The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1890-02-11
A Constitutional Majority

Majority rule. therefore, as Republican leaders
nres by less than the constitutional majority Of
the House, and the compelling Of Democrats to
most to wash their hands Of it entirely The plan
may carry, but Il will be blunder and disgrace
TO It's authors.-Eastern Argus.
Our esteemed contemporary is all wrong.
Nobody claims that when less than ma
jority of the House is present and in cond-
tlon to act, any bill can legally be passed.
What the Republicans claim lis that when
majority of the House is present majority
of that majority Is competent to legislate,
and that such competency cannot be defeated
by the minority by sitting with their mouths
shut any more than by voting. 166 consti-
tutes quorum Of the present House. Sup
pose the Republicans have present 165 Of
their own men: and the Democrats have one
Of theirs. Now If the Republicans vote in the
ave and the Democrat in the mega
tive on any bill, the bill is passed legally and
eonstitutionally. The Argus will not deny
that. Yet the measure has been passed
by an affirmative vote which is
less than a constitutional majority OF the
whole House. So then, the Argus must adj
NIT that less than constitutional majority
Of the House is competent to pass bill.
The point at issue in the House now Is, not
whether less number of votes in the affir-
native Of any prop osition is competent to
pass it, for everybody acknowledges that 1t
is, but whether in order TO determine II a
constitutional majority is present In the
House-for the presence of such majority
is acknowledged by everybody to be an in
-dispensable prereQuisite-sole reliance must
ba nlQPQd the IN a call 0f the
yeas and nays, or whether the Speaker may
take cognizance of the obvious fact that
such constitutional m ajority is actually
present. The Democrats claim yea and
nay vote must be the sole reliance, and
that men who see fit to sit with their mouths
shut must be reckoned as absent, n0twith-
standing their presence Is obvious to every
one. The Republicans contend that their OBJ
vious presence can be taken into account,
and that they can legally be placed on record
as present and not voting. The proper
guide in this matter is the constitution. Now
what did that contemplate? The paragraph
relating to this particular subject provides
that majority of either house shall consti-
tHte quorum to do business. That GER
tainly does not mean that nothing less than
eAS WV Va viz AaoJOAitJ Va viz WhOsN ANaSS
in the affirmative will suffice to pass bill.
1t means, everybody admits, that if there Is
constitutional presence in the House Of
majority Of the whole House, then ma
jority Of that majority will be sufficient to
legislate. Now what constitutes presence
within the meaning Of the constitution?
The next clause of the paragraph which pro-
yides that majority may be authorized to
compel the "Gttenddnce Of members" settles
1t. 1t was simply being present that was
contemplated. The debates which preceded
the adoption Of this paragraph make this
intention still more clear. 1t was at first
proposed that minority Of the whole house
be allowed to transact lany kind Of business.
But there was objection to this, and finally a
compromise was agreed upon. A majority
was constituted quorum, but minority
was permitted to compel the attend
ance Of absent members. What for? There
can be but one answer. They were to be
permitted to do this so that they could COM
pei quorum. But if after sufficient absent
members were brought in to make quorum,
by sitting silent they could compel the
House to ignore the fact that they were in
attendance, the power given to the minority
amounted to nothing at all. 1t was simply
farce. The constitution makers did not in
dulge in farces.
But this doctrine OF the minority not only
stultifies the constitution makers but it stul'
titles common sense. 1t says in effect that a
legislator sitting quiet shall be more power
full than legislator acting. Under this doc
trine if one hundred and sixty five Republic
cans vote for measure and one hundred and
forty-nine Democrats vote against 1t the bill
ispassed. If on the contrary one hundred and
sixty-fye Republicans vote for it and one
hundred and forty-nine Democrats who are
In attendance do not vote at all then the Dill
Is defeated. The bill has got no more votes
10 its favor in one case than in the other, Dut
In the former it has one hundred and forty
nine votes against it and in the latter none,
YET In the former case it becomes law
Wnlle In the latter it still remains only bill.
mat IS to say, the silent forms of one hun
dred and forty-nine Democrats have accom-
pllshed more than the same number In ac-
tlon.
The Argus's claim that the counting of
Democrats tends to implcate them in legis-
lation which they are opposed to is Simply
absurd. The Democrats are free to act If
they see fit to. Every one Of them can 20 on
record against the proposed measure. If
they see fit to allow themselves to 60 on record
as present and not voting, when 1t is in their
power to 90 on record as voting against the
measure that is their affair. And if there is
any discredit attaching to it it is perfectly
right that they should bearit.
-----------
CURRENT COMMENT.