The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-01-15

quorum To that say care not whether it is so or not
the constitution of the State OF Iowa says the contrary
The constitution Of the State says that TO do business there
must be quorum OF both branches
Mr.. BROWN. VIII my friend allow to nterpose at
this poinf think sec the point of difference between
He admits with me- that the senate may be present
without there being aquorum admit with him, that
mastbe present to do any act which requires the
presence Of quorum to give 1t validity Then come
TO the point is the Of quorum to make
perfect the act Of eectiug senator2 hold this to be
true in the language Of the law books that the law Is the
perfection of reason and at the point where the of
the law ceases the law itself Now for pur
pose do you require the presence of quorumH Is the
currence Of that quorum necessary TO make the election
vslid2 II is admitted that II is not The election will
be valid though the quorum vote against the senator who
is chosen.
Mr. BENJAMIN. / was coming to that point if the
would permit He himself used that argument
the other day.
Mr. BROWN; thought the senator was passing over
Mr. BENJAMIN. was going on TO that point, because
listened my honorable friend from Mississippi for
whose Judgment have great respect with interest," and
confess surprise regards the conclusion at which
his mind arrived He made that very argument the other
day, and was about to answer II.
Nj. BROWN sEo MN thought you were passing i BY
when II y admitted that II majority Of the senate be
requisite to constitute quorum and present II
that majority had voted the other way the election would
have been tine because not necessary for the
quorum to vote for the member elected Il again
the senator BY illustration from the practice Of own
body with which familiar. Suppose thirty-one
members sitting here thrtytwo being required for
quorum and thirty of US for the passage of bill and
against II there could be got another to
against the BILL the bill would pass but because there
is man absent who opposed to the bill the bill cannot
pass The of opponent of the bill would secure
its passages his absence its defeat Why Be-
cause after all there must be rulesome line The
constitution lays it down. and IL is not for to that
n this particular instance the rule operates unreasonab
and in that IL operates WELL The constitution creates the
power which alone Our inquiry is, the power
there to act it not II 1t not there is not
for say what would have it had been
/ Ia n md
the objection made by the honorable senator from Mis-
sssippi
based upon the fact that the Legislatures of the
different States 4 the Union have in the absence Of any
constitutional prohibition in their States exercised
their legislature derived from the United States
constitution by meeting in joint convention instead of
sitting in separate chambers. zee objection TO that
objection when the State constitution has organ
lied legislature to that legislature meeting in cham
ber or in two chambers to exercise the right which the
constitution has vested in it. But whether 1t sits in
chamber in two, must be such legislature the
constitution of the State has created Is legislature
mt all Pass the lineet be exactly such legisla-
ture as convention Of the citizens Of the State have order
edpass that line once and where is the imt2 Just
where we are driven We drifting at sea- without
pass rudder,
The honorable senator from Georgia mr. TooMpsl tells
us with That intrepdy with which he always the
results OF his arguments and for which every candid
ano fair must admire him. that the from
had not been of that State present the
time he was elected Yet this in the face Of the cons
tuton which there legislature except that which
composed OF two branches We asked how can you
say that senator this floor has been elected when the
case has occurred has frequently taken place. of the two
bodies OF the legislature messing in joint convention and
the majority in body overbearing opposite majority
an the other z see difficulty in that at all
nothing in the objection which, examined at the bottom 10
the sake of the argument let suppose numbers to make
myself clear Suppose that senate of twenty and house
OF one hundred members form Legislature They have
sole control Of the time and the place and the of
holding the election. They One body, the
senate votes and gives majority for the other body
the house OF representatives votes and gives majority
for and the two houses do not The houses lhe
by joint resolution agree that they will take another bal
lot in each house. with the understanding that if the
Jorit in the senate for shall exceed the majority in the
house for B. the house will yield its choice and agree
to elect with the senate but if the contrary, the
house majority for exceeds the senate majority for A.
then the senate agree that they will YIELD and join the
house in declaring elected They ballot again there is
majority of FIVE for in the senate and ten for in the
and hereupon by common consent Of both bodies
That is election by the Legislature and yet the
have been taken per capita That is election taken by
the Of the two branches and yet branch has
voted by majority for different individual from the
electea. Why is it valid2 Because the of hold
me the election is exclusively within the Of the le
gisature that makes election. This is the case
understand it, in Virginia In the house of delegates
vote is taken for In the senate another vote is
taken for senator 1t is the understanding between the
two houses that if the two houses do not in the
majority for Individual the house in which the
jory is the smaller will yield its choice to the house
winch the greater and concur Win
house in declaring its fvorte the successful candidate
This then, is an election by the legislature Both
bodies act One body must yield when they differ in
opinion and by agreement the mode of ascertaining
how one or the other Is TO yield is determined by the
vote per capita in the two branchesperfecy legal per-
fecy constitutional and the body electng the legisla
turs just such as the constitution organized it. This is
legal and constitutional in my opinion whether they sit
In separate chambers whether they sit together in
chamber They may meet together in one and every mem
Der OF the senate for man. and every member of
the house for the other and the house majority for
the will vastly exceed the senate majority for The other
but when they 70 into convention there is this tact
men that the house which finds itself in minority in the
respective numbers given for its chosen candidate shall
yield its choice to the other and 1T does yield IL and the
joint convention declares the act OF both bodies the
election OF the senator who may be chosen
But sir how different is this from the case where the
members of two bodies when they meet together find that
there quorum required by the constitution of the
Statewhen they find legislature present. Idle is it
for that you should refer to law which declares
ton. tell you that law override the organic
stution of the State. In my State the organcconstu-
ton provides that the members Of the two bodies may meet
in joint convention agree with my colleague that le
gsature thus constituted in joint convention by the State
constitution will be in quorum by majority Of its body
but In the constitution Of the State there is provision
for thus organizing legislature for electoral purposes the
legislature of the State make law to that effect for
the Legislature 10 the creature and the constitution b the
creator. tt
These are my views Mr. President very briefly and inn
perfectly expressed They differ somewhat from those OF
Others, and thought it my duty to state them
AMERICAN INTERVENTION THE Swiss AND PRussIAN
coNTpov ERsy-A Prussiap correspondent of the Nord