, 1890-02-25

A CONSTR VIEW.

written ABOUT the new rules TO govern the
lower house of congress and the action of
Speaker Reed in the partisan contests oc-
curing in that body but we have met
with nothing fairer or more temperate
than the following article from Harper's
WeekhE
There ought to be no serious dispute
about proper rules Of procedure in con-
gress. because, says the Weekly. however
strong party spirit may be. every men,
Der is aware that suct rules should secure
the right Of the majority to act, after full
and fair debate. The rules certainly
ought not enable the minority. after full
and fair debate, to prevent the majority
from acting. But it must never be for
gotten, that a majority. like = king, tends
to tyranny. aud that the rules should
equally secure the rights OF minorities.
Msioritics take care Of themselves, while
bills Of rights and constitutions are de-
signed to take care of minorities by re-
strainlnR and regulating the power of ma
~iorities. Twenty years ago Laboulaye SAID
that France was not ready for a republic.
because Frcnchmen could not comprehend
that = constitution is as necessary to re
strain . majority as q king. The majority
in congress is often %tyrannical and un-
reasonable as was plainly shown in
the ante Jelhmt days; and when
the majority is convinced that the
intentions OF the party majority threaten
the public welfare it may Justly and prop
erly insist that the majority shall appear
and a~firmatively take the responsibility
Of its nc ton. 1t would be a very serious
blow at the right Of the minority and at
liberty If. in the absence Of the necessary
majority to pass a bill. the minority could
be forced, despite its refusal to vote. to
be made accessory to legislation which it
had opposed to the utmost as injurious to
the public welfare. Senator Havley.
when = member of the house. stated the
point crisply aud conclusively: IF the
majority desire to have the bill passed in
opposition to our wishes. then let the ma
iority pass it over our head"
The reason OF this view, which is sus-
tanned by almost uninterrupted precedent,
has not been more cogently stated than
by Speaker Reed when he was on the
floor Of the house. Ten years ago. in \
warm debate on the subject. Mr.. Reed
said. 1T is a valuable privilege for the
country that the minority shall have the
right by this extraordinary mode of pro-
ceeding to csll the attention of the country
to measures which a party in a moment
of madness and of party feeling is en-
deavoring to enforce upon the citizens of
this land" When the ountry has
elected n majority Of representatives
favorable to certain public principles and
measures. that majority must undoubt
edly prevail. But 1t must prevail by its
votes. If the votes Of a majority are not
recorded, there Is no evidence Of its will.
From the beginning Of the government
the provision Of the constitution that a
majority Of each house shall constitute =
quorum to do business has been uniformly
held to mean that a majority of members
duly elected shall be present and actually
take part in the transaction of business,
aud that a vote is a nullity if 1t appears
that less than 4 constitutional quorum has
voted.
This is the uniform Interpretation Of a
hundred years. based upon reason and
experience. 1t requires that laws shall
have the Affirmative sanction OF a major
ity of the lawmakers. except in such
cases as are too unimportant to demand
official recognition OF the fact that there
is not a quorum voting. 1t is not a
denial Of the right of the majority,
but a protection OF the right OF the
minority. 1t enables the minority TO de-
lay legislation which it thinks dangerous
to the public welfare. until the majority,
which is responsible. appears and as
sumes responsibility. The rule now pro-
posed. in accordance with tn, late rulings
of the speaker. but opposed to his views
and to those of many Of the
most eminent of his party associ-
ates. frequently and most conclusively de-
clared in the house, is a grave injustice to
the minority. No reason is alleged for
this sudden reversal of the approved
methods Of a century. No argument has
even touched the arguments of Mr.. Reed,
of Speaker Blaine. and of General Haw-
ley, against the proposed change. 1t
would be a wanton and arbitrary exercise
OF the power of the party majority,
which rules of procedure are intende | to
restrain, if the rule should be adopted.
There Is no measure which the party ma
iority in the house cannot adopt if it
chooses to appear. Rules which it may
choose to adopt to prevent a wholly un-
r~easonabln obstruction of the action of a
majority. present and ready to act. after
. fair and full debate, will be sustained,
We believe, by the intelligent opinion of
the country. But this is not such . rule.
1t is = blow at the just rights of the min
ority. which the majority. in the interest
of honest government, ought to protect
and secure