Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1890-02-09


ton It il is the policy of the proposed
rules 60 suppress the individual members
Of the House as far as possible and increase
the powers of the committees. In fact, un-
der the proposed rules the individual
member will scarcely have power to make
a motion of any kind, except when he acts
as the representative of committee and by
It's directions. He will neither introduce
a bill nor
MAKE A REPORT
except by delivering it TO the clerk or the
Speaker. and if his bill should be errOne-
ously referred he cannot himself move to
correct it unless he does so within three
davs after its reference.
Relative to the change in the rules gov
erning the committee of the whole, the
minority says:
Ia has always been 80 universally con-
ceded that the committee of the whole
House was simply the House itself, that 1t
has never been considered necessary to
prescribe in the rules what number Of
members should constitute a quorum in
such committee. The constitution re-
quires a msl lrity of all the members elect
10 constitute a quorum 10 do business in
the House, and without any rules on the
subject the same number has
ALWAYS BBEN RECOGNIZED
a. necessary in a committee Of the whole,
and whenever it found itself with lees than
that number present and voting it has been
compelled to suspend its proceedings.
10 addition to this proposition to reduce
the number necessary to constitute quo
ram. It IS also proposed by q modification
OF the old rule % 10 confer upon the Com
mittee OF the Whole the power TO close all
debate upon any section or paragraph Of
the bill under consideration. Such a
mower has never been heretofore given TO
ihe committees, bat has always been ex-
ercised by the House, and, in our
onipion, il will be unWise to
make a change. In this respect,
esneeially if 100 members are to
constitute q quorum in the Committee
f In pursuance of this same policy in reduc-
ing the number of representatives necss-
ssry to pass laws and transact other busi-
ness. it Is proposed by the majority to in
sert the following clause in rule XIV:
"3-Oa the demand Of any member, or
at the suggestion of the Speaker before
the second roll-call is entered upon the
names of members Sufficient to make
quorum in the hall of the House, who do
not vote
SHALL BE NOTED
nv the Clerk and recorded on the Journal,
and reported to the Speaker with
the names Of members voting, and be
counted and announced in determining
the presence Of a quorum to do business. 8"
This is the mcst radical and in our Opin-
ion the most dangerous innovation proposed
by ths neiority. / agreed to 1t will not
only overthrow the construction that has
been uniformly given to the Constitution
for more than a century, but 1t will enable
less than o msjority of the representatives
of ,he people to pass the most import
ant laws affecting the interests Of the
whole country. The personal property
rights Of the citizens, protected heretofore
nv laws enacted by the votes of 2 msjoriiy,
nav be impaired or destroyed by the votes
~ 4 mere fraction OF the members Of Con-
rress. for. if less than a msjorlty may con
stltu.ionally pass measures Ii the House, OF
course the came thing may be done IN the
Senate. In the same way enormous sums
OF money may be appropriated from the
public treasury for
TIE MOST UNCONSTITUTIONAL
pnrposes and the interests Of the taxpayers
completely snbordinsted to the selfish de-
mauds Of private individuals and corpora
tions.
Without entering here into discussion
Of the constitutional question involved IN
this proposition, We earnestly protest
against it as q measure Of the most danger
Gus and revolutionary character. Any
rule or practice which enables the Speaker
or the Clerk to pss3 a bill counting mem
bers present sud not voting will inevitably
result in destroying the confidence OF the
people in the integrity OF legislation and
engender controversies and hugauons
which might be easily avoided BY an sd
bersnce 10 the mandate of the constitution
as heretofore interpreted. Discussing the
abolition OF dilatory motions the minority
is emphatic in it's protest. 1t says;
The proposed clause, allowing the Speak
er 70 refuse to entertain any motion which
he NAV consider dilstOry, is absolutely
Inconsistent with the other provisions Of
the rule. To provide that members shall
have the right 10 make certain motions
and AZ the same time 20 provide that the
Speaker may refuse to entertain them, and
NAV also refuse to entertain an appeal
from his decision, is simply 20 place the
whole law of the House, so far es paTlia-
mentary motions are concerned, in the
hands of the presiding officer and deprive
the members of every right in this respect,
which the rules purport 70 confer upon
them. A rule sbolishing all parliamentary
motions heretofore recognized in the House
and simply providing that members may
make such motions only as the Speaker
may see proper to permit and take
ONLY SUCH APPEALS
from his decisions as be msy see proper to
allow. would st least have the merit of di-
rectuess and simplicity. Such a rule
would be no more unreasonable or srj ust
than the one COW proposed snd would pre-
vent cor fjcts upon the a1or by advising
" u1h their