The Knowland rule is essentially the same one that was in effect in the Senate from 1917 to 1949. There were 19 attempts to cut off debate during that time. Only 4 of the 19 attempts were successful. The Knowland rule obviously would still give the filibusterers a good deal of leeway.

Another possible approach is one backed by Senators Paul Douglas, Democrat, of Illinois, and Wayne Morse, Democrat, of Oregon. It would enable debate to be cut off by simple majority vote of the Senate, but only after a waiting period of 15 days, excluding Sundays and holidays, to assure full debate.

The Wall Street Journal sees a danger in majority rule, pointing out there are times when a minority speaks with greater wisdom. There is danger in majority rule, to be sure. It is present every time an election is held or a legislature meets. But there are greater dangers in minority rule. Democracy assumes that by and large majorities will make the right decisions, or be capable of correcting the wrong decisions. The House of Representatives does not permit a willful minority to prevent majority sentiment from being expressed, nor does the British Parliament, which has effective means of dealing with filibusters.

Proponents of a meaningful antifilibuster rule do not want to prevent minority views from being expressed, nor to enforce silence. Some, like Senators Morse and Douglas, have themselves taken part in prolonged debate in which they represented the minority view. The issue is not whether the minority should be heard, but whether after it is heard, there should be opportunity for the ayes and nays to be counted.

[From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette of January 8, 1957]

FIGHTING THE FILIBUSTER

By a parliamentary end run the Senate has voted to retain the filibuster for another session, though there may still be some effort made to weaken it a little. However, the dispute between those who would stop the filibuster-which is an effort to prevent law-making by talk and other tactics of delay-and those who would continue it did produce a valuable opinion from the Chief Officer of the Senate, Vice President Nixon. The opinion establishes a favorable precedent for those who want to forbid a minority to defeat legislation desired by a majority. The villain of the filibuster piece is Senate rule XXII, which sets almost impossible conditions for bringing debate to a close. Under this rule a determined filibuster cannot be shut off without the votes of 64 Senators. This means, for practical purposes, that civil-rights legislation can never get through the Senate because 22 Southern Senators plus 11 other Senators allied with them can frustrate the majority. And, it should be noted, a Senator who is absent, by design or debility, automatically strengthens the minority by 1 vote.

The arch villain of the filibuster piece is section 3 of rule XXII. This says that no limit of any kind can be imposed on debate when the Senate is considering a change in its rules. Thus, rule XXII, adopted in 1949, could not be revised so long as a handful of Senators-say, half a dozen-resolved to block the revision. If rule XXII puts civil-rights legislation in the coffin, section 3 nails, rivets, and welds the coffin shut.

It was on section 3 that Vice President Nixon was requested to give an opinion in the course of debate last week. He opined that the section is contrary to the Constitution, which states that each House of Congress "may determine the rules of its proceedings." Said the Vice President: "This constitutional right is lodged in the membership of the Senate and it may be exercised by a majority of the Senate at any time * **the Senate should not be bound *** by any rule which denies the membership of the Senate the power to exercise its constitutional right to make its own rules."

The Senate as a whole is the ultimate judge of the constitutionality at issue. Mr. Nixon's opinion, however, has encouraged opponents of the filibuster and lends hope that one day, by a decided attack on section 3, the campaign against the filibuster may drive on to victory.

[From the New York Times of January 8, 1957]

FIGHTING THE FILIBUSTER

New life to the movement to restore democracy with a small "d" to the Senate of the United States has been given by two unexpected developments in the fight 93635-57--5

against the filibuster. It now appears that there may actually be a chance to curb this weapon, the very threat of which has paralyzed senatorial freedom of action for so many years.

One hopeful factor is the astonishing size of the vote last week against killing a proposal to consider changes in the Senate rules. No fewer than 38 Senators-18 more than in 1953, when a similar motion was defeated-opposed the move of the Democratic and Republican leadership to continue with the same old rules under which it is almost impossible to shut off a filibuster. If 2 absentees and Senator-elect Javits had been present, the opposition to the leadership would have numbered 41-22 Democrats and 19 Republicans. In other words, a switch of only 7 or 8 votes would have done the trick. This is too close a margin for the comfort of the reactionary southern Democratic, midwestern Republican coalition that has held sway in the Senate for so long. It spells the end of the rules protecting and nourishing the filibuster-if not at this session, then surely in the relatively near future.

