The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1890-08-02
THE North American Reyiew.1

| so thoroughly exploded that Mr.. Carlisle die
| not deem them worth producing in his ablt
and candidlarticle But the anonymous par
Humanitarian, never having either heard OF
read the debates. was perhaps not to blame
for not knowing the failure of those argu
ments when brought to the light OF day
In seclusion they may have seemed good
but In the House of Representatives they
best friends, only the brief measure of time
which was required to state them.
1t is not the intention of this article to re
state the arguments in favor of the position
OF the House Of Representatives on the quo
rum question. which is now ac
Tned States THAT Re Would dPf6SDe Sc en.ey re ht
perfuous. Ii they were not stated in the
March article, then they cannot be stated by
me. 1t is worth while, however, to restate
the principle .involved-a principle which
has not been limited in its acceptance by the
assent of Governor David B. Hill and Of sue
bodies as town councils, gas companies, and
the like, but has had the concurrence of su-
preme courts ali over the country. When
the Supreme Court Of the State of Maine.
the supreme Court Of New Hampshire, the
supreme Court Of Indiana, and the Supreme
Court OF Illinois, and many others, have
solemnly and repeatedly decided that the
doctrine of the quorum as maintained by the
present House Of Representatives is the law
everywhere, their decisions are not to be
and gas companies. When all the courts are
on the side of David B. Hill. it is hard for
even so exalted person as an ex-M. G. to
put him down with phrase or dispose of
him as mere politician.
The principle which all the courts have
thus unanimously sustained is very simple
one, and solves all the problems with equal
advantage to the business of the country and
equal sOlace to its common sense.
!, Inc presence OF majority of the legisla-
1--WE Dody constitutes a quorum to do busi-
ness. The essence of all business on the
part OF the legislative body isthe consent of
majority Of quorum of that body, either ex-
pressed or implied. 1t may be as thoroughly
expressed by silence as by sound. In the par
llamentary sense, presence always implies
full sight and hearing of all that takes place.
Ii member. then, is present in full sight
and sound of all occurrences, and if all ac-
tion Is loudly proclaimed by clerk or Speaker
he is as much party consenting to all that
occurs as If he vocferated in his loudest
tones. This all admit. Even the writer of
the anonymous article admits this in all
cases except that of yea-and-nay vote
Hence, even with him, we have only to deal
with that method OF determining the re-
suit
1t must be obvious that all methods of de-
terming the consent of the members are of
equal value. By each of them laws are
passed which have equal validity. Whether
the sense of the House is made manifest by
mere volume of sound or by the rising Of
members in their places, by members pass
ing between telers or by yeas and nays,
makes no difference whatever in the
result. Laws passed by either way
have equal force. What, then, was the OBJ
ject OF the constitutional provision as to yeas
and nays? Was it to establish a new and
separate doctrine Of quorum? Was the quo
rum to be majority present when all other
methods OF determining the question were
used, but majority voting when yeas and
nays were called? Was there to be one quo
rum required in one case and another quo
rum In another? Does it require any differ
ent body to pass bill by yeas and nays than
by a rising vote? A majority Of the House
being present, can 100 members to / pass a
bill by standing up, and not pass it by yeas
and nays? A claim like this utterly ignores
the meaning of the call for yeas and nays.
and the right to have it which is given un-
der the Constitution. What were the yeas
and nays given for? Look at the debates on
the adoption of the Constitution and you will
see. 1t was to inform the people how their
representatives voted, if they voted at all I;
and also the fact that they did not vote, If
such was the case The idea that, in addi
tion to this. the constitutional quorum was
thereby instantly shifted from majority
present to majority acting is entirely a
modern invention. as Illogical as it is uncon-
stitutional.
The CLERKS count Of those who
seems to meet the disapproVal of the anony-
nous writer. Gathering up hastily the
names of those scattered around the House"
is one OF the phrases. Sees, or thinks he
Gus. How long since has sight been inferior
to sound? When was it determined that the
eye was less accurate than the ear?
Theory and Practice.
In actual practice how is it? The clerks
record as to men present has thrice been cor
rected as to those present and not voting,
one name each time; but this has never been
so as to affect results. Many more times
tban that has there been error as to those
who voted People have responded by mis-
take for men at home sick, and men of SINH
lar name have responded. At one session of
the Forty-fOurth C0Dgre S, December 4, 1876,
an error was made on the vote which changed
the result entirely. A motion to suspend the
rules was carried by vote of 1856 to Is. Mr..
PlaiSted of Maine, was recorded as not vOt-
ing. On the 9th of December. the next day,
he rose in his place and declared that he
voted In the negative. and proved it. After
ward Mr.. Fuller arose and declared that, al
though he was recorded as not voting.he had
voted in the affirmative. This left the vote
1877 to 70, not two-thirds. Thereupon Mr..
Randall, the. Speaker. claimed the right to
give the casting vote and gave it, and so the
motion was finally carried. On January s,
1S49, Mr.. Farrelly's vote was not recorded,
and on the next day the correction was
was lost instead of carried. The vote by
yeas and nays whereby General Grant was
made General on the retired list, as given In
the House journal, contains DO less than
four errors, which can never be corrected,
the Congress having ceased to be.
Examples might easily be multiplied To
show that this absolute correctness of the
vote" Is but the dream of an ingenious
pamphleteer hard-preSsed for an argument,
and despairing at the outset of finding any
TO which he would care to sign his name.
In the lace and eyes OF these facts how
idle II is to say, The call insures the
absolute correctness of the vote" With the
very same truth 1t may be said that the roll.
call and the noting of members present and
not voting insure the record Of the presence
OF a quorum with accuracy. 1t Is not
absolute correctness in either case, but as
much so in the one as the other
1t IS hardly worth while to waste time on
the discrepancy discovered between rule
Will and rule XIV; between rule of Imperfect
obligation, which expresses the sense of the
House as to the duty of each member, and a
rule which meets the practical question OF
member refusing to do his duty. Ii the
actual bodily presence Of a majority OF mem
berS constitutes quorum, as all the courts
have unanimously decided, Is anything
more needed than the machinery to record
that fact? Does recording the fact that tney
refuse to do their duty exOnerate them
Has the anonymous writer forgotten tne OH,
quoted quotation of the most eminent
Speaker that ever sat in the chair aproPos
Of rule viii, that you might bring morse
to water. but could not make MN atlnK
Does this nameless writer dream that he
could do what the unriyalled resources and
wonderful genius of Mr.. Blaine were openly
confessed to be unequal to? Is there some.
where in space a mute, inglorious Milton
some buried Cromwell, who could have done
what our most skilful parliamentarian de
clared in open House he could not.
X. m. c.'s Remedy.
The evil to be corrected by the new rule.
il admitted by the eX-M @. He thnrefnr,