Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-08-16
RULE FIrrEEN AND THE SPEAKER

anu sincere ueiellse VI Lie Cpcdhoi anu JIG
Republican majority, is from the pen of a
Democratic leader in the same number of
the Resaew, who signs himself "Judex."
This gentleman, though q Democrat, does
not hesitate to take issue with his party,
and to boldly proclaim not only that Mr..
Reed was right, but that Rule XIV. was
national need, was demanded by the gray
est considerations of craftsmanship and the
legislative necessities of the country. With
him his country is superior to partisanship,
and he therefore refuses to Join in the
party clamor against the Speaker. We
commend this Democrats able and fearless
paper to the consideration and the careful
reading of all men who love fair play and
refuse to be made party puppets.
The paper, which is distinguished by
clearness and pure reason, is quite too long
| for reproduction in these colamns, but we
refer to few of its more salient passages.
Government by party is an essential feat
ure of representative institutions. The
party in the minority to-day may be in the
majority tomorrow. If parliamentary OBJ
struction by minorities is permissible, then
government by majorities is impossible.
| Rule VIII. of the House requires every
member to be present during the sitting of
the House, and to vote on every PROPOSE
ton unless excused by the House. Rule
XIV. provides that if a member refuses to
obey the injunction of the former rule and
vote, his contumacy shall not affect the
| ability of the House to proceed with its
business. The rules are not inharmonious,
they are consistent; the one prescribes the
duty of the member, the other declares
that his disobedience shall not operate to
check the business of the body.
The fundamental error Of the opponents
of the Speaker is the assumption that
quorum can only be ascertained by call
of the yeas and nays. Our parliamentary
system is derived from that of the English
llOuoe vi OOuiDuOuS, III HHlCu Inc ACTUAL
existence of a quorum is ascertained by
count of the members present. There is
no warrant in the Constitution for the
claim that the presence is determined only
by the response to the call of the names of
the members. If the trainers of the Con-
stitution intended that to be the rule,
they would certainly have so stated in
plain English.
The rule requiring response to call of
the yeas and nays in the case of the
passage of a bill over the veto of the
President rests upon totally different
basis. The right of the House to override
veto is parliamentary innovation, and
the overriding of the Executive is deemed
of such solemnity that certain forms must
be observed and certain strength be made
manifest of record. But the constitutional
requirement concerning the overriding of
a veto cannot by any contortion of reason
be made 10 carry by implication mandate
ehob hhS hNhAbOA vi III tuC 1IOuoS
shall be determined by the same method.
1t is urged that if the Speaker and the
rule are right, and quorum is present,
and only one member votes for bill, and
all the others remain silent, bill could
not be declared passed. But all down the
line of legislation bills have been passed
in Congress where but one or two votes
have been voiced, because the presence of
quorum is presumed during session,
since any member has the power to de-
mand a count. If now quorum can be
present by presumption, when actually
there are less than quorum present,
surely the assent of les or more members
present, but not voting, may be presumed
from their silence.
The Constitution gives the House the
power to compel the attendance of men,
bers; they may, then, when brought in, be
counted as present, else why compel them
to attend The power to compel attend
ance was intended to equip the House
with power to maintain quorum; under
the contention Of the minority, however
the majority may at any time be forced
into surrender and its power to legislate
be utterly paralyzed, and thus silence be
given greater effect than votes.
The celebrated paper of Ak. NJ. CT adj
mits that government would be in chaos If
the breaking of quorum, by refusal of
members to vote, could not be suppressed.
The remedy of ok NJ. c." is to fine recall
citrants. But that would involve as much
of obstruction, even if the power to fine
could be delegated to the Speaker. That
would not be, even then, compelling quo
rum, but taking revenge, and could not COM
pei member to be counted by his vote
The purpose of law is to prevent rather
than punish offenses, hence to inhict penal
ties does not accomplish the object of the
law giving the House tie power to enforce
attendance.
Suppose the country to be in war, and
dependent upon legislation, and the last
day of the session was reached, and mi
nority refuses to be counted in a quorum
would punishment save the nation
Rule XIV. is therefore salutary reform,
since it prevents minority from imperil-
ing legislation. Any other rule sets up
the absurdity that the House can compel
attendance of members, who by refusing to
vote can tie the hands of the Government.