow s (p. 1637) : R e s o l v e d , T hat the rules o f the Senate be amended by adding the fo llo w in g : “ When any hill or resolution shall have been under consideration fo r more than one day it shall be in order fo r any Senator to demand that debate thereon be closed. I f such demand be seconded by a m ajority o f the Senators present, the question shall forthw ith be taken thereon w ithout further debate, and the pending measure shall take precedence o f all other business whatever. I f the Senate shall decide to close debate, the question shall be put upon the pending amendments, upon amendments o f which notice shall then be given, and upon the measure in its successive stages according to the rules of the Senate, but w ithout further debate, except that every Senator who may desire shall be permitted to speak upon the measure not more than once and not exceeding one hour. “ A fter such demand shall have been made by any Senator no other m otion shall be in order until the same shall have been voted upon by the Senate, unless the same shall fail to be seconded. “ A fter the Senate shall have decided to close debate no motion shall be in order, but a m otion to adjourn or to take a recess, when such m otion shall be seconded by a m ajority o f the Senate. When either o f said motions shall have been lost or shall have failed o f a second it shall not be in order to renew the same until one Senator shall have spoken upon the pending measure or one vote upon the same shall have intervened. “ For the foregoing stated purpose the follow in g rules, namely, V II, V III, IX . X, X II, X IX , X X II, X X V II, X X V III, X X X V , and XL, are modified.” Mr. L odge , o f Massachusetts, also then, as now, Senator o f the United States from Massachusetts, supported this proposal, using the follow ing language (p. 1637) : It is because I believe that the moment fo r action has arrived that I desire now simply to say a word expressive o f my very strong belief in the principle o f the resolution offered by the Senator from Connecti cut, Mr. Flatt. We govern in this country in our representative bodies by voting and debate. It is most desirable to have them both. Both are o f great im portance. But i f we are to have only one. then the one which leads to action is the more important. To vote without debating may be hasty, may be ill considered, may be rash, but to debate and never vote is imbecility. I am well aware that there are measures now pending, measures with reference to the tariff, which I consider more injurious to the country than the financial measure now before us. I am aware that there is a measure which has been rushed into the House o f Representa tives at the very moment when they are calling on us Republicans for nonpartisanship which is partisan in the highest degree and which in volves evils which I regard as infinitely worse than anything that can arise from any econom ic measure, because it is a blow at human rights and personal liberty. I know that those measures are at hand. I know that such a rule as is now proposed will enable a m ajority surely to put them through this body after due debate and will lodge in the hands o f a m ajority the power and the high responsibility which I believe the m ajority ought alw ays to have. But, Mr. President, I do not shrink from the conclusion in the least. I f It is right now to take a step like this, as I believe it is. in order to pass a measure which the whole country is demanding, then, as it seems to me. it is right to pass it for all measures. I f it is not right fo r this measure, then it is not right to pass it for any other. I believe that the most im portant principle in our Government is that the m ajority should rule. It is for that reason that I have done what lay in my power to promote what I thought was for the protection o f 21124— 12580 u elections, because I think the m ajority should rule at the ballot box. I think equally that the m ajority should rule on this floor— not by violent methods, but by proper dignified rules, such as are proposed by my colleague and by the Senator from Connecticut. The country demands action and we give them words. For these reasons, Mr. President, I have ventured to detain the Senate in order to express my most cordial approbation o f the principle involved in the proposed rules which have ju st been referred to the committee. Senator David B. Hill, o f New York (1893), proposed the fo l low ing amendment (p. 1G39) : Add to Rule IX the follow in g section : “ S ec . 2. W henever any bill or resolution is pending before the Sen ate as unfinished business and the same shall have been debated on divers days amounting in all to 30 days, it shall be in order for any Senator to move to fix a date for the taking o f a vote upon such bill or resolution, and such motion shall not be amended or debatable; and if passed by a m ajority o f all the Senators elected the vote upon such bill or resolution, with all the amendments -thereto which may be pending at the time o f such m otion, shall be immediately had w ithout further debate o r amendment, except by unanimous consent.” Only last Congress, April G, 1911, the distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. B o o t , introduced the follow ing resolu tion : R e s o l v e d , That the Committee on Rules be, and it is hereby, instructed to report fo r the consideration o f the Senate a rule or rules to secure more effective control by the Senate over its procedure, and especially over its procedure upon conference reports and upon bills which have been passed by the House and have been favorably reported in the Sen ate. (C o n g r e s s io n a l R ec or d , vol. 47, pt. 1, p. 107.) 21124— 12586 o
@FedFRASER