Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-02-04
THE DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF 1T

/
THE DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF 1T
Mr.. Carlisle and His Associates Issu,
an Address to the Country.
THE SITUATION IN THE HOUSE AZ DESCRIBED B,
THE DEMOCRATIC MEMBERs-THHY ExPL All
WHY THEY PRorEsTED-MR. REEDS COURSE Al
SPEAKER cRITICIsED-A HOUSE WITHOUT RULES
The democrats OF the House have issued Q
statement to the country, prepared by Mr.. Car
Isle, setting forth their view of the situation in
the House. 1t says: ''The House met on the sec.
ond day Of December, 1889, and Immediately or.
gained by the election of Speaker and other
officers On the same day, by a resolution OF
| the House, the Speaker authorized to ap-
/ point q committee on rules, and the rules OF
| the last preceding House we're referred to that
| committee. The committee, consisting OF the
| Speaker himself and four other members was
appointed on the fifth day Of December, and
on the 9Th it made a report authorizing the
| Speaker to appoint all the other committees
| and defining their jurisdiction. The committee
on elections, to which was referred all cases in
| volving the rights Of members to their seats,
was appointed on the ninth day OF December.
| Although nearly two months have elapsed
| since the committee rules was appointed, it
| has made no report upon the matters referred
to it, except the partial one made on the 9Th OF
December, and consequently the House has
been compelled to conduct its business without
any rule or system, except the general parli-
mentary law, as construed by the Speaker
There have been no calendars, no order of
business, no fixed time to receive reports from
| committees or for the consideration Of bills or
| resolutions, and, in fact no regular methods
| whatever in the proceedings Of the House.
LIKE POPULAR MEETING.
The American House of Representatives has
been during all this time, and still is, so far as
rules for its government are concerned, in pre-
cisely the same condition as a popular meeting
or political convention, in which the chair
man and his partisans absolutely control all
the proceedings. No measure can get before
the House for consideration unless the Speaker
chooses to allow it to be presented and men,
bers have no means Of knowing in advance
what they are to be called upon to discuss or
decide.
This is the first time in our history that leg
lslative assembly. or even a public meeting,
has attempted to transact business for any con-
siderable period without a regular code of
rules prescribing the order of its proceedings,
and the Inconvenience and injustice resulting
from such an attempt have been forcibly illus
trated in the present instance.
The Speaker has repeatedly during these ex-
parliamentary motions that have been recog-
nized as legitimate ever since the government
was established, and when attempts have been
made to appeal from his decisions he has re-
fused to submit the question to the House. By
his arbitrary rulings. sustained in some in
stances by less than quorum, he has subverted
nearly every principle of constitutional and
parliamentary law heretofore recognized in the
House.
This personal and partisan domination of the
IynnOA a. A
repeated protests, until we became convinced
that 1T was the deliberate purpose of the Speaker
and his supporters to proceed without rules to
Gust the democratic members whose seats are
contested and admit their republican oppo-
nents, whether elected or not.
THE ELECTION CONTEST CASE.
On Wednesday, January 20, the committee on
elections called up q contested election case,
and the democratic members determined that
IN the absence of rules it should not be con-
sidered If they could prevent it by any proper
parliamentary proceedings. Accordingly they
raised the. question Of consideration, demanded
the yeas and nays, and on the call of the roll
refralned from voting. The result was that
less than constitutional quorum voted, but
the Speaker. in violation of the uniform prac-
tice of the House for more than a century. pro-
ceeded to count members who were present,
but not voting, and declared that the House
had decided to take the case up.
From this decision an appeal was taken, and
on a motion to lay this appeal on the table the
yeas and nays were taken and less than a quo
rum voted but the Speaker again counted men,
bers not voting and decided that the motion
was agreed to and his ruling thereby sustained
The Constitution of the United States pro-
vides that a majority Of each House ''shall con-
stitute q quorum to do business, but smaller
number may adjourn from day to day and NAV
be authorized to compel the attendance of alb
sent members in such manner and under such
penalties as each house may provide" Another
clause OF the Constitution requires each house
to keep journal Of its proceedings, and pro-
vides that when one-fifth of the members
present desire it the yeas and nays shall be
taken on any question and entered on the
journal.
the Constitution, more than hundred years
ago, the House of Representatives and the
Senate have uniformly construed the first clause
OF the Constitution quoted above to mean that
a majority of all the members elect must be
present and actually participate in the trans
action Of business, and that whenever upon a
call of the yeas and nays, it appeared from the
journal, which is the only official record that
less than the constitutional quorum has voted
on any proposition, the vote was nullity and
no further business could be done until the
requisite number appeared and voted. Every
presiding officer in the Senate and every
Speaker Of the Honse, except the present one
has held that when less than a quorum voted
on call OF the yeas und nays, no matter how
many might be actually present. it was his
duty to take notice of the fact and declare that
the pending bill or motion had not passed.
MR.. CARLIsLE's RULINGS
In answer to Mr.. Reeds assertion that Mr.
Carlisle had often certified bills as passed when
quorum was not voting, Mr.. Carlisle stated.
when the vote is not taken by yeas and nays
it is not entered upon the journal but il anv
member makes the point that no quorum has
voted the proceedings is q nullity and the vote
must be taken over. The presumption of the
law Is that when nothing appears to the con-
trary the proceedings of legislative body are
regular and valid, and therefore, when the Off
cial record does not show that less than a
quorum voted, or attention is not called to the
tact in such way as to furnish legal evidence
Of it, the question cannot be made afterward
Many bills have been passed when there was
no quorum voting, and it is equally true that
many have passed when there was no quorum
actually present; but this does not prove that
the proceedings would have been valid in
either case if the official record had shown the
fact
The constitutional construction is argued in
the address, and it is given as a rule in our
Jurisprudence that when a particular construc-
ton of a constitution or q statute has been for
q long time acquiesced to, not only by those
whose duty tits to execute it, but also by those
whose personal and property rights are affected
by it, the courts will recognize it as the true
construction and enforce it accordingly.
The speeches OF Mr.. Reed himself and of
Gen. Garfield, Gen. Hawley, Mr. Conger and