St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-03-01
REEDS RULING RIGHT,
United States Supreme Court
Upholds the Counting ola
Quorum.
The Maine Man Was Correct
and Is Gratified by the
Endorsement.
Constitutionality Of MeKin-
ley's Bill Affirmed in a
Careful Opinion.
Ffelden and Schwab Baked
n Their Hopes--Sayward
Case Settled.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 29.-The mo
quorum" case. in which the legality of
the Dingley wOrsted act was attacked
by Balm, Joseph d Co., importers, was
today. decided by the United States
supreme court. The Dingley act was
passed through the action of Speaker
Reed in counting a quorum when there
was a quorum of members present, but
not voting. The importers maintained
that Speaker Reeds action was in vio-
lation of the constitution, AID that the
act passed in this manner was void.
The United States court for the South
ern district of New York decided
against the United States and in favor
Of the importers OH this ground, so that
the case came before the United States
supreme court adverse to the constitu-
tionalIty of the mo quorum" method of
parliamentary procedure.
The court. in an opinion by Justice
Brewer, holds that the mo quorum"
rule was valid and that the house of
representatives had right to make
such rule. The constitution pro-
vides that "a majority of each house
shall constitute quorum TO do bust
ness" Iu other words, when major
ty are present the house IS in a posi-
ton to do business. Its capacity TO
transact business is, then, established,
created by the mere
Presence of a Majority,
and does not depend upon the DISPOSE
ton, or assent, or action of any single
member or fraction OF the majority
present. All that the constitution re-
quires is the presence of a majority,
and when the majority is present the
power of the house arises. The constl-
tuition. has prescribed no method of
RScertaiuing the presence of majority,
and it is therefore clearly within the
competency of the house to prescribe
any method that may be reasonably GER
tain to ascertain the fact.
There was quorum present when
this bill passed, and the question is
whether, quorum being present, the
bill received sufficient number of
votes; and the general rule of all par
liamentary bodies is that when a quo
rum is present the act of a majority of
the quorum is the act of the body. In
the United States constitution there is
no such limitation as is found in certain
state constitutions, that a majority of
all the members elected shall be pres
ent necessary to the passage of the bill,
and therefore the general law of such
bodies obtains.
AS to reciprocity, the court says, vari-
ous decisions of the court and the pract-
ice of years establish the right of con-
greSs to give the president power by
proclamation at future day to revoke
or modify certain clauses of the act. 1t
holds that 1t WAS not transfer of legiS-
lative power. but simply gave the presi
dent power to determine whether the
time had arrived which requirements of
congress as to the act taking effect had
arrived.
The president. the court says, is not
vested with any real legislative power;
congress prescribed the conditions
under which the president should act.
All he had to ascertain was that par
ticular fact existed, and then it was di-
Teeted that he execute the act. The presi-
dent was mere agent of the law-making
power with respect to sugar bountieS.
The court says. the argument that the
validity of the whole act is involved in
the question as to whether or not this
clause is valid is so obvious an error as
not to warrant argument. There is no
such connection between this part of
the act and the other sections as to
warrant the court in assuming that the
rest would not have been adopted but
for the adoption of the bounty system.
They are entirely separate in purpose,