Los Angeles daily herald., 1890-02-07
Reed's One-Man Power,


munication in yesterdays HERALD deny
ing that he ever made a quorum-ruling
such as Reed is insisting upon in the
House of Representatives, defines his
views upon the law as settled by parlia-
mentarians. Speaking of the immemorial
practice of counting as present only
those who take part in the proceedings
by voting, he says:
1t ia established parliamentary law and
can only be properly abrogated by rule.
The presiding officer has no right to
make rules. He must follow parlla-
mentary precedents until rules to the
contrary are enacted. Members who
vote, or announce that they will not
vote, make their action matter OF rec
ord. In such a case, they personally
declare that they are present. No one
has ever been found to question 30 plain
q proposition. The case is entirely
different where a member does not
answer. His presence can only be evil
denced by his answer.
The whole case is disposed of against
Reed when the Lieutenant Governor
declares that ''a presiding officer has no
right to make rules" but must sfollow
parliamentary precedents until rules to
the contrary are enacted" This covers
the whole ground, and prescribes accu-
rstely the limitation of the power of
presiding officer. The HERALD has
heretofore said that if any rule of estab-
lished practice in parliamentary proceed
ings is defective or Objectionable, it must
be changed in a regular way. The body
to whom the rule is to be applied is the
proper authority to make the change.
If every presiding officer shall be per-
mitted to change rules and to alter
established parliamentary codes at his
own sweet will, there is an end to order
in deliberative bodies. Let such an idea
obtain, and there will be no lack OF snap
interpretations of rules to carry out in
terested and corrupt purposes. 1t is far
better to follow bad precedents than to
submit to their arbitrary change at the
will of presiding officer.
The Republicans are making a great
clamor about the interruption of public
business because the Democrats resist
Mr.. Reeds arbitrary change of a
rule which depyives the minority
OF right they have exercised
from the time of the foundation
of our Government. What public bust
ness can be of greater Importance than
to fight an invasion of an established
right? The very object of nine-tenths of
fh<,~ sx, IL. &c k<>
tect the rights of the minority-to enable
them to guard against the tyranny and
the wrong-doing of majorities. The very
essence of our liberties lies in this kind |
of protection. The Ssuarte, from the first |
Charles to the second James, all predi |
Gated their infringement of the rights |
and privileges of Parliament on the ex.
cuse that the business of the country
suffered because they would not conform
to the will Of the crown. We have no
doubt that when Charles went personally
to the House of Commons with armed
men to seize obnoxious members he
justified himself by the plea that they
were obstructing the business of the
country. What greater business can
country have than the preservation
of the rights and privileges of it's repre-
sentatives from arbitrary infraction by
any individual in power, whether he be
Speaker or King? Whoever usurps such
power is a tyrant and ought to be re-
sisted and whenever nation becomes
too tame or too Indifferent to resist such
encroachments, the time is not far dis
tant when she will have no rights left to
vindicate.