Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-01-30

1 a
| Dorman rose to parliamentary inquiry, ask
ing II the declared vote was the only means by
| which quorum can be determined when it is
| within the cognizance of every man here the
| Speaker included that there is within the hall
| a sufficient number of members who have voted
| to make a quorum.
Mr.. Crisp then quoted Speaker Blaine's de.
| cision. follows:
"The Speaker (Mr Blainel-The Speaker would
| be glad to hear from the gentleman from Iowa
| (Mr Donnan) any practicable mode in which his
| point can be enforced.
Mr.. Donnan-Is it not within the power of the
Speaker, he having cognizance of the fact to de-
| clare that quorum is present?
The speaker-But the Speakers declaration will
not make members answer lay" or mo-
| Mr. Randal-l move a call of the House.
| The Speaker-E any gentleman raises the cues
ton that business Is proceeding without the pres
| ence OF quorum it is within the competence of
| the Chair TO decide that quorum Is present and
he will not allow the business of the House 10 he
interrupted by any diiiatory proceeding. He as
| clarlng that quorum il present, because
no business can proceed without a
aTr1i m Even gentleman speaking is en-
| raised, gentleman addressing the Chair NAV be
| taken on the floor by any member raising the
point lhat no quorum is present The question be-
ing so raised the Chair, according to his Judgment
and on his responsibility, can rule that a quorum
Is present But when the roll call is resorted To,
mat IS the last mode of certifcation. from which
there Is no appeal Now, that the rules absolutely
| require gentlemen to vote is undeniable but how
l
| has been made. can be compelled to stand up
ana pronounce his vote 'ay' or no the Chair
does not know"
| DECLARED 1T REVOLUTIONARY.
Proceeding, Mr.. Crisp declared that the
House was invited now to pursue the course
which Mr.. Blaine had declared to be revolu-
| tionary. The democrats stood on their con-
stltutiOnal right to have the yeas and nays
entered on the journal, and when that right
| was exercised there could be no appeal from
| what the journal said as to who were present
| and voting by yeas and nays He quoted Mr..
Garfield as denouncing similar rule, when 1T
was proposed IN his time and as asking the ques-
| tons. who was to control the seeing of the
| speaker" and How do we know but that the
| speaker may see forty members for his own
purpose) more than there in the House?"
I'VE have lived" said Mr.. Crisp. Through a
great civil war. when there was excitement al
| most unparalleled in the history of parlia-
| mentary action, yet. during all these years no
| man on this floor. no party, has ever before
thought 1t necessary to Introduce rule which
would give the power of declaring the pres
ence of members by the single voice of one
person. Applause Oh the democratic side.l
Mr.. Crisp then quoted from the remarks of
Mr. Reed (the present Speaker in the same
debate, when he used these words: THE con-
stltutlonal idea OF quorum Is not the physi-
cal presence of a majority of the members Of
the House, but a majority of the members
present and participating IN the business of the
House. lCheers and clapping of hands on the
democratic side and in the galleries.
Il appeal MIR. Crisp exclamed) from Philip
Drunk to Philip Sober" lAnother outburst of
applause.l
AN INTERRUPTION.
Mr.. Crisp went on with his argument, and
alter. Mr.. Rowell asked Mr.. Crisp what special
rule was necessary in the consideration of an
election case. Mr.. Crisp was about to answer
when the Speaker interrupted him and sug-
gested that lie should contine himself to the
subject Several republicans made similar OBJ
Jecuon. Mr.. Mckinley appealed for Il with
drawal OF the objections, but when they were
Withdrawn by some members they were re-
newed by others and the Speaker again sug-
gested that MIR. Crisp proceed in order.
The Speaker said: 1.-The gentleman is pro-
ceedlnS outside of the question of appeal. The
chair has no personal interest in what he says
outside OF the question and has hardly any per-
sonal interest in what he says ON the question.
MR.. CANNoN's REPLY.
Mr.. Cannon replied to Mr.. Crisp.
His observation. he said, had been that as the
years rolled round and as times changed new
remedies and reasonable remedies had to be
found under the Constitution for difficulties
and evils that had been tolerated for years, if
those remedies did not violate the letter or spirit
OF the Constitution. He recapitulated the leading
points of the pending question in the House
and declared that the presence of the members
not voting, but counted by the chair, consti-
tuted more than quorum.
IL by the Constitution there was quorum
present the country would sustain the House
of Representatives in going Oh and legislating
applause on the republican side).
DID the Constitution say that majority
should be required to vote for measure a
motion or a resolution in order to pass it? Not
at ALL 1t merely said that majority of each
house should constitute a quorum to do bust
ness. He had no recollection during his sery-
Ice IN the House, of such question being
raised and decided and the decision appealed
from, but able democratic members, Mr. Ran
dolph Tucker (Va) and others, had taken the
position In tue debate in the Forty-sixth Con-
gress which the Speaker took today His
colleague Mr.. Springer) had argued in the same
line. Mr. Cannon laid down the proposition
in conclusion, that by general parliamentary law
and under the Constitution when a quorum is
present. and when that fact is ascertained and
when there Is majority voting i'll favor OF a
measure that measure Is adopted. He believed
that good morals, good Constitution. good law,
good sound pubic common sense and decency
all demanded of the Speaker (when he an
nounced the fact of the presence of over fifty
members, more than "a quorum. and called their
names) to declare the result of the vote as
adopted by majority of the House.
MR.. cARLIsLE's ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Carlisle made a strong argument on the
constitutional phases of the question, disput-
ing the right OF the Speaker to put the names
of members not voting on the record He said
he did not approve of Mr.. Hills action in the
New York senate, and added that he regretted
that when his republican friends were obliged to
rely on democratic precedence for their action
they should take the worst they could find
Laughter There were plenty of good dem
ocratic precedents which could be found with
out much difficulty. At the conclusion of his
argument an adjournment was taken.