The Louisiana Democrat., 1890-04-02

mat the Speaker shall not in any cas-.
refuse to entertain an appeal from hi
decision" This amendment was reject
ed by strict party vote, every Demo
crat present voting for it and ever,
Republican present voting against it.
The right of the House to authorize
the Speaker to direct the clerk to entel
the names OF members on the journal i.
not disputed; but the constitutional eff
iect OF such a proceeding is quite diff
ferent question. This is not the place
to discuss the constitutional question
but the practical effect of the rule fol
the time being will be that in House
consisting, when full, of $50 members,
OF whom 1865 constitute quorum. the
Speaker may declare the most important
bills passed when the record shows that
they were voted for by one member only.
II there are enough others present to
make a quorum. Unless all previous
presiding officers were wrong, this is a
fragrant violation of the constitution:
but whether so or not, it is certainly a
most dangerous innovation upon the
settled practice of the House, and, in
stead of being reform, it is move
ment in the direction of loose, unjust
and improvident legislation.
1t is true that the power now con-
ferred upon the Speaker has been ex-
ercised in some of the State Legisla-
lures in times of high political excite
ment or bitter personal contests; but
the dispassionate judgment of the
thoughtful and conservative people of
the country condemns it, and no consti-
tutional convention has ventured to de-
clare in terms that minority could
pass laws even though the majority
were absent or silent.
The adoption of the new rules is in
many respects a long step in exactly
the wrong direction. This is especially
the case SO far as they relate to the
powers of the Speaker. Reform should
have commenced by curtailing, instead
OF extending, the authority of that Off
Ger, and the control of the House itself
over its own proceedings should have
been enlarged upon some plan which
would have prevented unreasonable and
factious obstruction and delay, but at
the same time given ample opportunity
for deliberate consideration and action.
Under any system of rules that can
be devised, the presiding officer in
body SO numerous as the House of
Representatives will necessarily have
more power than ought to be intrnsted
to any man in this country; and no mat
ter how just and impartial he may be,
there will be occasions when he can not
escape the imputation, at least of un-
fair and arbitrary action. In the con-
fiict OF opposing interests and opinions
he is often compelled to decide impor-
tant questions without proper time for
and, even if he is guilty
OF no intentional abuse of his great au-
thority, he may do an actual injustice
which can not afterward be repaired.
The simple power to decide what mem
Der shall be recognized to speak or
make motion when more than one
rises appears to be necessary in order to
prevent constant struggles and confu-
sion on the floor, and yet 1t is power
which often enables the Speaker to de-
termine what measures shall be taken
up, and is therefore inconsistent with
the absolute freedom and equality of
When such results may fol-
ow the exercise of power so simple
md necessary as this it is not strange
hat the advocates of equal rights in
;he House should look with some de-
,ree of alarm upon every proposition to
confer additional authority upon its
officer.J. G. Carlisle, in
North American Review.