New-York tribune., 1891-12-26
SPEAKER REEDS REFORM.

The first duty of the new House is to frame
the rules for its own government. Judging from
the committee appointed for that purpose, it
seems probable that the House will move back
ward, as Democracy generally does, and adopt
rules depriving the majority of the power and re-
sponsibility which the people have intrlsted to It,
1t is therefore especially timely that Mr.. Lodge
has prepared full review of the subject, show
ing the necessity and the nature OF the changes
made by Speaker Reed and the last House, and
contrasting the mode of legislation thus secured
with that which prevails in other great lesls-
ative bodies. His presentment is so clear and
forcible that no additional words are needed to
strengthen it.
Ii is important, nevertheless, to recognize
afresh some of the leading facts presented In this
exhaustive paper. 1t has been claimed, first
that the Speaker dsregarded all precedents and
all established parliamentary law in counting
members who were present but refused to vote IN
order to ascertain quorum 1t IS shown thao III
several State Legislatures the same rule has OBJ
tanned it has long been the established rule IN
courts and in corporations it is the established
rule in the French Assembly, in Switzerland, in
Belgium and Denmark, and the President OF the
svering to his name would undoubtedly be count
ed if observed. Mr.. Reed simply adopted the
direct and sensible mode OF defeating unlawful
obstruction of the public business, and the pre-
else mode which has been practlsed in other
countries.
Mr.. Lodge shows most forcibly the necessity
of this course. The paramount duty of egls-
latiye body is to legislate. If it cannot debate
and transact business also, it must stop debating,
because the body has no right to exist unless 1t
can do business The members composing the
body have been intrusted by the people with
great and sacred responsibility, to which they
would be faithless if they should allow them
selves to be so handcuffed with their own rules
that they could not pass the measures deemed
necessary by the majority. What Mr.. Reed did
was simply this he restored to the majority the
power rghtfully and necessarily attaching to Its
responsibility, of which it had been wrongfully
deprived.
Since this has been done it rests with the
majority of this or any other House to decide
whether it will accept its responsibility and use
its rightfu power, or abdicate both. If the
House abdicates, and handouts itself with rules
Of the old Democratic pattern, and 50 renders
itself unable to do business, the whole people
| will know that it had ample power but was
either too unfathful or too cCwardly to use that
power. All talk of deSpotism is childish or dis
honest, for the Speaker is constantly responsible
to the House, as the House is responsible to the
| people. If the new House deprives itself OF
power to do the work it was sent to do, the peo-
pie will hold it responsible for that, as for any
other plain disregard of its duties
| Speaker Reed and the last House have there
| fore rendered an inestimable service to repub-
can government in this country. For long
time the claim had been set up, in answer to all
charges of failure to do the will of the people,
that the rules had enabled the minority TO pre-
vent action, and that such rules were necessary
in body so large and cumbersome, in order
to secure the transaction of any business what
ever. At a single blow all this refuge OF false
pretence has been swept away. 1t has been
proved that business can be done by the ma
iority if it pleases. The sole question hereafter
will be whether the majority has chosen to dc
the will of the people.