The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1890-08-02

| 90 not nave Ln0 LnlngS OF tnlS world 10 40
could have always done them so much better
than the poor creatures who did do them
Dld you ever see sidewalk committee who
could not build finer house than the
arcnltect and the master-workman? 1t
really looks as II Providence had wasted its
| The new rule which the critic suggests is
that the, Speaker should fine each member
who refuses to vote mot exceeding fifty
dollars" and thereby compel the horse to
drink. This seems very strange, coming as
it does from a writer who has so deep a
respect for the letter of the law that, when
the Constitution says the votes of both
houses shall be determined by the "yeas and
nays, he will be satisfied with no con-
struction which shall not determine the
quorum the same way.
Suppose we apply the same strictness Of
construction 10 this new rule. Each house,"
says the Constitution, "may determine the
rules OF its proceedings, punish its members
for disorderly behavior, and, with the con-
currence of two-thirds, expel a member" /"
You will notice that the power to determine
the rules Of its proceedings Is separate from
Its power to punish.its members for disorder
~ conduct. The Constitution does not say
that the House may determine the rules Of
It's proceedings and rules for the punishment
OF members for disorderly conduct. Not at
al. The House." says the Constitution,
may determine its rules and may punish its
members" 1t is the House in both cases.
Would the writer whose name Is so well
concealed contend that the House could de-
legate to the Speaker the right to determine
the rules OF its proceedings OF course not !
How, then, can the House delegate to the
Speaker Its power to punish its members for
dlsorderly conduct? 1t could Just as legally
by two thirds vote make rule which would
authorize the Speaker to expel a member,
Here is clause which contains three pro.
positions: Q) The House NAV determine
the rules OF Its proceedings; ~. punish
It's members for disorderly behavior (3),
member.
The Constitution says that the House may
do all these things. Nobody would ever
dream Of saying that the House could dele
gate to the Speaker its right to act under the
supposed that the power in the second clause
could be turned over to another? Who be-
lore this writer ever seriously proposed that
the House could delegate its power to pun
ish? The very interposition Of the words
with the concurrence Of twC-thirds" shows
conclusiyely that the House is to do the act.
An Unconstitutional Scheme.
For the purpose of giving a false force to
his argument, the author, with injurious gem
erosity, gives the present Speaker omnipo-
tent power over rules. But if the present
Speaker, or any Speaker, had even hinted at
desire to have the power to fine members
mot exceeding fifty dollars" he would have
seen the limit Of his power. In short, the
scheme is both unconstitutional and imprac-
ticable. The House could not do it if 1t
would and would not IL it could.
1t is surprising to see the sudden trans
formation OF the author from strictness to
looseness Of constitutional construction
when he passes from something some one
else has done to the thing he wants to do.
Delegate the power to punish to the Speak
er? You can see the position in which this
writer was placed, and which forced him to
this remarkable proposition.
Here was gigantic evil-so vast that the
people, without distinction OF party, on sec
ond sober thought approved of its suppress
slon, even when done as some of them
claimed in partisan way. IL the remedy
used was to be condemed, it was needful to
suggest some other remedy 1t would not
do to appeal to the power of the House, pure
and simple, to punish by fine its disorderly
members, for the reply to that was very OBJ
vlous. Il took six hours of hard work under
rules which counted a quorum to censuie a
member. To discipline 100 members would
have produced all the effects of the most
elaborate tilibustering 1t would have taken
three months,not to say eternity. Obvious
y, then, in order to make plausible case,
the power Of the House to punish and expei
must be treated with latitudinarian system
OF construction which could not be tolerated
unless unless carefully disguised. Hence
two. distinct powers of the House, kept en-
tirely separate in the Constitution-the pow
er to determine the rules Of its proceedings
and that other entirely different provision,
the power to punish members tor disorderly
conduct. Both powers belong to the House,
and can be delegated to no man.
IL any parliamentary body has ever under
taken toEall0w its presiding officer to fine
its members without appeal, Its name has
not yet been brought into prominence; ,"At
some future day, perhaps, Mr.. - will deem
1t wlse-nay, deem it necessary-to show
single shred Of authoritative parliamentary
ordinary
The author says the Presidents veto can
not be overruled except by a quorum actually
voting. Why? Because, he says 1.-THE votes
Of both houses shall be determined by yeas
and nays" Yeas and nays must certainly
show. each vote Of each member. Each
members vote must be determined by yeas
this provision to that entirely different ques-
tion whether either house is in con-
dition for doing business by having a quorum
present. What the House votes is one thing;
what it Is Is another. The Constitution pre-
scribes how, the vote shall be determined;
the rules made under the Constitution pre-
scrlte how the presence of a quorum shall
be determined. Whatever business Is done
Is done by competent body; and IL that
body, properly constituted, acquiesces in the
result arrived at Dy lLS members VINO 40 vote,
what shock is there either to common sense,
business sense or constitutional law?
The Supreme Court of Maine has decided
that three aldermen out OF seven, a plain
minority, were not only enough to certify
the election of members Of the Legislature,
but to create presumption of a quorum act
ually present when there was no other rec
ord. The Supreme Court of New Hamp-
shire has decided that when, Of seven alder
men, six were present and three voted, the
nf fNHrAV VrOr NtOh 70 kln
ure.
To be sure these are citations about alder
men and other inferior persons, but our au-
thoTs contempt for aldermen and town
couneilmen ought not to blind him to the
fact that the decisions were by the supreme
courts Of two states, and supreme courts Of
such we'll known learning that they ought
not to be confounded with the inferior per-
sons whose cases they decided. 1t
must must always be borne in mind
applies with equal measure to all persons,
both great and small. The law (which
governs the doctrine of a quorum in a town
council governs 1t also in Congress, if the
constituting provision be the same. The
converse also follows, that whatever law
governs quorum in Congress governs the
quorum In the hundred thousand school
boards and councils everywhere in the land.
Not the least of the good effects of the proc
lamation of the true doctrine by the House
those corporate bodies, through which flows
the hood which gives health and yigor to the
whole body polite.
The action of the Senate of the Empire
State Of New York, aequiesced in by all
parties ever since, is not to be lightly dis
missed as the partisan action of David b.
Hill. Nobody has ever dared to question
the law passed under that ruling, and no
body has since questioned the ruling itself.
Other sovereign.States are certainly entitled
to some respect.
1t may be that the House of Representa-.
tives at Washington ought to have set a good
example to all the States. But how II It did
not? Must progress be stopped and COM
nonsense houted because they did not
begin at the top? Was wisdom to be
rejected because it was not found under the
biggest wigs?
It has not been thought worth while In
this artle to notice the citations from emf
nent authrs, as they have not the slightest
bearing upon the question at issue. They
do not touch upon them in the least. They
can only impress the uncrltical and careless
with the idea that the author had the sup
mort of famous names. There Is no need to
produce Judge Cooley, The Federalist,
Erskine May, and Judge Story to prove that
the House can punish its members for