The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-08-03
REEDS REPLY TO TX. N. c."
How He Defends bis Outrageous
Rulings IN the House.

/ Rulings IN the HOUSE
| From the North American Rerielr.
The unknown writer says that this (mean-
ing the new rules of the House, should be
all set aside and his remedy adopted ana the
shades of many eminent persons, dead and
/ living, thereby be placated. Did 1t ever
occur to the reader what a singular dis
/ pensstion of Providence II IS whereby those
! who do not have the things of this world q
| do could have always done them 50 much
better than the poor creatures who did do
| G emil Did you ever see a side walk comm ttee
who could not build a finer house than the
| architect and master workman. IL
really looks as If Providence had wasted its
| most cloying sweetness on the desert air
| The new rule which the critic suggests Is
! that the speaker should fine each membe
| who refuses t. vote not exceeding $50, and
| thereby compel the horse to drink.
| This seems very strange, coming as it does
| from writer who has so deep respect for
| the letter Of the law that, when the cOnstitu-
tion says the votes Of both houses shall bs
determined by the yeas and nays, he will be
satisfied with no construction which shall
not determine the quorum the same way.
The presence of a majority of the legIsla-
tive body constitutes a quorum to do bust
ness. The essence Of all business on the
part of the legislative body is the consent
of a quorum OF that body, either expressed
or implied. 1t may be as thoroughly ex-
pressed by silence as by sound. In the par
Hamentary sense, presence always implies
full sight and hearing Of all that takes
place. IL a member, then, is present In
full sight and sound of ali cur
rences, and if all action is loudly
proclaimed by clerk or speaker,
to all that occurs as If he vociferated in his
loudest tones This all admit Even the
writer OF the anonymous article admits this
in all cases except that Of a yea-and nay
vote Hence. even with him, we have only
to deal with that method Of determining
the result 1t must DO obviC us
that all methods Of determining
the consent of the members are of equal
value. By each of them laws are passed
which have equal validity. Whether the
sense of the House is made manifest by
mere volume of sound or by the rising
of members in their places, by mem
bers passing between tellers, or by yeas and
nays, makes no difference whatever in the
result Laws passed either way have equal
force. What, then, was the object of the
constitutional provision as to yeas aud nays9
Was it to establish a new and separate doc
trine of quorum! Was the quorum to be
a majority present when all other methods
of determining the question were used but
majority voting when yeas and nays were
calledf was there TO be one quorum re-
quired in one case d another quorum in
another9 Does it require any different
body to pass bill by yeas and nays than
by rising votei A majority of
the House beng present, can 129
members to l pass bill by standing up,
and not pass it by yeas and nays2 claim
like this utterly ignores the meaning of the
call for yeas aud nays, and the right To
have it which is given under the constitu-
ton. What were the yeas and nays given
forl Look at the debates on the adoption
of the constitution and you will see. 1t
was to inform the people how their repre-
voted. if they voted at all; and
also the fact that they did not vote, If such
was the case. The idea that, in addition to
this, the constitutional quorum was thereby
instantly shifted from a majority present to
a majority acting is entirely a modern in
yention, as illogical as it is Unconstitutional