The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-02-09

the same vote ought TO be sufficient when made
oy an individual member upon his responsibility
and in behalf Of his constituents Tie only
reasonable explanation for this discrimination
Is that 1t is the policy Of the proposed rules to
suppress individual members of the House so
Tar as possible and increase the powers OF the
Committee. In fact, under the propose rules
an individual member will scarcely have power
TO make motion Of any kind except when he
acts as the repreSe eRtatiVs of a committee and
py its direction. He will neither introducs a
olu, nor make a report, except by delivering it
70 the clerk or speaker, and if his bill should be
erroneousy referred he cannot himself move
70 correct 1t, unless he does so within three
days after its reference,
hslative TO the change in the rules gov
ernlng tie committee of the whole, the
minority says:
1t has always been universally conceded that
the committee of the whole House was simply
the House itself, and that it has never been CON
sloered necessary to prescribe in the rules
What number OF members should be necessary
10 constitute quorum in such committee. Still
IL requires majority of all the members-elect
70 constitute quorum to do business in the
House, AMI without rule on the subject the
same number has been recognized as necessary in
committee of the whole and whenever it found
Itself with less than that number present and
voting 1t has been compelled TO suspend its
proceedings In addition to this proposition to
reduce the number necessary to constitute q
quorum, it is also proposed by the mo .Iiication
of old rule % to confer upon the committee Of
the whole power to close all debate on
b 3 under SeG0n paragraph sob of noe1
mas never oeen before given TO committees, but
has always been exercised by the House. and.
IN our opinion, it will be unwise to make a
change in this respect, as 100 members are to
ance Of this same policy of reducing the num-
Der or representatives to pass laws and trans
act other business, it is proposed by the
majority to insert the following clause in
rule Is: s. On demand of any member or
at the instance of the speaker before a second
roll call Is entered upon the record the names
OF members Sufficient to make a quorum) in
the hall OF the House who do not vote shall be
noted by the clerk and recorded in the journal
and eported to the sp aAer, with the names of
the members voting. AMI be recorded and an
nounced in determining the presence of a
quorum to do business. This is the most radical,
ami IN our OPT ion the most dangerous innovation
proposed by the majority. If agreed to it
will not only overthrow the construction that
has been uniformly given to the constltutionfar
more than whole century, but it will enable
less than majority Of the representatives Of
the people to pas, most important laws, affect
ing the interest of the Whole country. Personal
and property rights of citizens pro ected here
tUfore by laws enacted by the votes of a ma
jority, may be impaired or destroyed by the
votes of a mere fraction Of the members
of congress for less than a majority may CON
stitutionaily pass measures in the House. OF
course the same thing may be done in tue Sen
ate. In the sam way enormous sums of money
may be appr Jprated from the public treasury
for most unconstitutional and improper pur-
poses, and the interests of the taxpayers COM
pletely subordinated to the selfish de-
mands Of private individuals aud corporations
Without entering here into discussion of the
constitutional question involved in this PROPOSE
tion, we earnestly protest against it as a
measure of a most dangerous and revolut ionary
character Amy rule or practice wnich enables
the speaker or clerk to pass bills by counting
members present and not voting will inevitably
result in desroying the confidence of the people
In the integrity of legislation, engender con-
troversy and htigations which might be easily
averted by an adherence to the mandate of the
constitution, as heretofore interpreted.
ABOLITION OF DILAToRY MOTIONS.
Discussing the abolition of dilatory mo-
tions, tue minority is emphatic in its pro
tests. IL says:
The proposed clause allowing the speaker tc
refuse to entertain any motion which he may
consider dilatory is absolutely inconsistent with
| other provisions of the rules. To provide that
members shall have the right to make certain
| motions, and at the same time to provide
that the speaker may refuse tc
to entertain an appeal from his decisions is
simply to place the whole law of the House, so
far as parliamentary motions are concerned,
in the hands of the presiding officer, and deprive
members of every right in this respect which
the rule purports to confer upon them. rule
abolishing all parliamentary motions heretofore
recognized in the House, and simply providing
that members may make such motions only
as the speaker may see proper to permit,
and take only such appeals from his decisions
he may see proper to allow, would at least
Such rule would be no more unreasonable or
unjust than the one now proposed, and would
prevent conflicts upon the floor by advising
members In advance precisely what their rights