Morris tribune., 1890-02-12

question to the house By his arbitrary
less than a quorum, he has subverted
nearly every principle of constitutional
and parliamentary law heretofore recog-
nized in the house.
This personal and partisan domination
of the house was submitted to, although
not without repeated protest, until we
became convinced that it was the delib-
crate purpose of the speaker and his sup
porters to proceed without rules to
GUST THT DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS
whose seats are contested, and admit
their Republican opponents, whether
elected or not.
On Wednesday, Jan. 30, the commit
tee on elections called up q contested
election case, and the Democratic MEM
bers determined that, in the absence of
rules, it should not be considered if they
could prevent it by any proper parlia-
mentary proceedings. Accordingly, they
raised the question of consideration, de-
manded the ayes and nays and on the
call of the roll refrained from voting.
The result was that less than constitu-
tional quorum voted, but the speaker, in
violation of the uniform practice of the
house for more than century proceeded
to count members who were present, but
not voting, and declared that the house
had decided to take the case up. From
this decision an appeal was taken, and
on motion to lay this appeal on the
table, the yeas and nays were taken, and
less than quorum voted, but the
speaker again counted members not vot-
ing and decided that the motion was
agreed to, and his ruling thereby sus
tanned.
The address then quotes from the con-
stitution as to what constitutes quo
rum, and says that the version which
the Democrats now contend for has been
accepted without question by the con-
gress for over century. 1t continues:
Speaker Reed himself, when in the
minority on the floor of the house,
STATED THE TRUE MEANING
and the true philosophy of the constitu-
ton when he said: The constitutional
idea of a quorum is not the presence of
house, but majority of the members
of the house. 1t is not the visible pres
ence, but their Judgment and votes,
which the constitution calls for"
Gen. Garfield, Mr.. Blaine. Mr.. Conger~
Mr.. Robson and other eminent Republi-
cans have taken the same position, and
their arguments have never been an
swered. If any legal or political ques-
ton can be settled in this country by the
long acquiescence of jurists and states
men of all parties, certainly this ques-
ton has passed beyond the domain of
discussion. When, therefore, the pres
ent speaker repudiated this settled con-
struction of the constitution, and decided
that when the official record which the
constitution requires the house to keep
shows on call of the yeas and nays that
a quorum has not voted he can count
members present and not voting, and
THUS BY HIS OWN ACT,
outside of the recorded vote, determine
that measure has passed, we consider
it our duty, as part of the representa-
tives of the people, to enter our protests
in every form available to us under the
circumstances. Under the constitution
a majority of the members of the house
constitute quorum to do business. And
we are simply insisting>that less than
majority shall not do business. We are
contending that the majority shall take
the responsibility which properly belongs
to them and shall come to the house of
representatives and vote if they desire to
control its proceedings. And we are
protesting against their right to carry
their measures by counting us when we
do not vote.