question until every member has had an opportunity of discussing its merits. The very idea of a deliberative assembly is that it is a body to deliberate upon questions, and therefore members must have the right of introducing questions, and of discussing their merits, before expressing their deliberate sense upon them. [Of course a majority can lay the question on the table, and thus stop debate; but in this case the assembly can at any time take it from the table. By this means the majority can instantly get rid of any question until they wish to consider it.]
But there are times when it is expedient to suspend these rights to introduce and debate questions, just the same as it is frequently an advantage to suspend the rules of the assembly, or to change the order of business. If, however, a bare majority could at any time suspend or change these rules and privileges, they would be of but little value. Experience has shown that a two-thirds vote should be required to adopt any motion that has the effect to suspend or change the rules or established order of business, and the rule above is made on this general principle. [The old parliamentary practice did not allow of a suspension of the rules except by unanimous consent.]
As just stated, Congress, by rule, allows a majority to sustain an objection to the consideration of a question, but the rule has very properly gone out of use. So, too, the Previous Question, and motions to close or limit debate, while not used in the Senate, can be adopted by a majority in the House of Representatives.
On account of the immense amount of business to be transacted during each session by the National House of Representatives, and the large number of members each one of whom is entitled to the floor in debate for one hour, it seems an absolute necessity for them to permit a majority to limit or cut off entirely the debate, and thus practically to suspend one of the fundamental rules of deliberative bodies. This is the