Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1890-01-31

LANOADTERs PA, January 81, lSSO
Revolutionary Republicans.
Much might be said in behalf Of tht
posltion now taken by Speaker Reed that
the members Of the House who art
present should be counted In determin'
ing whether there Is quorum OF the
body In attendance at Its sessions, If II
was . new question, for the first time
presented for the speakers ruling; but
when the uninterrupted practice Of
the House during all tho existence
Of the country has been not
to count as present those who
do not answer to their names, 1t
seems clear that It was an established
rule or custom which could not he
changed by the decision Of speaker at
this late day and which could only
properly be altered by the action Of the
House deliberately taken in the usual
manner upon the consideration of the
report of committee.
In the issue which has been framed
between the two parties In the House,
and which will go before the country
for it, decision, we do not consider that
the merit of the abstract question of the
constitution of n quorum Is the point in
question but that the issue Is as to
whether the speaker Of the House may
change at his discretion it's uniform
practice and establish new rule for ito
conduct.
4 hat hn oil ~
counting quorum has not been estab-
lished by the voice Of q majority of the
House 1t was stated by the speaker, ap-
proved by the members Of his party who
were in attendance, who did not make
up majority Of all the members chosen
70 the House and the number OF men,
bes needed to make up the quorum In
attendance which would alone make
the vote valid, was secured by treating
this very plan or rule, which was before
the House for adoption, as though twas
already adopted.
It Is impossible, 1t seems to us, for any
fair mind to approve the adoption Of a
new rule for the House procedure in
this violent manner. It was not
possible to adopt new rule,
but under the rules of the House
then existing. It was not posi-.
ble for the speaker to change him.
self the unvarying custom of the House,
which assuredly was q law. 1t could
only be done by the House. 1t was not
done by the House because a constitu-
tionAl majority was not got for 1t. The
new rule that was to change the lawful
method was the matter that was being
voted upon; and 1t could not be followed
In the very vote that was to decide
whether It should be adopted.
But it does not need argument TO show
the violently partisan character of the
conduct Of Speaker Reed and his fol-
lowers. That which they did was clearly
done to increase their power In the
House, and without any consideration
for the merit of the new procedure that
they pretend now to laud because of its
merit. This very Reed has hereto.
fore taken the position that the
members vote and not his pres
ence was the essential thing in
making quorum. Mr.. Blaine, in
his long leadership of his party, took a
like position, as did Garfield, and as, in
fact, every noted parliamcntarian has
done. Those who would have thought
otherwise If the proposition had
been an original one, held the
question to be settled by the
long and uniform practice of Con-
gress and 1t is reserved for this COM
paratively quiet time In political affairs
for Reed to appear to lead his party in q
evolutionary course that 10 without
excuse In any critical condition Of
ansairs.
II - the impulse Of one man, his
hunger for power and his disposition to
seise II arbitrarily, that has precipitated
fhia situation 10. y s,a sr, p. esiurnt or
Gfeve,sS NaIlonD' ,teed 10 Of the Thaddeus
sAhs type of man, bold In his def
ance Of restraint upon his will and with
feeble regard for restrictions of the law;
and will be likely to fee as readily out
Of window before the appearance of a
force whose physical power he is capa-
bic Of appreciating.
II this new mode of making a quorum
had been the deliberate action of ma.
jo1ity Of the House, and the mode Of its
establishment had been free from objec-
tlon %, that 1t might he considered to
b . lawfully established change In the
practice Of the House, there would be
little occasion for denunciation of the
majority, who thus properly made
the change, and they would have
= hA A.
them from the argument in favor of the
propriety Of the new procedure which
70 many minds will be strong. II does
mot seem that minority of the House
h generally justified In restraining its
action by refusing to let its votes be re-
corded to make quorum. 1t appears to
b. the duty Of every representative to be
always in his seat during the sessions
~ the House and always TO vote when
his name is called.
We do not know how he can properly
excuse his failure to vote when his name
- called, save under some custom of the
House which makes this a legitimate
Nnede Of securing an object that he
4oka- And such custom, We are
disposed to think, may prodtably
- broken up. 1t is said with
much force that If the speaker is author
lied TO count members as present who
do not vote, he may count those as pres
ent who are not present, if he should he
% disposed T; and 1t Is true that he
would have this power and might abuse
n II in times Of excitement or from
Dxunaure of other Influences An nm