The Portland daily press., 1891-12-28
COUNTING A QUORUM.
Mr. Reeds Rulings and The Storm
They Created.
HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE ON
THE MINORITY.

Problem of Securing Prompt Legislation
Should be Solved in American Princi-
ples-Mr. Reeds Treatment by Demo-
Gratis Compared with that Accorded
e. MIR. Carlisle by Republicans How
Speaker Carlisle once used His Power.
New DIRK, December 26.-The Tribune
prints today an article by Hon. Henry
Cabot Lodge on parliamentary minorities.
Mr.. Lodge speaks Of obstructive measures
employed by such minorities to prevent
legislation and points out that the meas
ures adopted by Mr.. Reed to show the
presence of quorum have been used in
other legislative assemblies. Mr..
Lodge deprecates the position of those
who would deal with the problem by graft
ing to the American system European
methods of conducting business such as
the presence of representatives of the ex-
ecutive in the membership Of legislative
bodies. he claims that the question
should be settled here on cOnstitutiO nal
lines, preserving the distinction betw cen
the legislative, executive and judicial de-
the Speaker. Mr.. Lodge says:
"Of all the criticism and discussion upon
this subject nothing has been more incept
than the talk about the despotism of the
Speaker. The Speaker, in the first place,
is the representative, the voice and the
leader OF the majority. They can create
and they can destroy. he must carry out
the Will OF the House, as expressed by its
majority or he will cease to exist. This
state OF things is not in itself the usual
underlying condition of successful des-
p0tism. Then again the Speakers
powers were not exercised. nor even arbi-
trarily exercised, for the first time in the
winter of 1SS9-'9O. They have existed be-
fore; they have been growing for a long
time; and they have been vigorously exer-
cised by speakers of all parties. One ex-
ample will show better than anything else
the quality and character of the modern
speakership and dispose of uninformed
criticism more quickly than can be done in
any other way. The greatest power of the
can keep a member from the floor during
Congress simply by never seeing him. He
can give another member the floor every
day by always seeing him. This vast
power is Inherent in the office. No rules
created IL and no rules can limit it. Its
exercise must remain wholly within the
discretion Of the speaker himself.
manner which, In arbitrary decision, went
far beyond any act of his successor. In
the ALlXth Congress. near the close of
the session, Mr.. Randall of Pennsylvania
desired TO get the floor to offer bill relat-
ing to revenue. which he believed would
pass by combination of Republicans ana
small minority of Democrats. The bill
was hostile to the declared policy of the
majority of the Democrats in the House.
The condition of business and the parlia-
mentary situation were such that the bill
could only be brought up at a particular
time. and everything depended on the
Speakers recognition. Mr.. Carlisle re-
fused to recognize Mr.. Randall for the pur-
pose ofcalling up that bill. He took ground
that 1t was contrary to the policy of the
party he represented, and that as the head of
that party he would not allow it to comeup
by recognition which he was not bound
to give by the rules. In the ordinary bust
ness OF Congress both public and private,
and on all parliamentary questions, such
position would have been an outrage, AID
no speaker would have taken it. But this
was one of the great measures of public
policy which are few in:number, and on
which parties divide. On this Mr.. Carlisle
took the position openly of the party chief
and shut out the bill as British Minister
would have done. rhe power and the re-
sponsibility went, together. and if he
Aho0 AOb OOAO oOs nlo OWu anu Ills party
responsibility would have been at an end.
he took the responsibility and exercised
the power and the official responsibility
was thereby concentrated. instead Of being
lost in a mist OF factiOnal combinations,
Mr.. Carlisle, in his conception of his posi-
tton and its power was correct. He none
the less openly took stronger ground and
exercised his power more arbitrarily than
Mr.. Reed, yet he was respectfully treated
by his opponents, while Mr.. Reed was
made the target of fierce personal abnss
for adheriDg to the same policy. The diff.
ference was typical of the difference be-
tween the parties. The important point.
however, is that the central and governing
is the same always. The princi-
pie is this: Without responsibility popular
approval cannot be had, there is no redress
tor wrong or support for the right. With
we have both. If Mr.. Car
Isle was acting wrongly the remedyH was
simple. The people would take control
from him and his party and give it to Mr..
Randall, and then Mr.. Randall's bill would
come up. With biennial return to the
people, the danger of a Speakers despot-
ism is not serious, except, perhaps, in the
minds OF those who edit partisan comic
Journals"