The other new and encouraging factor is the opinion that Vice President Nixon gave from his chair as presiding officer of the Senate. In answer to a parlia'mentary inquiry, the Vice President held in a precedent-setting opinion that under the Constitution a majority of the Senate has the right to adopt new rules at any time. As we suggested on this page last month, the language of article I, section 5-"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings"-plainly means that each Senate has the right to adopt new rules or revise the old ones if it wants to. If this is so, then what we called the built-in filibuster machine of rule XXII, forbidding any curtailment whatsoever of debate on a motion to consider changes in the rules, is invalid. That is the way the Vice President sees it, and we think he is right. Under the special arrangements cooked up by the majority leader last week, a test of this issue did not directly arise; but it surely will when the question is debated again. The Vice President's opinion, while not necessarily binding, is of great importance in opening the way to a change in the rules, which can only mean a weakening of the heretofore unassailable bulwark of the filibuster.

[From the Minneapolis Morning Tribune of January 7, 1957]

NIXON VERSUS FILIBUSTER

Vice President Nixon has greatly improved his standing among the liberals as a result of last week's unsuccessful fight to change the Senate rules.

The fight, in essence, was a fight against the filibuster and for civil-rights legislation. Its immediate target was rule XXII, which requires a two-third vote of the entire Senate to end debate. This rule has not only effectively blocked civil-rights legislation, it has been self-perpetuating in the sense that there is no way to shut off debate on any proposed change.

Last Friday Nixon, as Presiding Officer of the upper House, admitted that the Senate was a continuing body, since two-thirds of its Members hold over from one session to another. But he expressed the opinion that "the majority of the new existing membership, under the Constitution, have the power to determine the rules under which the Senate will proceed."

This opinion did not move the Senate to adopt new rules. But it gave new strength and heart to the move to curb the filibuster power. Nixon had dealt a heavy blow at the absurd notion that the Senate, because it was a continuing body, was not entitled to revise its own rules by majority vote. He had to put the weight of his influence and prestige on the side of civil-rights legislation. By doing so, he inevitably gained stature among Negro voters, many of whom had already deserted their traditional Democratic allegiance to vote Republican last November.

It is no secret that some of Nixon's enemies would have liked to see him emerge from Friday's test as an archconservative who had offended large groups of voters interested in civil rights. Instead, the Vice President entered the civil-rights arena more nearly resembling a knight in shining armor. This was not quite the case with Senator Knowland, Republican minority leader, who voted against the rules-changing motion. But even Knowland has promised that he will propose, and seek support for, a plan for relaxing rule XXII.

The tide of Senate opinion against this oppressive rule is rising fast, and it is a bipartisan tide. Both Senators Humphrey and Thye voted for a revision of the rules Friday and Nixon's opinion is likely to have far-reaching repercussions. The Senate will some day rise up and strike off the self-imposed shackles of the filibuster. That happy day, in fact, may be just around the corner.

[From the Hartford (Conn.) Courant of November 27, 1956]

ANOTHER ASSAULT ON THE FILIBUSTER

A parliamentary body must operate under rules to achieve orderly and continuing progress in the making of laws. But rules are not always used to guide progress. They are often invoked as obstacles in the path of proposed legislation. A determined minority can find ways to avoid and obstruct the will of the majority where it is convinced the majority's purpose is undesirable. This is true the world over, whether it is demonstrated by Communists in the French Assembly or by radicals elsewhere.

One of the more aggravating examples is, of course, the filibuster in the United States Senate. Frequent attempts to strengthen civil-rights legislation in this country have run up against the last-ditch opposition of southern Senators. This has been true despite a majority plainly willing to guarantee individual rights. Some years back, in 1949, one of the almost successful assaults on this bastion was underway. The southerners received added support at the last moment when the rules were interpreted in such a way as to allow them to fight twice. This was the so-called Vandenberg ruling, upheld 46 to 41, which permitted the opposition to filibuster against taking up the measure they would normally filibuster.

A group of six northern Democrats has now proposed to attack this ruling. They will move to revise Senate rules to permit a simple majority to limit debate. This proposal is subject to unlimited debate itself. Messrs, Hubert Humphrey, Wayne Morse, Richard Neuberger, Paul Douglas, Pat McNamara, and James E. Murray are men of strong constitutions and stamina. Mr. Morse, in particular, has always been prone to unlimited debate, so long as he himself was talking. But they will need substantial support if they are to overturn this rule. They are appealing for such help, but are not likely to find much of it.

