The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1890-02-14
GOOD AUTHORITY FOR HE SPEAKER
What the Framers of the Constltu-
tion Considered a Quorum.
Their Speeches Show MIR. Reeds
View To Be the Right One.
How the u3uss Will Take Up the
Election Contests.
ISpecial TO the Press.l

| NAohlN0lON, w reUIudIy lho huAAOOA
Of precedents for and the legal decisions sus-
saining The position taken by Speaker Reed
in regard to the quorum of the House of Rep
resenlatives have taken the Democrats by
surprise. and many Republicans too have
been not little surprised. Along with
hundreds of letters and kilograms of con-
graduation have come citations of precedents
and authorities. Among these is letter
| from Charles Eddington Reed, of Bangor.
who sends a very interesting statement of
the debate in the constitutional convention
on the clause of the constitution which sup
ports Mr.. Reed. Each house shall be the
Judge OF Elections, returns and qualifica-
tions of its own members" so runs the words
Of Article l, Section 8, of the constitution,
and majority of each shall constitute a
quorum to do business, but smaller number
may adjourn from day to day, and may be
authorized to compel the attendance of alb
sent members, in such manner and under
such penalties, as each House may pro-
vide."
The history of this clause Mr.. Reed sends
| as follows
Standardization papers-1229, show it in
embryo as reported In detail in the federal
convention. Monday, August 6, 1887, to have
been,
Article 6, Section 3.-"In each House a major
ity OF the members shall constitute quorum to
do business, and smaller number may adjourn
from day to day."
In this clause as there reported, the num-
ber that shall constitute quorum is deter
mined and authority given for smaller
number to adjourn from day to day, and to
await the assemblage of a majority.
The convention took up the subject for
consideration Friday, August 10, the debate
being opened by Mr. Gorham. who contend
ed that less number than majority in each
house should be recognized as sufficient to
constitute quorum.
Mr.. Mercer was also for less number
than majority, giving as his reason, that.
"To have so great a number as a maj jyrity put
1t In the power of a few by seeding at critical
moment, to introduce conyulsions and endanger
the government"
Col. Mason following, opposed this reduc-
tioD, saying:
"That in this extended country, embracing so
great diversity of interests, it would be danger
OF the two houses to make the laws. The central
states could always take care to be on the spot,
and by meeting earlier than The distant ones, or
wearing their patience and outstaying them, they
could carry such measures as they pleased"
lie admitted that inconvenience might
spring from the secession of small number,
should the provision requiring majority
for quorum remain. His objections were
plainly of such character as to relate en-
tirely to that period, and have become OBJ
solete with the stage coaches which went
with them. No one now ever thinks of
man from Maryland or Virginia having any
legislative advantages over member from
Oregon so far as distance is concerned.
Mr.. King spoke Of favoring reduction of
the number necessary for quorum.
Mr.. Gouverneur Morris following Mr..
King moved.
"To fix the quorum at 33 members in the House
of Representatives, and IA in the Senate"
that being the majority of the House and
Senate as then constituted. He added:
s"Fix the number low and they will generally at
tend, knowing that advantage may be taken of
ought not to be suffered to break quorum. such
events In the states may have been of little con-
fatal besides other mischefs if they can break
particular part Of the continent may be in need
secession, some unjust and selfish measure"
Mr.. Mercer seconded Mr.. Morris's motion.
Mr.. King here stated that he had prepared
a motion, which fixed the numbers proposed
by Mr.. Morris as the lowest numbers, leav-
ing the legislature at liberty to increase them
or not.
Mr.. Oliver Ellsworth then remarked:
1T would be pleasing ground of confidence to
the people, that no law or b lrden should be i'm.
posed upon them by few men. He reminded
the movers that tue constitution proposed to give
such discretion, with regard to the number OF
representatives, that very inconvenient number
was not to be apprehended. The Inconvenience
OF secessions may be guarded against by giving
to each House an authority to require the at
te'addn ce of absent members"
This view of Ellsworth's met with general
approval, so Mr.. Kings motion was defeat
ed, and, on motion of Randolph and Madi-
son, it was voted to add to the end of article
g. section g. quoted above, this:
"And may be authorized to compel the attend
ance IF absent members iu such manner, and un-
der such penalties. as each House may provide"
This motion was agreed to by all, except
Pennsylvania, which was divided, and so be-
came part of the Constitution.
Nothing could be palmer than that the
trainers pf the Constitution contemplated
by this to put it into the power Of the House
to prevent the breaking of the quorum by
the secession of members. Had it ever en-
tered the heads of those old fe llows that
whole party could ever claim that they had
seeded and broken the quorum while still
In their seats, they woul1 undoubtedly have
put in an express provision enabling the
Speaker to count a quorum. This is evident
from the whole tenor Of their remarks. The
object of their amendment was to prevent
quorum from being broken Intentionally and
for purpose. Yet today, on the floor of
the House. Democratic members have been
denouncing that clause of the new rules
which directs the Speaker to count quorum
as a blow at the Constitution, and have been
shaking their fingers at the Speakers desk
and denouncing him as Julius Caesar, des-
pot etc.