The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-01-10
<SsA ,sSA0N


branch were absent there valid election, because
the prescribed that majority OF the members present
should be competent TO elect When that law speaks OF
majority of the members present necessary to choice
does il not imply that there must be quorum OF both
houses present Let illustrate by reference 70 an
occasion which may arise under the federal constitution
In the Of impeachment, 1t is provided that TWO
thirds OF the senators shall be necessary in order TO
convict Does any suppose that quorum not being
present If twohds of those here or all that are present
together unanimously agree that ought 10 De con-
iced he would be convicted Does this law OF Iowa say
one word about what constitute quorum OF the JOINT
convention2 Not syllable on the subject The Jaw o.
Iowa had no authority fix it. The constitution OF Iowa
the quorum Of each body and consequently OF the N
gsature assembled in joint convention The law OF Iowa
prescribing the time place and manner OF eeeuon hs
body. 1t says majority OF the members present Shall
elect Does that necessarily imply that quorum sna
be present Just as much as tbs clause o. o
wohrds of the senators present 10 convict person I'M
peaehed implies that quorum OF the Senate must De pres
although that provision is not expressly made in the
Clause? The authority is given by law to the legisla-
ture 10 meet in joint convention. Who have the au-
thorty to mee2 Ths organized bodies constituting the
leSislsture none other the members Of the iesla
ture individually Independently of the organization OF the
two houses separate bodies Does not the
of the necessity Of quorum exstY Was 1t necessary to
IT. The Legislature have not pretended tor say
that majority of all the members constituting both
houses should form quorum Of the convention That Is
the speakers assumption. Even the ocalled convention
ala not take any direct that question They acted
Ia accordance with the superstition of the speaker but the
law under which they assumed to act has not one word or
line whch relates the number necessary to constitute
u,r3 of the BODY The members OF both houses d.
=. attend rnder the action of each house separately
~ tor;tv of the members present it is provided can
sect ask does not that necessarily imply that there
~. h. cnoruro az each house present? Can you get
must ps anv more Than YOU can of the ne
rid o I~ nncaon that there must be a quorum in the
ease provided for by the clause OF the federal
60 when nA'' = - i, ,,,n..oh
The Senata enal nave tne soio po"ei ~ t, - ~ ~
ments when mtunR ipI .nas .S TIn;.ad Il
or affirmation wnen sho ;5a and No narson sbs
tried me Uns. The eoncurrence Of two-thrds Of the
Dc ccn COW. ura.s mo1 ---''-- N
nemDos'
Suppose thirty members OF this pody should yote 10.
the convictor OF an officer impeacnen anu one snouiu
vote against his conviction would that vote OF the senate
constitute a conviction Certainly not Nothing Is SAID
In this clause about quorum but the provision simply Is
that the concurrence Of twohds of the members pres
emit ia necessary to conviction So the law OF Iowa pro-
vSea that majority Of the members present in the joint
ion Of The constitution Of the United States you find
that majority of the Senate is necessary to constitute
I'D YOU find that quorum for any legislative action is
ity of each house Is not the implication neces-
sary 10 made in the case as in the Other that there
n,s ha ,rorum of each house present and that when
there il nnor,m of each muse present the majority OF
ths whole number Govern That is the principle
In my Judgment either house chose to e'aoaey .le
and the election would not be valid unless the legislature
elected because the authority to elect is vested in the
and springs from the constitution of the United
tass nd cannot ba altered In any respec whatever Nv
.h Law THE Iegsatpre ia Constituted Inv the co,
attention ~ he State hut the constitution of the State
49,, ~ authority ~ refarence IN The election NJ limited
that does not spring from the Constitution
~ tho IYn;,ad States
Mr. PucsH. The senator win allow me to ask him a
paet;op wsh 10 ask him whether If those sixteen GEN.
aman Who cnns,;tuted the n,aiory az tbe Iova senate
had hsa, and had ali voted AGAINST Mr. HARLAN he
would ia 70 bsan dnIv eIeced limited Sta,es senator
Mr. BAYARD Do not misunderstood me. If the oues-
tion came up as a matter of 6rst impression think
h,a vote In such case n the remonatrance was made
and the nroof brought before me against the validity Of
the election But have been too long in nv profession
not n know that settled usaue will cover rrepulary
II will not however cover rregulary beyond the extent
TO which the usage has gone
NJ PI1c;H was abeut to direct the senator's attention
tion AGAIN whether he would decide those sixteen gentle
en beno present and all voting against Mr. HARLAN that
~. ryould have hecn elected !?
Mr. BAYARD But majority of the two houses being
in hs favor2
/ NJ pU(3H majority of the whole number being in
b;s favor. Init SIXTEEN senators being present and voting
acainst him.
M RAVARD oave nv answer In tho honorabe gen.
xtnr question endeavored to state before that the case
which he snposs il common occurrence In other States
On poling The votes Of individual members it may appear
tha majority Of one honse il onnosed ia The candidate
vat If the other BODY does not resist at the time
acouscence gives to the election the force Of the assent
Aha body ns body thoup il NAV be against the pdiyd
nal opinous Of the members on the particular vote poed
Mr. PUGH That is Just the predcament If those six
could not defeat bis election how could their mere alb
aence and not voting defeat it?
MI RAYARD Tie answer is very plain and easy II
tn.o gentlemen had been present without the a,-
tr;tv o the senate their awaited no more than
Il or the honorable senator had been there They are