It is their own party that houses the most vigorous opponents of civil rights for Negroes. The Republicans, who have shown some signs in recent years of wanting to get action in this field, may be reluctant to break what they conceive as the tradition of the Senate. And all will be under strong compulsion to avoid getting involved in a fight and a filibuster lasting weeks at a time, when critical legislation may come without warning as a matter of urgency. The six men have a laudable aim, but dubious chances of success.

Yet it is a sign once again of the imperfections of parliamentary government that the Government cannot act to pass legislation to make sure that all men who are created equal are treated equally. If the issue were to be faced squarely, there is no doubt which way the vote would go. But it is concealed and mixed up in a vote on rules that confuses the general public, and allows one segment of the country willfully to block the intent of the Constitution.

[From the Christian Science Monitor of January 5, 1957]

SENATE CLOTURE WORKS ONE WAY

It is not quite accurate to say that the United States Senate has no effective way of closing debate. That it can even place rather narrow limits on discussion of certain subjects was illustrated in its disposal of the antifilibuster maneuver of civil-rights advocates.

This was a motion sponsored by northern and western Senators of both parties to provide that the Senate take up consideration of adoption of rules for itself in the 85th Congress. Had the motion been carried, the Senate might have considered revision of the cloture rule (rule 22), which requires a two-thirds majority not merely of those present but of the Senate membership in order to limit debate. The theory has been that the Senate is "a continuing body" since two-thirds of its Members hold over from one session to another; hence that its parliamentary rules carry over without needing to be readopted. The effect of this theory, plus the fact that Rule 22 does not apply to debate on a change of rules, is to require in practice almost unanimous consent, since any Member may undertake to talk a proposed revision to death.

On the other hand, the proponents of the revision had to work hard to obtain one afternoon of debate on their proposition. The Senate majority leader filed a motion to table it, which in most parliamentary bodies must be voted upon immediately, but an agreement was reached which allowed some 6 hours of discus

sion, after which came the rollcall-more favorable to their cause than 2 years ago.

Thus the Senate succeeded in applying to an important question of procedure very strict limits of debate which it in effect refuses to apply to substantive questions, such as legislation on civil rights. If the Senate persists in its theory of almost unamendable rules as a "continuing body" it may some day find itself in a very tight box.

[From the Denver Post of January 9, 1957]

THE FILIBUSTER IS HARD TO DEFEND

To hear David Lawrence tell it the Senate filibuster is an important bulwark for the defense of the Constitution and States rights against a Supreme Court which disregards law and is influenced by psychological theories instead.

The purpose of the filibuster, of course, is to stymie Senate passage by a simple majority of laws to insure that Negroes receive equal treatment with other citizens. The Constitution has always been interpreted to provide for the use of a simple majority vote in the Senate except in a few specific instances.

Unless it had been intended to have the Senate governed by majority rule in ordinary procedures there would have been no point in putting into the Constitution the provision that the Vice President shall have no vote unless the Senators are equally divided.

The Constitution specifies instances in which majority rule is not to apply: for example, a two-thirds vote to ratify treaties, two-thirds to convict in an impeachment case, two-thirds to expel a member, one-fifth to require a yea and nay tally of votes, two-thirds to pass a bill over a Presidential veto.

To this list the advocates of the filibuster would add an extraconstitutional requirement for a two-thirds vote to get any civil rights legislation before the Senate. The concern for the Constitution which they profess sounds empty and hollow when it turns out to be no more than a desire to sabotage the constitutional authority to enact legislation by majority rule.

No legitimate States rights issue exists in connection with civil rights legislation unless we are willing to assume that the 14th amendment, adopted after the Civil War, really doesn't mean anything and really didn't change anything.

Before the amendment was adopted there was some question regarding the right of the Federal Government to interfere if State laws said some people could be held in slavery, deprived of the right to vote, etc.

The 14th amendment took jurisdiction over the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States away from the States and made the Federal Government the protector of the legal equality of all persons, white or black.

When it is argued that the filibuster is necessary to keep Congress from interfering with States rights to discriminate between blacks and whites, the 14th amendment stands in complete rebuttal.

