The sun., 1890-01-31
Is Speaker Reed q Dictatorq

Is Speaker Reed o DictatoF2
It is Of the utmost moment that the ques-
ton raised on Wednesday In the House of
Representatives. and stormily pursued
yesterday, should be decided promptly
and decided Alright. The Republican House
sustained the Speaker yesterday, but the
question may be raised again ct any
time. Is the Speaker clothed with the
power to determine whether the quorum
defined by the Federal Constitution is pres
ent at Q given time. or must the presence Of
such quorum be determined by tho re-
corded votesp That is q question to be
answered, not in accordance with tho osten-
stble and temporary interests Of q po-
litical party, nor yet In conformity with
precedents made In this or that State by
moro or less distinguished expounders Of
State organic law and State Legislative pro-
cedure. 1t should only be answered after q
careful and candid review Of the text and the
intention Of tho Federal Constitution, and
after an anxious contemplation Of tho possi-
bic consequences Of q given construction.
Let us remind tho reader very briefly Of
the proceedings which brought this question
to the front. When on Wednesday con-
tested election case In West Virginia was
brought before the House. Mr.. CRISP of
Georgia interpoeed o motion whose pur-
pose was to raise preliminary inquiry
whether the case ought to be considered be-
fore the House should have adopted code
OF rules. On this motion 161 votes were re-
corded in the affirmative and ain the mega
tive. making 1853 votes In all, or less than o
majority Of the members elected to the
House. A majority being needed TO consti-
tute quorum to do business, Speaker
REED ordered the Clerk to record
the names of certain members whom
he (the Speaker) declared to be visibly
present. although not voting. In this
way o quorum was manufactured, and
the motion was pronounced carried. There
upon followed O discussion in which the
people of this country are deeply interested,
o adiscussion, namely. Of the question whether
the Speakers assertion Is q conclusive
voucher OF the presence OF a member, or
whether the fact Of presence is solely aacer-
tainahle from an inspection Of the votes re-
corded. Mr. REED said that he ordered
certain members to be counted because
their presence was a physical fact. Is o
physical fact legal fact In the eye Of the
Constitution. and can the Speaker be trusted
to determine whether the physical fact
exists or not
There seems at first sight something to be
said In favor OF the view taken by Mr.. REED.
The Constitution. Article l.. section o. pre-
scribes that "a majority Of each [Housel
shall constitute quorum to do business;
but smaller number may adjourn from day
to day, and may be authorized to compel the |
attendance OF absent members" There are,
then, but two things which q confessed NIL |
nority can do. But suppose that such q 4
minority has exercised one Of It's two constt- |
tutional powers and has compelled tho at |
OF number of members sufficient. |
" they should vote, to constitute q majority: |
does the physical presence Of such ooerced |
suffice to ele outa quorum, II they
refuse to vote. or may the coercive powers Of !
the minority be rendered nugatory by such
refusal? Mr. REED contends that tho franz
ara OF the organic law could not mean to
permit the notification OF an authority
which they took pains to confer. Nor can
It be denied that. when the definition
of quorum was considered In the
Philadelphia Convention (see Elliot's De-
bates ", 4O5. 4O8), no one seems to have
deemed 1t possible that member physically
present might attempt to defeat the con-
OF a quorum by refusing to vote.
It was taken for granted that members
present would VOTE and the controlling
reasons for insisting that majority Of the
members elected must be present In order
70 constitute quorum were drawn from
the vast extent of the Union. the diversity
,f Its interests, and tho difficulty Of COM
with the capital. The central
States. 1t was pointed out. could mora con-
and constantly have their mem
oers present than could the States moro dis
ant from the Federal capital, and, there
ore, 1t was decided that a majority OF the
House should constitute q quorum for the
of business
Nevertheless. although the distinction be-
'ween physical and legal presence was not
deliberately examined at Philadelphia In
.7S7, we must assume that the Fathers, as
men OF common sense, would have recog-
1ized such distinction had their attention
been called to 1t. 1t was an intelligent, en-
'rgizing. effective presence. not q blind
iumb. torpid. and senssless presence, which
must have been contemplated by tho authors
'f the Federal organic law, It was men
competent and willing to exercise the right
'f voting, not men asleep or drunk or paraI-
ESed. that they had In mind when they pre-
OCEtbed the uumberI needed to constitute