Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1890-02-20
OPPOSITION OPINIONS.
What Garfield. Hawiey and Reed Said
About Minority Rights.

| 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
| suited:
Aside from the insuperable objection that
| raised to this proposition, thing that ought
not to be tried because of its Eagueness, its
certainty and the danger that members of the
House may be imposed upon by an unscrupu
louS Speaker that may come hereafter-I say
that aside from all that, and beyond all that,
I ask members to consider fact This has
been q House of Representatives since 1889.
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,
nails. Yet during all these years man be-
fore, SO far as I 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-b dying and put him down in this
hall, that the Speaker shall count him,
and make his presence against his will, and
perhaps in his delirium count in order to make
Il quorum, so Luab some psiFllsiu measure may
be carried out the body of that dying man.
Sir, the moment you get 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 Connecticut,
said in the same debate:
Now, the evil if there be in the existing
system, that of which gentlemen complain, is
81 1I1-f that nf he mil c13i,
right by sitting silent prevent less than
majority of the members elected from passing
a bill. The worst that be done by a fac
tious minority, If that be the term applied. to it,
is to fight until the actual majority of the mem
bers elected shall pass the bill When they are
present that friendly majority constitute
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 Z + *
Now, causing no hardship whateverin
taking the ground we do against this new rule.
and think do serious wrong to the
country at any time when sit in our seats
and decline to vote. If the, majority desires to
have a bill passed in opposition to our wishes
then let the majority come here and pass 1t
our heads. At any rate, I decline to be
answerable to anybody but my constituents if
sit in my seat and decline to vote. hold my
self responsible to them and to the constitution
alone. l take my position with that horse
which is brought to the water but can not be
made to drink, and l should say that no Speaker
and no House should compel. me to answer yes
roll call.
I think it very decidedly wrong in the first
place, that Speaker should ha at liberty to
recognize declare quorum without formal
count and, in the next place that by any sort
of combination of rules there should be a law
put upon the statute book and declared in force
which can show, perhaps, only quarter or ten,
per cent. of the members in favor of It,.
And Thomas b. Reed, of Maine, said,
anon, other things:
The constitutional idea of a quorum
is not the presence Of majority of the mem
bers of the House, but majority of the
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.