Morris tribune. [volume] (Morris, Minn.) 1880-2000, 1890-03-19
A Presiding officers Powers.

One of the import9nt articles in the
magazines for the month is the discus
sion in The North American Review on
"The Limitations of the Speakership."
It is carried on by Hon. Thomas B. Reed,
present speaker of the United States
house of representatives, and Hon. John
G. Carlisle, ex-speaker.
Mr.. Carlisle declares, in brief, that
when the constitution says majority of
each house shall constitute quorum to
do business, it means not only that
majority shall be present, but that they
shall actually participate in the trans
action of business. Contrary to this i'm
piled intention of the constitution, Mr..
Carlisle says the new rules adopted by
the house authorize the speaker to direct
the clerk to note the names of members
who are present and not voting, suffi
cient to make quorum, and record them
in the journal, to be counted and an
nounced in determining the result.
The practical effect of this rule will
be, continues the ex-speaker, that in a
house of $50 members, in which 166 con-
stitute quorum, the speaker may de-
clare the most important bills passed
when the record shows that they were
voted for by only one member if there
are enough others present to make a
quorum. II previous presiding officers
who never counted in a quorum in this
way were right, then the new ruling is a
fragrant violation of the constitution,
and in any case it is dangerous innova-
ton, making of the speaker despot.
Then the ex-speaker cites the usages and
rulings of the house of commons, show
ing that even in monarchical England the
power to discipline refractory minori-
ties never went to anything like the
length that it has gone this winter under
Speaker Reed in the United States house
of representatives.
So far Mr.. Carlisle. Mr.. Reed takes up
the cudgels for his side of the house.
Our readers will judge for themselves
which makes the best showing.
Speaker Reed mentions the talk of ''in-
novation on the usages of the United
States house of representatives for
hundred years." He says the innovation
Of counting in quorum when members
were present and not voting prevailed
long ago almost everywhere else than in
congress. Business men whose interests
are suffering while minority delay &C
ton by dilatory tactics will stand no
nonsense. Therefore, in city councils, in
state legislatures and various other par
liamentary bodies, it is the custom to
count in a quorum present and declare
business transacted when majority of
the members are present in their seats,
whether majority voted or not. Mr..
Reed mentions various state legislatures
in which this is the usage, among them
Mr.. Carlisle's and Mr.. Breckinridge's
own state of Kentucky.
Further, the speaker declares he has
seen Speaker Carlisle himself pronounce
bills passed thousand times when less
than quorum voted on them.
Then he pays his respects to those who
charge him with a dangerous innovation
in departing from the custom of the fa-
theirs. He says the modern house of rep
resentatives have themselves so far de-
parted from the usage of the fathers that
adeparture on the part of their presiding
officer is necessary in order to keep up
with them. The fathers never contem-
plated the gigantic growth of the pleas
ant little diversion known as flibuster-
ing. There was almost no flibustering
in those days. Now it has come to that
point where a minority can obstruct busi-
ness all winter if they choose, unless
something is done to check them. A
heroic remedy was necessary, and the
present speaker believes he applied that
remedy.