The intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1887-1891, 1890-02-22
THE QUORUM QUESTION.

NSSS AVN
Either the republican newspaners
which are discussing the house rules
question are themselves very ignorant
OF it, or they are calculating upon the
ignorance of their readers.
They cannot see, they say, why, if
there Is n majority OF all the members
elect present upon the door Of the
mouse. the speaker should not count il.
One reason is,that there Ia no proper
aud parliamentary way Of ascertaining
The presence OF a member of the house
except by the vote or voice OF that
member The speaker has as much
right To cast that vote or to be that
Voics ~ he has to appropriate the
poeket-oook OF the gentleman who is
III either event robbed OF his rights.
As Mr.. Reed himself said In the house
on January so, lSS0:--"It II was INV
purpose to reply 10 the gentlemen who
has just taken his seat II seems 10 me
that II would be q suitable and proper
reply to say 10 him that the constitu-
tional idea OF a quorum Is not the pres
ence OF majority OF the members of the
house, but q majority OF the members
present and participating In the busi.
ness Of the house. 1t Is not the visible
presence of members, but their judy
tnents and their votes that the constitu-
ton calls for"
Exactly. And what right has the
speaker to control eithery The MEM
bers are elected by and are responsible
for their acts only to the constituencies
which elect them. Mr.. Blaine was
right when several years ago In regard
to apo.iticsl contest 10 the Illinois legis
lalure, he was asked by the republican
speaker II the latter could not by count.
ing declare q quorum, despite the re
fusal Of the democrats to vote, be
replied that such a thing could not be
done and would be hazardous In the
extreme. On that occasion the scheme
was given up; In this case the republi-
caus la congress have adopted It, bul
IL settles nothing permanently, as 1t is
done In defiance OF right and In viola
zion OF the constitution as was pointed
out by both Messrs. Blaine and Reed,
as We have Own above.
But there Is another grave reason
why this innovation should not have
been made, and 1t appears very much
rs If 1t was Its chief end and Intent.
Republicans claim hat their purpose 10
only to expedite the public business.
It is nothing Of the kind. They have D
majority of members of the house.
BY having them present they need ,
neither to count unwilling democrats ,
in order to secure q quorum or to pass 8
q bill constitutionally. The real pur-
pose 10 not to secure a constitutional q
quorum, but to pass partisan legislation !
by q minority vote. Under the universal .
procedure hitherto this could not be .
lone. The United States constitution
loes not, as does the Missouri fnnda.
mental law, contain q clause requiring 3
he votes o! a majority of all The mem 4
elect to pass a bill, but this wise c
safe guard was practically supplied in g
The case of oppressive and partisan Q
.rgislation, by the right Of the minorit, II
y refrain from voting, thus compelling g.
he majority 10 be present and record Il
Is vote. or lose Its measure. n
How will It be nOw7 Why, prac- o
ically, q few votes more than one "
oarth of the entire membership Of Il
congress can pass u bill just as well as q
majority. viii any zane man. who /,
his country more than he wor Il
hips the fetch OF party, argue tina, 81
Ia not q dangerous power, and one q,
'ut OF harmony with our institutions? E
ssy:-"Majorities should
With wise restraints, yes; but
'ut let them be maIoritles. :,
This question has been much dis =,
used already, but from Its f~sr.reach- |"
ng Importance, 1t will occupy the best :,
bought of the country until II is settled u =.
IN q basis of law and right. Those u
who think their little ma u
Drity ON the floor Of the house OF rep. q
,sentalives has disposed of 1t are ve,y u
nIch mistaken. We have here die o
ussed but one OF the Objectionable u
of the change In the rules, bot 9
ais one 10 of vital moment. y
- r