Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-02-09
WASHINGTON CULLINGS.
Charges Preferred against the Com
mander Of the Bear.
DEMOCRACY AND HOUSE RULES.
New Postmasters Appointed-Ccr-
tificates for Honorable Mill
tary Service.
IRrcuAL DISPATCHES TO TIE sEOoaD-uNIos.l
THE HOUSE RULES.
Objections Raised by Carlisle q
Randall

THE HOUSE RULES.
Objections Raised by Carlisle and
Randall.
WASHINGTON, February Sth. Though
net formally presented in the House, ma
iority and minority reports upon the new
code of rules were filed with the Journal
Clerk and ordered printed. In regard to
the rule authorizing the Speaker to count
a quorum, the majority report says: THE
process of ascertaining the presence of
quorum to do business under the Constitu-
ton would ordinarily be under the control
of the Speaker, who should derive his in
formation from his own senses, or by the
aid of the Clerk, or in any way which
would satisfy his mind as to the accuracy of
the count. Under our system of roll calls
it has been deemed more convenient, as
certain, to announce the votes of members
aud the presence of those wEo refuse to
vote at the same time and by the same
means"
Discussing the new clause to rule twenty
six, that no "dilatory motion shall be en-
tertained by the Speaker" the report says:
This clause is merely declaratory of parli-
amentary law. There are no words which
can be framed which will limit the men,
bers to the proper use of former motions.
In early days such prostitution of legiti-
mate motions caused by anger, willfulness
and party zeal was not so much as named
among legislators. To-day the abuse has
grown to such proportions that the parlia-
mentary law which governs American as
semblies has found it necessary to keep
pace with the evil and enable the majority,
by The Intervention Of the presiding officer,
to meet by extraordinary means the extra
Nf ~
sometimes of very few members"
Considering the question of providing
that 100 members shall constitutes quorum
in the Committee of the Whole, the report
states that this change was made necessary
by members refusing to vote when the
roll was called, and points out the fact that
everything done in the committee has to
be reported to the House, and that nothing
done is in any way final.
The minority report signed by Carlisle
and Randall reviews the proposed code
and criticises many features. The minority
report says: Under clause of rule "a no
bill on the House calendar can be reached
for consideration unless called up by the
committee that reported it, and under
clause of the same rule no individual
member can make an original motion for
the purpose of considering any particular
bill in the Committee of the Whole. When,
however, a motion has been made by
direction of a committee to go into Com
mittee of the Whole to consider particular
bill, an individual member may move to
amend it by the substitution of another
bill.
This is the extent of his right under the
proposed rule, and it is evident he will be
placed ct great disadvantage.
The only reasonable explanation for this
discrimination is the policy of the pro-
posed rules to suppress the individual
members of the House as far as possible
and increase the powers of the committees.
In fact, under the proposed rules an indi-
vidual member will scarcely have the
power to make motion of any kind, ex-
cept when he acts as the representative of
a committee and by its direction.
Relative to the change in rules governing
the Committee of the Whole the minority
says: 1t has always been so universally
conceded that the Committee of the Whole
is simply the House itself that il has never
been considered necessary to prescribe in
the rules what number of members was
necessary to constitute a quorum. What
the Constitution requires is a majority of
all the mem bers elect to constitute a quo
rum and to do business in the House, and
| without any rule on the subject the same
number has always been recognized as
necessary in the Committee of the Whole
In addition to this proposition to reduce
the number necessary to constitute quo
rum, it is also proposed by modification of
old rule % to confer upon the Committee
of the Whole power to close all debate
upon any section or paragraph of a bill
under consideration. Such power has never
been heretofore given to committees but it
has always been exercised by the House and
in our opinion it would be unwise to make
change in this respect, especially if 100
members are to constitute quorum in
committee.
On the subject of permitting the Speaker
to count quorum, tina minority says:
This is the most radical, and, in our opin-
ion, dangerous innovation proposed by the
majority, and if agreed to, will not only
overthrow the construction uniformly
given the Constitution for more than a
century. but will enable less than ma
iority of the representatives of the people
to pass most important laws affecting the
interests of the whole country, and the
personal and property rights of citizens
protected heretofore by laws enacted by
the votes of the majority may be impaired
or de moralized by the votes of a mere
fraction of the members of Congress; for if
less than majority may constitutionally
pass measures in the House, OF course the
same thing may be done in the Senate.
In the same way enormous sums may be
appropriated from the public treasury for
the most unconstitutional purposes, and
the interests of taxpayers completely sub
ordinated to the selfish demands OF private
individuals and corporations.
Without entering here into discussion
of the constitutional question involved in
this proposition. we earnestly protest
against it as a measure of the most danger
Gus revolutionary character. The proposed
clause allowing the Speaker to refuse to en-
terrain any motion which he may consider
dilatory is absolutely inconsistent with the
other provisions of the rule. To provide
that members shall have right to make
certain motions, and at the same time to
provide that the Speaker may refuse to en-
terrain them, and may also refuse to enter
tain an appeal from his decision, is simply
to place the whole law Of the House, so far
as parliamentary motion is concerned, in
the hands of the presiding officer.