, 1890-03-13
sPEAKrR AND Ex.sPEAKER,

orGAAEn AND EA-SrEAhEH'
When the editor Of the North
American Review invited Speaker
Reed and ex-Speaker Carlisle to dis
cuss In the March issue of that mag
azine the subject of the limitations
OF the speakership, he probably sup.
posed that the counting Of q uorunl
would be the main theme. so evi.
IDENTIFY thought Speaker Reed, who
devoted his entire paper to this
phase Of the subject. So evidently
thought the public. who were inter.
ested in this phase OF the subject al
most 10 the exclusion of all minor
phases. Yet In his paper covering
nine pages, ex-Spcaker Carlisle de-
votes the first ak pages and the last
two pages respectively to a criticism
of the new house rules In allowing
the speaker TO refuse TO entertain
dilatory motions, and In allowing
the speaker TO refer subjects to any
committee he chooses.
Hidden between these ponderous
discussions Of comparatively unim-
portant matters, ex-Speaker Carlisle
makes a page sllusion to the quo
rum question, In which he admits
the abstract right Of the house to
make such q rule, but doubts its
constitutional right to do So and
then relieves himself OF the embar-
rassment of giving reasons by dis
missing the subject with the obser-
walton that this Is not the place to
discuss a constitutional question:"
1t Is quite evident that cx.speaker
Carlisle appreciated the fact that he
had no case on the subject of the
quorum, and feeling the necessity Of
saying something under the circum-
stp-ccs, obscured the main issue as
much ms possible.
Speaker Reeds paper, on the con-
trary, is straight to the point-keen,
trenchant and vigorous--and bristl.
ing with wit and logic. His
strongest point Is the very one that
ex-Speaker Carlisle doubts, viz, the
constitutionality Of the new rule.
His reason for this lie states as fol-
lows: "The language of the consti.
tuition leaves no room for question.
n by any chance there is not a
quorum, the constitution provides a
way to get one. 1t is not by record
ing those present as voting either
aye or nay, but by making the alb.
sent present. 1t provides for the
supply Of what Ia lacking. That
which was lacking was quorum.
IT supplies that lack by attend.
ance.' Attendance alone was and
Is necessary. 1t is inconcevable
that our ancestors should have tried
to supply by attendance a lack OF
quorum fthey knew that attend.
ance' would not supply the lack.
Why send for men II that was not
the remedy?"
Speaker Reed also furnishes preced-
ents from various deliberative bodies
for similar action. and for that mat
ter furnishes numerous precedents
from ex-Speaker Carlisle's own ad-
ministration, where IL is shown that
many measures were passed and APP
proved where nota 1.-THE of quorum
voted, but where silence was con.
strued to mean assent and not OBJ
structlon, and nobody thought Of
objecting. He calls attention to the
danger existing in the much over
vaunted rights of the minority" by
citing where, in 1880, one man,
entrenched behind "hundred year
old precedents," held the whole
country at bay. Some of his al
lusions to the ''Invlsibility Of the
visible,n 'the doctrine Of corporeal
presence and parliamentary nb-
sence,n ETC., are good examples OF
Speaker Reeds well-known sarcas.
tic wit. Altogether 1t Is hard to see
wherein the democracy hos profited
by this magazine discussion.