The Plymouth weekly Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1860-1869, 1869-06-03

Mr.. o, P. Mortons opinion on the law
of ouorums is a paper that will not add
ANYTHING to the not very large reputation
of that Senator for craftsmanship. 1t is a
labored attempt to prove that the settled
and uniform Interpretation Of the term
Quorum, found in all the American cOnsti.
buttons, is wrong. and that the new inter
probation which Mr.. Morton has invented
is right; that the common judgment of
mankind, since the institution of represen-
tative government, has been false, and that
the judgment of the individual Morton is
true; that even the convention which
framed the Indiana constitution, while
suppOsing and intending that the term
meant one thing, in reality made it mean
something else.
The Indiana constitution differs from
the Federal Constitution, and from most
of the other State constitutions, in provid
ing that two-thirds of each House shall
constitute a quorum" Most of the con-
situations require only majority of each
house. The object of requiring rwO-thirds,
as appears from the debate in the Indiana
convention, was to more effectually and
surely protect the rights of the mi
nority. Mr.. Schuyler Colfax, who
was member of that convention, thought
that the requirement of two-thirds to
make quorum would be giving too much
protection to minority rights, because Mr..
Coifax said, it would be "holding out an
inducement for gentlemen who may feel
disposed TO resist the passage of law to
recently done in Indiana but precisely
what Mr.. o. P. Morton argues cannot be
done. The convention seems to have per-
fectly understood what it was they in
tended by the requirement of two thirds
to make quorum in each House.
To protect the rights of mirorities is in
reality the principal object and use of
written constitutions No one denies that
"The will of the majority is the essence of
republican government but, concede to
the majority absolute power and sovereign
right IL all matters of government, and
constitutions are not only useless, but, in
the nature of things, are imperative and
void. If the majority be not bound, as
well as the minority, by constitutional
limitations, the constitution is not 1.-THE
supreme law of the land" but the will of
the majority, unrestrained, unlimited, and
uncontrolled by anything on earth, is that
supreme law.
According to Mr.. Morton's argument,
the Constitution of Indiana thus provides
for its own destruction. For if, as he as
sumes, the quorum is intended only Ito
maintain proportion of members present
to the actual membership, and not To the
number of members authorized by law to
be elected" then twO-thirds of a majority,
or, for that matter, Ofless than q majority.
may come together, and resolve, like the
three tsilers in Dooly street, that We, the
Legislature of Indiana, being the Judges
of the election and qualification of our
own members, do decide that We are the
only members duty elected and qualified,
and therefore we do constitute the actual
membership of that body, and two thirds
OF us are quorum for business"
MIR. y r. Morton uses the phrase "sc-
tual membership" to designate the num-
Der OF members in commission; whereas,
In contemplation of law. the actual mem
bershlp is the whole number of members
the constitution authorizes. The consti-
tuition supposes that all the people are
represented in the Legislature, and never,
In any republican form of government
that exists, or ever existed, supposes or in
tends any thing else. Whenever the con-
stitution employs the term House" it
means that body in which all the people
OF the State are represented in such man
ner and by such proportionate number of
members as the constitution itself pre-
scribes. 1t will often happen that the
House is not full some members may
die; others may resign; the people in
some districts may have failed to elect
their members, or the House may
have found them not qualified 1t Is
to protect the rights of the minorities who
may thus be absent from the House that
the constitution declares what proportion
OF the House shall be necessary tn consti-
tute quorum. In attempting to prove
that the constitution of Indiana does not
attain that object, Mr.. o. P. Morton at
tempts to prove that it is not the supreme
law that the people intended it should be,
and that it provides for its own destruc.
ton by any number of fictitious dema-
gogues who may resolve that e We are the
House. Chicago Times