The One Hour Rule

In cnumerating the different forma of government. some writer has very truly denorninated pura a logocracy, or governmentby speech making. The President sends written speeches to Congress annually; the members make epeches to each other one half the year, and to their constiiuents the othcr half. Then there are regular built spcech-makers at nll the religious anniversaries, at every political meeting, or town meeting, or school meeting: and war csr.not be declared with England, or a railroad or canal opened, or the pigs restrained from running in the highways, without a proper number of spet ches being prononnced on the occasion. Speech-making and printing govern the civihzed world. Now this is all right - jupt ae it should be. It is proper that rational beings, e ach of whom is ignorant in some respects, and Hable to error, should confer togethcr concerning their mutual inierests. The qualitij of the speeches will of course be determined by the ability oí" the speakers. But the lengllkfii a speech is no certain index of of the speaker's capacity. Some speakers, like Webster and Adams. will followa cliain of argu. ment at great length, forging and shaping each link of it as thcy proceed, and the wholc will be interesting and highly instructive. Other lengthy speakers, like Randolph and Wisc, can interest an audience for five or six hours together not so mucli by original dipth of thought concentrated on one subject, as by bringing together a great variety ol topics, and treating of.many things in one discourse. Olhers again. like Fianklin and Washington, are remarkable for their breviiy. It is said that these gentlemen werc ncver known to speak in public more than fifteen minutes at once, and then usually upon imoortant points. They passed over the preliminary steps, which are traversed by ordinary speakers, and seizcd at once upon the conclusions. Could an attentive observer, have traced the workings of their minds, he would have secn that their deliberations had reference to ultímate action, and that the great jnquiry, "What shall be done," every moment preased upon the mind, with more and more weight, unti! the final deeieion was reached, andhe resulta, not thepreliminary procese ofihought, ,vorc all they ihflicted on the public. It is, then, neithcr the lengih nor brevity of ipeeches wKch raakê them profitable or accepta)lc to the hearers. But in legislativo bodies, it iccms necessary, in order to transact business vxjeditiously, that some liraitation should be placed jpon the length of remarks; It is thought by orne that thisisan abridgmentof natural liberty. [t is contended ihat men have a right to speak what they think: suppose we grant it. Still the manncr, time and place must be regardcd, or the world would become a perfect Babel. So th members of a legislativo body have a right to stand or walk, as much as they have to speak. yet they are univcrsaliy restricted in those pnrtic lars. Setting limits to the lengtli of speeches, then, is no more oppressive lo tho members, than compeliing their personal attendance. But hoio long a period each member ought to have for conveying his thoughts to hie fellows, is anothor question, and one admitting considerable argument. The extrencs can easily be mentioncd. Everyone will say that six hours is too long, and five minutes too short. Should every member speak six hours. the ycar would not be long enough to discuss half a dozen questions: while five minutes would be too short to state one's view o a question. It appears to us the House of Representatives have fixed the matter right, by adopting the one hour rule. lts operation is said by the reporters to be admirable. - The members are much more careful in arranging and condensing their views, and coneequently the subject under discoursc is disposed of much sooner. Some have thought that a great subject, embracing many particulars, like the Tariff. for instance, could not have justice done it by any member in an hour. But every great whole iscomposed of parta, and each inember may move amendments, and speak an hour in favor oí each. This. surely. is latitude enough. Should !he House adopt the one Hour Rule permancntly. it would enable Congress to despatch twice '.be amount of business in the same time, or to reduce the lengthofthe sesaions onc half, thus saving, perhaps, to the people some! $150,000. This ie not a very largo item of reform in a pecuniary poiut of view: out it is worthy of adoption as one among many others, whicli both parties, if they were in earnest in their profeasions, would enter upon immediately. We shall advert to eome topics connected with this hereaftar.