Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1890-02-27
OPPOSITION OPINIONS.
What Garfield, Hawley and Rsed Sad
About Minority Rights.

What Garfield, Hawley and Rsed SAD
About Minority Rights.
Having such . man as Reed in his
minds eye, James A. Garfield spoke in
part as follows in the House of Repre-
sentatives January %, 1880, on propo-
sition to amend the rules to permit the
Speaker, under certain circumstances,
to declare that a quorum was consti-
tuted:
Aside from the insuperable objection that
raised to this proposition thing that ought
not to be tried because of its vagueness, its un-
certainty and the danger that members Of the
House may be imposed upon by an unScrupu-
lous Speaker that may come hereafter say
that aside from all that, and beyond all that
ask members to consider one fact: This has
been House Of Representatives since 1879.
This House has been the theater Of all sorts OF
political storms and tempests. We have lived
through the times Of great wars Of great
civil war, when there were excitements hardly
paralleled In the history Of parliamentary an
mails. Yet during all these years man be-
fore, SO far as know, no party before has ever
thought it necessary to Introduce rule that
gives the power of declaring the presence Of
members by the single voice Of one person; a
power that will enable him to bring from his
sick bed dying man and put him down in this
hall, SO that the Speaker shall count him
and make his presence against his will and
perhaps in his delirium count in order to make
a quorum so that some partisan measure may
be carried out over the body Of that dying man.
Sir, the moment you get over the line, the
moment you Cross the boundary Of names, the
moment you leap over the iron fence of the roll
that moment you are out in the vague, and all
sorts OF disorders may come on.
Joseph r. Hawley, Of Connections,
said in the same debate:
Now, the evil, If there be one In the existing
system, that OF which gentlemen complain, is
simply this, that we of the minority claim a
right by sitting silent to prevent less than a
majority OF the members elected from passing
bill. The worst that can be done by fac
tious minority II that be the term applied to IL,
is to fight until the actual majority Of the mem
bers elected shall pass the bill. When they are
present that friendly majority constitute a
quorum Of themselves; they do not require the
assistance Of the minority; they run the House
themselves and pass their bills. In case of
what you call factious resistance we drive them
ONLY to that.
Now, we are causing no hardship whatever in
taking the ground we do against this new rule,
and think we do no serious wrong to the
country at any time when We sit in our seats
have bill passed in opposition to our wishes,
then let the majority come here and pass 1t
over our heads. At any rate, decline to be
answerable to anybody but my constituents II I
sit in my seat and decline to vote. hold my
self responsible to them and to the constitution
alone. I take my position with that horse
which is broLsh to the water but can not be
made to drink, and shouldsay that no Speaker
and no House should compel me to answer yes
no on roll call
think it very decidedly wrong, in the first
place. that a Speaker should rs at liberty to
recognize or declare quorum without formal
count, and, in the next place, that by any sort
of combination OF rules there should be law
put upon the statute book and declared in force
which can show, perhaps, only a quarter or ten
per cent. of the members in fa yor of it.
And Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, said,
among other things:
The constitutional idea OF . quorum
is not the presence Of a majority Of the mem
bers Of the House, but majority OF the mem
bers present and participating in the business
of the House. It Is not the visible presence Of
members, but their judgments and their votes
that the constitution calls for.