Sharp County record., 1890-04-03


rules 1t reiected a PROPOSED amendment
that 'the Speaker shall not in any case
refuse to entertain an appeal from his
decision" This amendment was reject
ed by strict party vote, every Demo-
crat present voting for it and every
Republican present voting against 1t.
The right OF the House to authorize
The Speaker to direct the clork to enter
the names Of members on the journal IS
not disputed; but the constitutional ef-
feet of such a proceeding is quite diff
ferent question. This is not the place
to discuss the constitutional question,
but the practical effect of the rule for
the time being will be that in House
consisting, when full of $50 members,
OF whom 1865 constitute a quorum, the
Speaker may declare the most important
bills passed when the record shows that
they were voted for by one member only,
if there are enough others present to
make a Quorum. Unless all previous
presiding officers were wrong, this Is
fagrant violation of the constitution;
but whether so or not, it is certainly
most dangerous innovation upon the
settled practice Of the House, and, in
stead of being reform, it is move
ment in the direction of loose, unjust
and improvident legislation.
1t IS true that the power now con-
ferred upon the Speaker has been ex-
ercised in some of the State Legisla-
lures in times of high political excite
ment or bitter personal contests; but
the dispassionate Judgment OF the
thoughtful and conservative people OF
the country condemns it, and no consti-
tutional convention has ventured to de-
clare in terms that minority could
pass laws even though the majority
were absent or silent.
The adoption of the new rules is IN
many respects a long step in exactly
the wrong direction. This is especially
the case so far as they relate to the
powers of the Speaker. Reform should
have commenced by curtailing, instead
of extending, the authority OF that OIL
GER. and the control of the House itself
over it's own proceedings should have
been enlarged upon some plan which
would have prevented unreasonable and
factious obstruction and delay but at
the same time given ample opportunity
for deliberate consideration and action
Under any system of rules that can
be devised, the presiding officer IN
a BODY so numerous as the House OF
Representatives will necessarily have
more power than ought to be lntrusted
to any man in this country; and no mat
ter how just and impartial he may be,
there will be occasions when he can not
escape the imputation, at least OF un-
fair and arbitrary action In the con-
fict of opposing interests and opinions
he is often compelled to decide impor-
tant questions without proper time for
consideration; and, even if he is guilty
of no intentional abuse of his great au-
thority, he may do an actual injustice
which can not afterward be repaired.
The simple power to decide what mem
Der shall be recognized 10 speak or
make motion when more than one
rises appears to be necessary in order to
prevent constant struggles and confu-
sion on the floor, and yet 1t is power
which often enables the Speaker to de-
termine what measures shall be taken
IN. and is therefore inconsistent with
the absolute freedom and equality of
members. When such results may fol-
low the exercise of power so simple
and necessary as this it is not strange
that the advocates of equal rights in
the House should look with some de-
gree of alarm upon every proposition to
confer additional authority upon its
presiding officer.-J. G. Carlisle, in
North American Review.