The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-01-30
CARLISLElS SPEECH.

IL Is question OF CONSTITUTIONAL law. NO
speaker ever sat in that chair and under
took to hold that less than a quo
rum can pass any bill or vote in
this House. Until this morning, l
repeat not a presiding officer in
this House has ever held that it was COM
petent for less than quorum of the mem
bers elected to this House to pass any mo-
tion or bill All have held from the be-
ginning of congress down to this dav that a
majority must not only be present TO con-
stitute a quorum, but that a quorum must
participate in Legislation" Mr.. Carlisle
then quoted the section of the constitution
which provides for the keeping Of a journal
and for the entering upon it
the yeas and nays when demanded
by one-ifth of the members present, and
also that section which states that less than
a quorum can adjourn from day TO day,
and can compel the attendance Of absent
mem bers.
TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTION.
The constitution, continued Mr. Carlisle,
did not say in express terms that in order
to transact business a majority Of the House
should be present, but that majority of
the House should constitute quorum "to
do business" and then it proceeded
TO specify distinctly what those things
were when a maj rity could do He need
not say to body like this, consisting in
AehA SN pdAb VI ldWHNIh, luhb IL was Wbil-
known aud recognized rule of construction
that where the constitution or statute emu
merated certain things all others were
excluded. When, therefore, the trainers of
the constitution provided that mai jority of
the members elected should constitute
quorum to do business, they saw
that If it stopped there less than
quorum could do nothing. There
fore, they had provided that less
than n unOrun cO1l6 do cart al thinua IF
the ruling made this morning was correct
there was no necessity for any provision of
the constitution defining what less than
majority could do. A majority constituted
a quorum "to do business"
NEW YoRK's CONSTITUTION.
Those words were not In the constitution
of New York, upon which Lieut. Gov.
Hilps decision had been based The New
York constitution provided that on
the passage of certain bills three
ffths Of the members should con-
require three-tifths to pass bill. On the
contrary, it had been expressly stated by
the presiding officer thaJ the bill did pass
by the vote which the constitution required
TO pass all bills, to-wit: a majority Of the
members present. He was not saying this
to justify that decision, because he thought
it was wrong. He did not agree with Gov.
regretted that when his republican friends
were obliged to rely on democratic prece-
dents for their action they should take the
worst they could find. Laughter There
were plenty of good demo ra ic precedents
which could be found without much diff
Guilty.
IMPORTANCE OF THE JOURNAL
He then went on to argue that as tho
journal of the House was accepted by the
courts of the country as conclusive evidence
of the action of the HOUSE, it was abso-
| lutely necessary that it should record the
proceedings accurately. 1t might be SAID
that according to the ruling Of the speaker,
the journal OF to-day was true. He
denied absolutely the right of the
presiding officer of the House to
make the Journal [Applause on the demo-
cratic side.] The journal was a record of
the proceedings of the House itself, and
could not be made simply to show any fact
that the speaker might wish to make. Sup
pose the speaker was right; then one man
could pass a bill as we'll as 100. If the
speaker had the right 10 make the journal,
and to make quorum, and to have the
clerk of the House, under his direction, put
upon the journal the fact that there was a
quorum present, then there was
no longer any use for represen-
tatives of the people In this House. ZAP
nal was the journal of the House itself, not
the journal Of the speaker, who was simply
an organ Of the House, and not its master.
Applause on the democratic side
THE ONLY EVIDENCE.
When the House had decided by yeas and
nays, and entered on the journal, that was
the only evidence of what transDired. Could
it be said that three or five, or twenty-five
gentlemen could pass the most important
legislation coming before this bodys I'm
questionably it could if the speakers
ruling was correct. 1t was no ans yer to
say th 1T other members might vote if they
wanted to. That was their business and
the business Of their constituents, and not the
business of the speaker.
NUGAToRY PROVISIONS.
It had been said by the speaker that
provision of the constitution which allowed
less than quorum to compel the attend
ance Of members would be nugatory. That
might be so. So was the provision nuga-
tory If q member deliberately concealed
himself so that the officers Of the House
could not find him. But be was re-
sDonsible-not to the House or to
the speaker, but to his constituents
He was not here to deal in
epithets, but he did say that il this ruling
stood it worked complete revolution in the
method of transacting business in the House.
For over 100 years the people had been
secure that not less than a majority elected
could pass laws binding upon them. In all
that time the C Iurts had decided that they
would look at the journal as final and con-
elusive evidence on questions Of fact. Now
the people were to be told for the first time
that any number of men, however incJn-
siderable, might pass bill in the House, pro-
vided the speaker, after looking over the
House, determined that there were certain
member present besides those that voted,
and had that fact entered on the Journal.
He thought that while some Inconvenience
had resulted from the rule which had al
ways prevailed it was far more
safe; far more in accordance with
the character of our institutions
that the House should stand by the rule as
laid down in the constitution and allow no
legislation unless participated in by ma
jority of all the mombers elected to the
House. 1t was the only safe rule, and it
was a rule that the House ought to continue
to stand by. [Applause on the democratic
side.l
THOSE WHO DIDN'T VOTE.
The speaker stated that the name of the
gentleman from Ohio (Afr. Outhwaite) had
not been on the list which he kept Of mem
bers present, but that in the confusion Of
the moment, one side approaching near
boisterousness, the name had been pro-
nounced by accident. The members whom
the speaker noted as being present and not