Montgomery County sentinel., 1890-02-07
TYRANNY IN THE HOUSE,

messed in the Congress of the United States.
The Democrats in their wild indignation
applied to Speaker Reed the epithets of
tyrant, usurper, czar and villain, and read
his remarks taking opposing ground on a
fermer occasion on a similar question, for
his unprecedented ruling in the count of
the yeas and nays on motion in the Smith
and Jackson contested case. The Demo
Gratis refused TO vote to prevent a quorum,
as the Republicans from among their own
partisans could not do so. Reed kept count
of the Democrats present and not voting
and ordered the clerk to records their names
upon the journal During all the battle
Reed is said to have not been moved, hold
ing to his position, as he has since, and the
House is now controlled by such villainy.
Calmly and deliberately the Speaker pro-
ceeded. He said:
"The Clerk has announced of members
voting 161 yeas, nays. The Chair there.
upon, having seen the members present,
having heard their names called in their
presence, has directed a record to be made
of this fact. Accordingly, that question is
now before the House, and the Chair pro
poses to give a statement, accompanied by
a ruling, from which an appeal can be taken
if any gentleman is dissatisfied Herewith"
"Mr. Chsp, of Georgia: "In advance |
enter an appeal" Laughter
The Speaker, continuing, said that for
some considerable time question of this
nature had been raised in very many par
liamentary assemblies, and there had been
great deal Of doubt, especially in this body,
on the subject. The Chair well recelected
of do u
dolph Tucker, of Virginia, an able consti-
tutional lawyer, as well as an able member
of this House. The matter had been some.
what discussed, and the proposition was
made with regard TO putting it in the rules.
The general opinion which prevailed at that
time was that it was expedient to do so.
Some men had grave doubts whether ii was
proper to make such amendment to the
rules as would constitute the persons pres
ent part of the quorum. The evils which
had resulted from the other course had not
been apparent then as now, and no such
careful study had been then given TO the
subject as was given at the present time.
That had taken place in 1880. Since then
there had been various arguments and var-
Gus decisions by very eminent gentlemen
on the subject, and these decisions had very
much cleared up the question and rendered
il much more apparent what the true rule
question had been raised was the Senate OF
the State of New York The present Gov.
ernor of New York had been the presiding
officer, and upon him had devolved duty
similar TO that which had now devolved up
ON the Speaker He had met that duty in
precisely the same manner.
The question in New York had arisen on
the constitutional necessity OF having three.
iitths of the members to constitute quorum
for the passage of a certain bill, and the
presiding officer had held that constitutional
provision as 10 a quorum was entirely salts
fled by the presence of the members, even if
they did not vote. Accordingly, he had di-
rected the recording officer OF the assembly,
as part of the record of the transaction, TO
put down the names of the members of the
senate who were present and refused to
vote in precisely the manner which the
present occupant of the chair had adopted,
That decision could not be regarded as in
any sense partisan, at least as he cited it.
Mr. Carlisle, of Kentucky, said:
This decision, strictly speaking, is not
question of parliamentary law in the proper
sense of the word. 1t is u question of con.
sttutional law. No Speaker ever sat in
that chair and undertook to hold that less
than quorum can pass any bill or vote in
this House. Until this morning, repeat,
no presiding officer in the House has ever
held that it was competent for less than n
quorum OF the members elect to this House
to pass any motion or bill. All have held
from the beginning of Congress down to
this day that Ii majority must not only be
present TO constitute quorum, but that
quorum must participate in the legislation.
Mr. Carlisle then quoted the section of
the Constitution which provides for the
keeping Of a Journal and for the entering
upon it of the yeas and nays when demand
ed by one fifth Of the members present, and
also that section which states that less than
quorum can adjourn from day to day. and
can compel the Attendance of absent mem
bers. He continued:
Now, the Constitution did not say in ex.
press terms that in order TO transact bust
ness q majority OF the House should be pres.
ent, but that majority OF the House should
constitute a quorum ITO do business" and
then it proceeded to specify distinctly what
those things were which minority could
do He need not say to body like this,
consisting in large part of lawyers, that it
was well known and recognized rule of
construction that where the Constitution or
ii statute enumerated certain things all 0thers
were excluded When, therefore, the fran.
i0rity of the members elect should constitute
a quorum to do business, they saw that il it
stopped there less than quorum could do
nothing. Therefore, they had provided that
less than quorum could do certain things
Ii the ruling made this morning was correct
there was no necessity for any provision of
the Constitution defining what less than Il
majority could do.
A majority constituted a quorum "to do
business" Those words were not in the
constitution of New York upon which Lieu.
tenant. Governor Hills decision had been
based. The New York constitution pro
vided that on the passage of certain bills
three fifths of the members should consti.
tute quorum, but it did not require three.
fifths to pass the bill. On the contrary il
had been expressly stated by the presiding
officer that the bill did pass by the vote
which the constitution required to pass all
bills, to wit, a majority of the members
present.
lie was not saying this to justify that de.
cision, because he thought it was wrong
He did not agree with Gov Hill that he
had right to count the vote. He regretted
that when his Republican friends were OBJ
liged to rely on Democratic precedents for
their action they should take the worst they
could find. Laughter There were plenty
of good Democratic precedents which could
be found without much difficulty.
Mr.. Carlisle then went on To argue that
as the journal OF the House was accepted
by the courts of the country as conclusive
evidence of the action of the House, it was
absolutely necessary that it should record
the proceedings accurately. 1t might be
said that according to the ruling of the
Speaker, the journal of to-day was true.
He denied absolutely the right of the pre-,
siding officer of the House to make the
journal. [Applause on Democratic side
He concluded as follows