The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1890-02-01
The Row in the House.

AS was TO be expected, the Democratic pa
pers echo the shrieks of the Democratic mi
nority of the House of Representatives.
Their editorial pages are all spattered over
with tyranny" mailed hand" "revo,u-
tion," and other words calculated to rouse
the faithful to concert pitch. One would
suppose from reading them that the Speaker
had trampled on the constitution or torn it
to shreds, and was about to make himself a
military dictator. To the fevered imagina-
tion of one of them there is nothing in his
tory comparable to his action but Napole-
on's treatment of the Council of 5O0
Their whole performance may be aptly de-
scribed as tempest in teapot The liber-
ties of the country are not in danger, and
Mr.. Reed is not going to set no as an auto
crat or dictator. What he has really done
is to balk the revolutionary scheme Of
minority of the present House of Represen-
tatiyes to paralyze all action ON the pant of
that body for mere partisan advantage, and
ne mas psne 1t, too, not in way that yio-
lates the constitution, but which conforms
to its meaning and intent.
What is the claim that tke-n Democratic
minority set pn2~-What is the right which
they claim they have been deprived of? The
claim is that they can be present in the
House and yet by refraining from voting
compel the House to regard them as absent
The right Is to practically control legislation
though they he in the minority. Their claim
is absurd on its face and it is in violation of
the spirit of the Constitution. The Consti-
tuition clearly implies that the presence of a
jority Of members Is al that is necessary
20 constitute quorum to do business, for it
distinctly provides that when majority are
not present minority shall have the power
to bring In absent members. To bring them
In for whatP Obviously to make quorum
So that the business of the House may pro-
coed. But If this doctrine of the Democracy
that presence will not suffice but that, after
he gets in the member must vote, be
sound, this clause is simply a farce.
The Constitution intended to put it with
In the power of the House to prevent
obstructive tactics. But it utterly failed to
do so II presence must be supplemented with
voting In order to authorize the counting
Of members In deciding whether quorum is
10 attendance. But the Democrats say that
whether this doctrine, that a majority Of the
members must act as we'll as be present to
constitute a quorum, be sound or pot 1t has
had the sanction of hundred years of pre-
cedent and therefore should still continue to
be followed. That doctrine or practice has
been followed hundred years or a thou
sand years is not a sufficient reason
for following it indefinitely. 1t is true that
age entities practice to.a certain respect,
1t creates presumption in its favor,
but 1t by no means sanctifies 1t or puts it
beyond the test of rea son. 1t is not infre-
quently the case that practices continue
great many years before the badness Of
them Is found out, and when 1t is found out
aud recognized 1t is ofteDtimes difficult to
change them simply because there is con-
seryatism among people which hesitates to
discard what is venerable. though they feel
that 1t is bad. The practice Of relying ON
roll call to determine quorum is a practice
of this kind. 1t was sound enough on the
assumption which doubtless accompanied
It's establishment that the members of the
House would answer when their names were
called. But when they began to remain
silent, then the effect of 1t was to
enable the minority to completely paralyze
all business, because the provision of the
constitution which authorized the compel
ling Of the presence of members was rem
dered nugatory since voting was defined
by this practice as an essential part
of presence and voting could not
be compelled. From this moment
the practice became bad prac-
zee, a practice which allowed and sane
toned an irremediable defiance of the con-
s.itution.
If the ruling of Speaker Reed results in
its RELOCATION to the list Of things that have
been tried and found wanting 1t will be of
gleat advantage to the country. 1t is alleged
that it is dangerous to place the power of de-
Gliding whether a quorum is present in the
hands of the Speaker, inasmuch as he may
be tempted to abuse it. Power is always
liable to abuse, but In the hands of one man
situated as the Speaker is 1t is far less
liable to abuse than when 1t is lodged In the
hands of minority responsible to nobody, as
Mr.. Carlisle puts it, but their constituents
But as matter Of fact Mr.. Reed has assumed
no power that the House cannot nullify
whenever 1t sees fit. An appeal can be TAX
On from his ruling in this matter as well
as in any other matter and a majority of the
House can reverse IT,