The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1890-03-05
OPPOSITION OPINIONS.
What Garfield, Hawley and Reed Sato
About Minority Rights.

What Garfield, Hawley and Reed salo
About Minority Rights.
Having such man as Reed in his
minds eye, James A. Garfield spoke ID
part as follows in the House OF Repre-
sentatives January 2s, 1880, on propo
sition to amend the rules to permit the
Speaker, under certain circumstances,
to declare that quorum was constr
tuted:
Aside from the insuperable objection that
raised to this proposition, as thing that ought
not to be tried because of its vagueness, its I'M
certainty and the danger that members OF tho
House may be imposed upon by an unscrupu-
lous Speaker that may come hereafter say
that aside from all that and beyond all that,
ask members to consider one fact Thls mas
been a House Of Representatives since 1852
This House has been the theater OF all sorts OF
political storms and tempests. We have lived
through the times Of great wars, OF great
civil war, when there were excltements haroly
paralelcd in the history OF parliamentary an
mails. Yet during all these years no man be-
fore so far as know, no party before, has ever
thought it necessary to introduce rule that
gives the power OF declaring the presence OF
members by the single voice of one person;
power that will enable him to bring from his
| sick bed n dying man and put him down in this
| hall so that the Speaker shall count him,
| and make his presence against MS WILL ana
| perhaps in his deirium count in order to make
quorum, so that some partisan measure may
| be carried out over the body OF that dying man.
Sir the moment you get over the line, Inc
moment YOU cross the boundary Of names, the
moment YOU leap over the iron fence OF the roll
| that moment you are out in the vague, ana ali
| sorts of disorders may come on.
Joseph R. Hawley, OF Connections,
said in the same debate
Now, the evil if there be one in the existing
system, that of which gentlemen complain, Is
simply this, that we Of the minority claim
right by sitting silent TO prevent less than a
majority OF the members elected from passing
a bill. The worst that can be done by fac
tious minority, if that be the term applied to 1t,
is to fight until the actual majority of the mem
bers elected shall pass the bill. When they are
present that friendly majority constitute a
quorum of themselves; they do not require the
assistance of the minority: they run the House
themselves and pass their bills. In case OF
what you call factious resistance we drive then
only to that
Now, we are causing no hardship whatever II
taking the ground we do against this new rule
and think we do no serious wrong to TIT
country at any time when we sit in our seats
and decline to vote. If the majority desires tt
have a bill passed in opposition to our wishes
then let the majority come here and pass
over our heads. At any rate, decline to b.
answerable to any body but my constituents If
sit in my seat and decline to vote. hold my
self responsible to them and to the constitution
alone. I take my position with that hors
which is brought to the water but can not b
made to drink, and should say that no Speake
and no House should compel me to answer ye
, or no on a roll call.
think it very decidedly wrong, in the frs
place. that a Speaker should Is at liberty t
, recognize or declare quorum without forma
6 count, and in the next place, that by any sor
of combination of rules there should be a LAY
l put upon the statute book and declared in fore
D which can show, perhaps only quarter or te
. | per cent of the members in favor OF 1t.
t And Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, said
n among other things:
4 The constitutional idea Of quorul
q is not the presence Of majority of the men
:, bers of the House, but majority OF the men
bers present and participating in the bushes
e of the House. 1t is not the visible presence
+ members, but their judgments and their vote
that tho constitution calls for