River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1890-02-13
IhE HOUSE RULES.
Views of the Majority and Minority of
the Committee on the New Code.
WINS or THE MAJORITY.

views of the Majority and minority OF
the Committee on the New Code.
VIEWS OF THE MAJORITY.
WASHINGTON, Feb. l0.-Though not
formally presented TO the House, the
majority and minority reports upon the
new code of rules proposed have been
filed with the journal clerk and ordered
printed. The majority report, in great
detail, explains the difference between
the proposed code and that previously
in force, but in most instances the ex-
PLANTATION is anaccompanied by any
argument
In regard to the rule authorizing the
Speaker to count quorum the report
says:
The process OF ascertaining the presence OF a
quorum to do business under the constitu-
ton would ordinarily be under the con
troll OF the Speaker, who would de
rive his information from his own senses
or by the aid of clerk,
in any way which would satisfy
his own mind OF the accuracy CT the count.
Under our system OF roliealls II has been
deemed more convenient to ascertain and an
nounce the votes OF members and the presence
Of those who refuse TO vote at the same time
and by the same means"
Concerning the new clause providing
that no dilatory measure shall be enter
tanned by the Speaker, it is stated that
the clause is merely declaratory of par
liamentary law. The report continues:
There are no words which can be framed
which will limit members TO the proper use OF
proper motions. To-day the abuse has grown
TO such proportions that the parliamentary law
which governs American assemblies has found
it necessary to keep pace with the evil and 10
enable the majority, by the intervention of the
presiding officer, to meet by extraordinary
means the extraordinary abuse OF power on the
part sometimes of few members.
IF the suggestion should be made that great
power is here conferred, the answer is that the
approval OF the House is the very breath in the
nostris of the Speaker, and as nobody on earth
is so jealous OF its liberties and so impatient
OF control, we may be quite sure that no
arbitrary interruption will take place,
and, indeed, no interruption at all, until
not only such misuse OF proper motions is made
clearly evident TO the world, but also such
action has taken place on the part OF the House
as viii assure the Speaker OF the support OF the
body whose wishes are his law. So that in the
end II is power exercised by the House
through its properly constituted officer"
Considering the question of providing
that hundred members shall constitute
a quorum in committee of the whole, the
report states that this change is made
necessary by members refusing to vote
when the roll is called, and points out
the fact that every thing done in COM
mittee has to be reported to the House,
and that nothing done is in any way
final. In conclusion the majority report
says:
''Your committee have thus gone over briefly
the proposed new code of rules. They believe,
faat, Oft will
enable the House to have due control over its
business and at the same time provide those
safeguards of elaboration and debate which
will enable the House TO act wisely"
THE MINoRITY's VIEWS.
The minority report, signed by
Messrs. Carlisle and Randall, gives
much attention to the fact that commit
tees are given superior rights to call up
bills in the morning hour to the exclu-
sion of the individual rights of mem
bers. The proposition to reduce the
quorum of the committee of the whole
to 100 is opposed.
The counting i'm rule that caused so
much bitterness during therecent strug-
gle in the House over the Smith-Jack-
son contested election case is thus dis
| cussed:
the most dangerous innovation proposed by the
majority. II agreed to IL will not only over
throw the construction that has been uni
formly given to the constitution for
more than century, but it will enable
less than q majority OF the Repre-
sentatives OF the people TO pass the most
important laws affecting the interests Of the
whole country. The personal and property
rights of the citizens protected heretofore by
laws enacted by the votes of majority may be
impaired or destroyed by the votes OF mere
fraction OF the members OF Congress; for II
less than majority may constitution
ally pass measures in the House, of
course the same thing may be done in the
Senate. In the same way enormous sums OF
money may be appropriated from the public
treasury for the most unconstitutional and i'm
proper purposes, and the interests OF the tax
payers completely subordinated to the selfish
demands OF private individuals and corpora
tions. Without entering here into dis
cussion of the constitutional question
involved In this proposition we earn
estly protest against il rs a measure of the
most dangerous and revolutionary character.
Any rule for practice which enables the Speaker
or the Clerk to pass bills by counting members
present and not voting Will inevitably result in
destroying the confidence OF the people in the
integrity OF legislation and engender contro-
versies and litigations which might be easily
avoided by an adherence to the mandate OF the
constitution as heretofore interpreted.
Relative to the rule by which the
Speaker may refuse to entertain dila-
tory motions, the report says under this,
even, the right of appeal from the de-
cision of the Speaker as to what is
dilatory motion might be denied and
adds:
"A rule abolshing all the parliamentary mo-
tions heretofore recognized by 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 de-
cisions as he may see proper TO allow, would at
least have merit Of directness and simplicity.
Such a rule would be more unreasona ole or un-