Segregationists are, of course, particularly unhappy with the Supreme Court. Hence the attempts to drag the Court into the argument over the filibuster power in the Senate.

We are told an arbitrary majority of the Court has taken away States rights. Actually, key decisions of the court on segregation questions have been unanimous. The majority was 9; the minority 0.

It is becoming popular to accuse the Court of arriving at its decisions on the basis of psychology. The argument runs this way: The Supreme Court decided, back in 1896, that Negroes would have equal rights in transportation with whites if they were furnished with separate but equal accommodations on trains.

That decision, so reversed by segregationists, was based on a certain psychology—a belief that a Negro's privileges would be protected if he were given a place in which to ride even though his separate status would be a constant reminder to him that he must consider himself inferior and unworthy to associate with whites.

In 1954 the Supreme Court held the theory that separate facilities for Negroes providing equal treatment under law was in error; that experience had shown feelings of inferiority resulting from segregation affected the hearts and minds of Negroes in a way unlikely ever to be undone.

Because the court upset the earlier decision, segregationists accuse it of disregarding law and precedent, although under our system of law courts are constantly reversing themselves when the errors of old decisions become obvious.

They also accuse it of making the new decision on the basis of psychology but they conveniently forget that a certain psychology was implicit in the 1896 decision, also.

There may be a good defense for the use of the filibuster. If so, Mr. Lawrence does not make it, in our opinion, and we can't imagine what it would be.

[From the New York Times of January 10, 1957]

CURBING THE FILIBUSTER

Joint sponsorship by Democratic Leader Lyndon B. Johnson and Republican Leader William F. Knowland of a resolution that would make it a little easier to curb filibusters is an indication of some progress. It is enough to show that the southern Democratic-Republican coalition protecting filibusters is on the defensive, and that there may be a real prospect of dealing a mortal blow to this evil, antidemocratic institution of forcible minority rule. But resolutions like this one have failed before.

What the majority and minority leaders are proposing to do is in effect to restore the situation to something better than its pre-1949 status. For 32 years prior to that the Senate had operated under a regulation providing that two-thirds of the Senators present and voting could shut off debate. It is this 1917 rule to which Senators Johnson and Knowland would now return, while expressly eliminating the present prohibition on limitation of debate on a motion to change the rules.

Two-thirds of those present and voting is an attainable figure on an antifilibuster vote, while two-thirds of the membership-or 64 Senators-is not. Even so, in the 32 years that the more moderate 1917 rule was in operation it was successfully invoked only 4 times. Senator Knowland himself in days past has supported a very much more drastic proposal-namely, the imposition of closure by a majority. Even such an ardent advocate of limiting debate as Senator Paul H. Douglas, of Illinois, intellectual leader of the current battle, is not now suggesting simple majority closure without strings. Senator Douglas' proposal is that debate may be shut off by majority vote only after 15 days.

While in any democratic parliamentary body, the minority has to have the fullest protection and must be given every opportunity to make itself heard, there is no sensible reason why it should be allowed permanently to block legislation desired by the majority. Sometimes, in the closing days of a session, the blocking is done by a minority of one. A good statement on the subject was made some years ago: "It seems to me that *** this power *** to completely block the legislative processes of government is too much power for any responsible person to want and far too much power for any irresponsible person to have." The speaker was Senator William F. Knowland.

[From the Denver Post of January 13, 1957]

TIDE RISING AGAINST FILIBUSTERING

(By Barnet Nover)

WASHINGTON.-In politics as in boxing it is the wise man who knows when and how to roll with the punch.

On the eve of the reconvening of Congress many anticipated a knock-down, drag-out fight in the Senate between northern liberals and southern conservatives on the question of altering Senate rules to permit the curbing of filibusters. Only in that way, it was anticipated, could the existing barrier to civil rights legislation be removed.

The fight, it was predicted, would last for days and possibly weeks, split the Democratic Party right down the middle, while embarrassing the GOP members of the Senate as well, and leave scars that might take years to heal. These predictions proved to be wide of the mark.

In the first place, the debate on the Anderson motion turned out, on the whole, to be unimpassioned and a gentlemanly affair and by unanimous agreement was limited to 6 hours.

The final vote-55 to 38-showed the majority were unwilling to go along all the way with the contention that the Senate is not a continuing body and,