Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-02-14
FRIDAY. FEBRUARY IA. 1890.
The Difference.

The Bristol Ne,es seems to be still under
the impression that il has detected us in
an inconsistency. or, at least. made good
point against US. II says:
"The Richmond Dispatch totes pretty
fair with us, but it totally fails 10 catcn
the main point we are after-to W.T., mat
for many years the Democracy OF virginia
have by their rule 60 construed II 70 be
right that a minority party. shall not re,
main present, in their legislative seats, ana
by swearing they are absent, prevent their
being counted as present and not voting,
90 that q quorum can be announced ana
business proceeded with, -,
"In other words, Mr.. Reeds view is the
Virginia Democratic view, and has been for
10 these MANY years"
We might admit TO be true oil that the
Nesos says in the first of the above-quoted
paragraphs, and still not be guilty of any
inconsistency. Mr.. REEDS view is that MIR.
REED has the right in the absence OF rules
on the subject to count az present men,
bers who refuse to vote. The Democratic
view is that in SO ruling Mr.. REED was
guilty Of an act of usurpation which IN
England would under like circumstances
have cost the Speaker of the House OF
Commons his head. Mr.. REEDS view is
that IL the House of Representatives post
pones the adoption of rules for Its govern
ment, it by that neglect or refusal to act
empowers MIR. REED to make rules OF his
own. He might as well claim the right to
draw the salaries of all the members who
have not thought proper up to this time to
draw their salaries themselves. He might
as well claim the right TO decide the Virginia
cases now pending in the Supreme Court
of the United States because that tribunal
has hitherto omitted for good reasons'to
decide those cases.
If the Democrats Of Virginia have by
their rule 60 construed it to be right that q
minority party shall not remain present in
their legislative seats and refuse to vote to
make up quorum, il is because the House
Of Delegates had provided bya rule having
the force of law that the non-voting MEN,
bers should under such circumstances be
recorded as present. REED, we repeat, had
no such backing-no such authority-no
authority whatever. His acts were
usurpatory nets. His rulings were ty-
rannical. He reversed the rulings of q
hundred years, and substituted for the an
cient customs and usages of the highest
popular law-making body in this country
the sic uo,o. sic tubeo Of an irresponsible des-
pot knowing no law except his own will.
As the Nelcs has thought proper to quote
Democratic authority to bolster up bad
cause, we will quote high Republican
authority to sustain good cause. In the
forty-third Congress Mir. CoBURs, of
Indiana, wanted Speaker BLAINE. one of
the finest parliamentarians who ever occu-
pied the Speakers chair, to decide as
REED has now decided. What said Mr..
BLAINE? Read his clear-cut sentences.
We quote:
"There can be no record like that Of the
yeas and nays, and from that there Is no
appeal. The moment you clothe your
Speaker with power to go behind Your roll
call and assume that there is q quorum in
the hall, why. gentlemen, you stand on the
very brink of a volcano.
THE very principle enunciated by the
gentleman from Indiana has been the
foundation probably for the greatest legs-
lative frauds ever committed. Where O
quorum In the Judgment of the Chair has
been declared to be present in the House
against the result of roll-call these pro-
ceedings in the different legislatures have
brought scandal on their Names"
To-day the House of Representatives
will decide whether REED is to be justified
by Republican votes or not. 1t is ques-
ton wrong decision Of which may bring
in it's train woes innumerable.