Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1892-03-04
REED NOT "vINDIOATED."

The "ghoulish glee" of the este emed
but often hasty Intelligenccr over the
decision of the Supreme Court that the
House may make whatever rules it
pleases and that, therefore, REEDS out
rageous rules were not unconstitu-
tional, from that standpoint, is enter
tanning to witness. Our neighbor has
been harping on this theme ever since
the Court rendered its decision, but it
does not seem TO catch the full pur-
pose Of that decision. 1t says:
la vain the inquiring eye scans the edi-
tor.al pages of the Democratic newspapers
for some able comment on the decision OF
the Supreme Court declaring constitutional
the QuOrum-cOuntlng Of Speaker Reed.
Now, the Supreme Courts decision
did not show anything more than that
the House had the right, constitu-
tonally, TO make its own rules. 1t did
not "yindicate" REED. Everybody,
who knows anything about the law,
knows that he Courtcould have render
ed no other decision than that the House
cOnld make It's own rules, and that the
Court could not declare them unconsti-
tutional, no matter how unconstitu-
tiOnal they might have been. The Su-
preme Court may decide that n law
passed by Congress is unconstitutional,
but it has no power to decide upon the
rules which Congress makes for
its guidance. The case was brought be-
fore the Court by an importer OF
worsted goods, on the ground that
no majority Of the House had
voted for the Mckinley act, and that,
therefore, il was not a law. IL was a
plainly absurd case to bring, but law
yers are always to be found who will
take up any case to get a decision and
a fee. 1.-THE Supreme Court" to quote
the Philadelphia Record, "leaveS ex-
Speaker Reeds quorum precisely where
it was before. IL is none the less I'M
constitutional by reason Of this deci-
sion. To make the matter as plain as
possible: The Senate of the United
States adhereS TO the ancient constitu-
tional rule that a majority of members
present and doing business is necessary
TO constitute quorum. Neither Speaker
REEDS overthrow of this rule in the
House nor the decision Of the Court has
affected in the least degree the position
OF the Senate. Nor does the de-
ciSion affect the action Of the
present House in reversing AR.
REED and returning TO ancient
constitutional ways in aScertaining q
quorum. The Supreme Court simply
holds that, no matter how unwise and
absurd may be the rules o. the House,
they are not subject to judicial revision.
Speaker REED in making his famous
quorum saw just as many members as
suited his purpose. He made it poss'-
bic for minority to pass the most dan
gerouS measures, and thus to overthrow
a vital principle of legislative proceed
ing. In order 70 destroy the abp
which Speaker REED undertook to in
trOduce in Congress many States have
embodied in their Constitutions the pre-
vision that no measure shall become d
law unless a majority Of the members
Of each House shall vote for it on 4 call
Of the yeas and nays. When, under
Mr.. REEDS parliamentary methods,
majority could not be mustered in favor
Of bin which be desired to pass, he
manufactured quorum by seeing"
and counting members not participating
in the business Of the House. lie some
times counted members not in the
House, no. even in the city of Washing