The sun., 1890-01-31

/ faofnr1l I1 lh8 lhet ma |gtI8 Is u Only DI
che oct Of voting that phyefeal prasonce car
be transformed into legal presence. II foI
any cause a member Is unable OF unwilling
to vote on q particular motion or bill, he ID
in the eye Of the law absent 90 far as the
record IN that instance IL concerned. Other
wise q minority could do more-and much
more-than the two things 10 which it II
vigorously limited by the Constitution.
Although there is no explicit distinction
between physical and legal presence In the
Consultation, such distinction ls twice Inn
piled. It ia implied In the provision art. /,
sec. 81 that "the Yeas and Nays Of the
members Of either House on any question
shall, at the desire Of those present, be en-
tered IN the journal" Hero the ultimate
criterion OF the number Of members present
is declared to be, not the decision Of the
Speaker or the count Of tellers, but the
Official record Of the yeas and nays. For the
Speaker to change that record by one iot or
little would be a glarlng violation Of this
provision OF the organic law. He may con-
cetvo that he detects the physical presence
Of more members than the record pre-
scribed by tho Constitution indicates,
but the final and decisive voucher as
to legal presence has been filed. Look,
also, at the seventh section Of the
same Article where the method Of passing
bill over tho Presidents veto is defined.
Two-thirds Of each House. It Is provided,
must agree in such cases to pass the bill.
But here 1t is indisputable that the two
thirds must be legally and not merely lin
the Speakers iudgment) physically present.
They must prove their presence by recording
their votes. "In all such cases the votes Of
both Houses shall be determined by Yeas
and Nays, and the names of tho persons
voting for and against the bill shall be
entered on the journal Of each House re-
Evidently an attempt OF the
Speaker to meddle. in such cases, with the
record Of tho yeas and nays would be de-
nounced as q grave misdemeanor. No less
fragrant and revolutionary is his interference
with the record where the yeas and nays
have been invoked to ascertain the presence
Of majority. The record is the last arbiter,
the ultimate expedient, by which disputes Of
fact are settled.
Had the Constitution expressly authorized
the Speaker to go behind the record Of the
yeas and nays and to mould IL at his pleas
IRE, to supplement 1t with capricious entries
If his own, and to arbitrarily transform
physical into legal presence for the purpose
If manufacturing maiorities and quorums,
We should have oduty SO imperative as that
II amending our organic law In that partic-
liar. No individual could safely be intrusted
With such autocratio functions. Admitting
lin to be honest, we can see that his percep-
ion would often be at fault. Mr.. REED had
o confess on Wednesday that two Repre-
entatives, Messrs. OUTHwA1TE and HATCH,
Vhom he had ordered the Clerk to count |
q present, were absent at the time when
he quorum was desired. The existence |
4 pretended quorum might have hinged |
N the mistakenly alleged presence Of those
nen. How far more hurtful and more |
hameful might be the wrong inflicted on
he House and on the country by an un-
crupulous Speaker clothed with the de-
potfc power to set at nought the yeas and
ays, and substitute record Of his own
evised to suit his party or himself. It Is
rom this point Of view that we must recog-
ize as peculiarly weighty the protests
gainst q Speakers assumption of such
uthority formerly uttered by Mr.. BLAINE,
y Mr.. GARFIELD. and even by Mr.. REED.
was with not little felicity and cogency
hat Mr.. CRISP, remembering the present
peaker's previous declarations on this SUBJ
sct, appealed from PHILIP drunk to PHILIP
ober.