The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1890-02-13

when he acts as the representative
of committee and by its direction he will
neither introduce bill or make report
, except by delivering it to the clerk or
ferred he cannot himself move to correct it
unless he does so within three days after its
reference.
Relative to the change in rules govern
ing the committee of the wh ole, the minor
ity says:
at has always been so universally con-
ceded that committee of the whole house
was simply the house itself, that it has never
been considered necessary to prescribe
in the rules what number of members
should be necessary to constitute quo
rum in such committee. The constitution
requires ma ajority of all members to con-
stitute O quorum to do business in the
house, and without any rule on the subject
the same number has always been recog-
nized as necessary in a committee of the
whole, and whenever it found itself with
less than that number present and voting
it has been compelled to suspend its pro-
ceedings. In addition to the proposition
to reduce the number necessary to Consti-
tute a quorum, it is also proposed by a
modification of the old rule % to confer
upon the committee of the whole the power
to close all debate on any section or para
graph under conside alton. Such a power
has never been heretofore given to the COM
mittees, but has always been exercised by
the house, and in our opinion it will be un-
wise to make change in this report, espe-
cially if hundred members are to consti-
tute quorum in committee.
In pursuance of this same policy of re-
ducing the number of representatives nee
essary to pass laws and transact other busi-
ness it is proposed by the majority to in
sert the following clause in rule 15:
''3. On the demand of any member or at
the suggestion of the speaker before the
second roll call is entered upon the names
of members Sufficient to make quorum)
in the hall of the house who do not vote
shall be noted by the clerk and recorded in
the journal, and reported to the speaker
with the names of members voting, and be
counted and announced in determining the
presence of quorum to do business"
This is the most radica and in our opin-
ion the most dangerous innovation pro,
posed by the majority. If agreed to it will
not only overthrow the construction that
has been uniformly given to the constitu-
ton for more than a century. but it will en-
able less than ma jority of the representa-
tiveS of the people 10 pass the most import
ant laws affecting the interests of the whole
country. The personal and property
rights of citizens protected heretofore by
laws enacted by the votes of the majority
fraction of the members of congress. For
if less than majority nay constitution
ally pass measures III the house, OF course
the same thing may be done in the senate.
In the same way enormous sums OF money
may be appropriated from the public
treasury for the most unconstitutional pur-
poses and the interests of the
taxpayers completely subordinated to
to the selfish demands Of private
I'D Itxvi,l l. n,,I ant
entering here into the discussion of the
constitutional question involved in this
proposition, we earnestly protest against it
as measure of the most dangerous and
| revolutionary character. Any rule or
practice, which enables the speaker or the
clerk to pass bills by counting members
present and not voting, will inevitably re-
suit in destroying the confidence of the
people in the integrity of legislation and
which might be easily avoided by an ad-
herence to the mandate of the constitution
as heretofore interpreted.
Discussing the abolition of dilatory mo-
tions the minority is emphatic in its pro-
tests. 1t says:
"The proposed clause allowing the
speaker to refuse to entertain any motion
which he may consider dilatory is abso-
| lutely inconsistent with the other pro-
|
bers shall have g. right to make certain
motions and at the same time to provide
that the speaker may refuse to entertain
them and may also refuse to entertain an
appeal from his decision is simply
| to place the whole law in the house, so far
as parliamentary motions are concerned in
the hands of the presiding officer and de-
prive members of every right in this respect
which the rules purport to confer upon
them.
A rule abolishing all parliamentary mo-
| tons heretofore recognized in the house,
and simply providing that members may
make such motions only as the speaker
may see proper to permit, and take only
such appeals from his decisions as he may
see proper to allow, would at least have the
merit of directness and simplicity. Such a
rule would be no more unreasonable or un.
Just than the one now proposed and would
prevent conflicts upon the floor by advising
members in advance precisely what their
i riphtS