St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-02-09
Democrats Cannot Discover
Reasons for Discriminating
Against Members.
Innovations Proposed by the
Majority Are Dangerous
and Revolutionary.

ais only with the radical changes TO
lich the Democrats object. The ma
rity in its report does not discuss and
L. .fend all of the radical changes made
by it. In regard to the rule directing
the method of ascertaining quorum
when members refuse to vote on roll
call, the report says: "The process of
ascertaining the presence of quorum
to do business under the constitution,
would ordinarily be under the control
of the speaker, who would derive his in
formation from his own senses or by the
aid of clerk, or in any way which
would satisfy his mind of the accuracy
of the count"
Concerning the new clause providing
that no dilatOry motions shall be enter
tanned by the speaker, it is stated that
the clause is merely declaratory Of par
liamentary law. "Ihpre are no words"
the report says, (which can be framed,
which Will limit members to the proper
use of proper notions" To-day
THE ABUSE HAS GROWN
to such proportions that the parliament
arg law which governs American assem-
blies has found it necessary to keep
pace with the evil, and to enable the
majority, by the Intervention Of the
presiding officer, to meet, by eXtraor-
binary means, the extraordinary abuse
of power on the part sometimes off few
members" In defense Of the clause
reducing quorum to 100 members in
committee Of the whole. the report has
this to say: $50 far as the cOnStitu-
tfonal or legal question is concerned, it
has never been denied or question ed
that it was entirely COMPETENT for the
house TO select any number
it might please as a quorum of
the committee OF the whole"
The report submitted by Mr.. Carlisle
enters into a discussion of the changes
made by the majority. In regard to the
clause which provides that when mo-
ton is made by direction of committee
% suspend the rules and fix day for
the consideration of bill previously re-
ported by it, a majority vote shall be
sufficient to agree to the motion. hut In
case an individual member makes it a
vote of tWO-thirdS Is required, the re-
port states: I'VE are unable to discover
any sufficient reason for this diScrimiua-
ton against members who may not be
fortunate enough TO secure the cO-opera-
ton of committees In making their mo-
tons. In fact, under the proposed rules,
the individual member will scarcely
have power 10 make motion of any
kind, except when he acts as the rep
Tesentative of a committee and by It's
direction" The rules concerning the
committee of the whole are dealt with
as follows: at is proposed by the ma
1Ority to make quorum of the commit
tee of the whole house on the state of
the Union consist of 100 members, or
considerably
HESS THAN ONE-THTRD.
Of all the members of the house. Every
bill appropriating money or property,
or raising revenue, must have its first
consideration in this committee of 100.
Since the organization of the govern
ment, it has required the same number
of members TO constitute quorum in
the committee of the whole as in the
house, that is, majority of all the
members elect, and that is manifestly
the true rule, because the committee is
composed of all the members of the
house. 1t is indeed the house itself de-
Iiberating as committee" 1t has all
ways been so universally conceded that
q committee of the whole house was
simply the house itself,that it has never
been considered necessary to pre-
scribe In the rules what number Of
members should be necessary to consti-
tute quorum in such committee. The
constitution requires majority of
all the members elect TO con-
6tltuto quorum to do business
In the house and without any rule on
the subject, the same number has always
been recognized as necessary in COM
mittee of the whole, and whenever it
found Itself with less than that number
present and voting, it has been com
PEELED to suspend its proceedings" The
counting III" rule that caused SO much
bitterness during the recent struggle
in the house over the Smitll-Jackson
contested election case, is thus dis
cuSSed: This is the most radical, and,
in our opinion,
THE MOST DANGEROUS INNOVATION
proposed by the majority. Ifagreed to,
1t will not only overthrow the construc-
ton that has been uniformly given to
the constitution for more than a cen
fury, but ii will enable less than a ma
jority of the representatives of the peo-
pie to pass the most important
laws affecting the interests of
and property rights of the eth
Zens projected heretofore by laws
enacted by the votes of a majority may
be impaired or destroyed by the votes of
a mere fraction of the members of con-
gress: for if. less than majority may
constitutionally pass measures in the
house, of course the same thing may be
done in the senate. In the same way
enormous sums of money may he ap-
prOpriated from the public treasury for
the most unconstitutional and improper
purposes, and the interests OF the tax
payers completely subordinated to the
selfish demands Of private individuals
and corporations. Without entering
hnTQ niCnnsolnn nf I'm
tionai question involved in this PROPOSE
ton, we earnestly protest against it as
measure of the NEST dangerous and
revolutionary character. ANY rule for
practice which enables the speaker or
the clerk to pass bills by counting men,
berS present and not voting will newt
ably result in destroying the confidence
of the people in the integrity of legisla-
ton and engpnder
CONTROVERSIES AND LITIGATION
which might be easily avoided by an ad-
herence to the mandate Of the conStitu-
ton as heretofore interpreted" In con-
clusion the report deals with the action
of the majority members of the commit
tee in abolshing certain privileged mo-
tionS, and sums of the matter as follows:
"a rule abulishing all parliamentary
motions heretofore recognized in the
house and simply providing that men,
bers may make such motions only as the
speaker may see proper to permit and
take only such appeals from his deci-
SiOns as he may see proper to allow,
would st least have the merit of direct
ness and simplicity. Such rule would
be no more unreasonable or unjust as
the one now proposed and would pre-
vent conflicts upon the floor by advising
members in advance precisely what
their rights are" The names of Mr..
Carlisle and Mr.. Randall are signed to
the minority report.