The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1892-03-03
COUNTING A QUORUM.
The United States Supreme Court UphOIds Speaker
Reeds Methods.

Reeds Methods.
The Supreme Court Of the United States
rendered decision on Monday, Feb. 90 in the
No quorum case" in which the legality OF
the Dingey wOrsted act was attacked by firm
Of New York importers. This act was passed
by Speaker Reed counting n quorum when
there was a quorum Of the members OF the
House present, but a number Of them had re-
fused 10 vote The importers held that the
Speakers act was in violation of the Constitu-
ton, and the act having been passed in such
manner was void. The L. :. Circuit Court Of
the Southern District Of New York had de-
cided the case against the United States on this
ground and the case was appealed TO the Su-
preme Court by the Government
Justice Brewer read the opinion OF tho Court,
which was that tho mo quorum rule - was
valid, as the House Of Representatives had
right 10 make such rule. The Court held
that the enrolled bill was found in the proper
Office, that of the Secretary of State, authenti-
Gated and approved in tho customary FORM and
there is nothing on its face 10 suggest its inva-
lidity. They then sought TO find If anything in
the facts disclosed by the Journal Of the
House, rs found by the general appraisers,
which ytiate the act. The case Of Gordon VS..
the Collector, in which IL is held that =" when
ever question arises in a court Of law Of the
existence Of statute, or of the time when a
statute took effect or of the precise terms OF
statute, the judges who are called upon 10 de-
eide IL have "a right TO resort TO any source Of
information which, in its nature, is capable Of
conveying 10 the judicial mind clear and sat
isfactory answer 10 such a question, always
seeking first that which, in its nature, is most
appropriate, unless the positive law has enacted
a different rule" Aud We have at the present
term, in the cases of Field ct al. VS.. The United
States, had occasion 10 consider the subject Of
an appeal TO the Journal in disputed matter
of this nature. IL is unnecessary 10 add any
thing here TO that general discussion.
Assuming without deciding that the Journal
may be appealed to, il must be assumed to
speak the truth. IL cannot be that we can refer
10 the Journal TO impcach statute properly
authenticated. aud then show by parOl evil
dcnce that the facts stated in the Journal are
not true. The possibility Of such inaccuracy
or ialsehOOd only suggests the unreliabiity Of
the evidence aud the danger Of appealing 10 10
10 overthrow that furnished by the bill, enrolled
and authenticated by the signatures Of the pre-.
siding officers Of the two Houses and the Pres-
dent Of the United States.
The Constitution provides that each House
may determine the rules OF its procedure. and
the question is as TO the validity of rule ID lau-
thOuZing the count Of non-yOters present. aud
not what methods the Speaker may adopt 10
determine the presence Of quorum, or what
he may place upon the Journal. Neither do
the advantages or Disadvantages, the wisdom
or folly Of such rule present any matters for
judicial consideration. With the courts the
question is only one Of power. The Coustitu-
ton empowers each House 10 determine rules
OF proceedings. IL may not by its rules ignore
Constitutional restraints or violate fundamental
rights, aud there should be a reasonable rea-
ton between the mode or method Of proceeding
established by the rule and the result which is
sought 10 be obtained. But within these limit
atious all matters Of method are open 10 the
determination Of the House, aud IL is no inn
parchment Of the rule 10 say that some other
way would be better moro accurate, or even
more just.
The Court holds that ii is no objection 10 the
validity Of a rule that different one has been
presented and las been i'm force for some time.
The power 10 make rules is not one which when
exercised is exhausted. il is q continuous
power, always subject 10 be exercised by the
House, aud, within the Limitations suggested,
absolute aud beyond challenge of any other
body or tribunal. The Constitution provides
that majority Of each House shall consti-
tute quorum 10 do business" In other words,
when majority is present the House is ia a
position 70 transact business. Its capacity 10
transact business is then established, created
by the mere presence Of a majority, and does
not depend upon the disposition or assent or ac-
ton Of any single member or fraction o. the
majority present. All that the Constitution
requires isthc presence OF majority, and when
that is present the power of the House arises.
The Constitution has prescribed no method
Of ascertaiuiug the presence Of majority, aud
IL is therefore clearly within the competency
Of the House 10 prescribe any method that
shall be reasonably certain 10 ascertain the
fact. There was a quorum present when this
bill passed, and tho question is whether quo
rum being present, tho bill received sufficient
number Of votes. aud here the general rules 0f
all parliamentary bodies is that when a quorum
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, thata ma
jOrity Of all the members elected shall be pres.
eut necessary 20 the passage of bill, aud there
fore the general law Of such bodies obtains.
Ia summing up the Court holds that the
presence Of that quorum was determined in
accordance with reasonable and valid rule
heretofore adopted by the House and Of that
quorum a majority voted in favor Of the bill
IL therefore legally passed the House aud the
law, as found in the Office Of the Secretary Of
State, is beyond challenge.