The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1892-03-04
THEY WERE BOTH RIGHT.

The Supreme Court of the United
States Monday affirmed the power
assumed by Thos. B. Reed wher
Speaker of the House to count 9
quorum" declared the Mckinley
Tariff bill to be constitutional and
decided against the British govern.
ment in its suit to have our tribunal
accord it jurisdiction over the seal
fisheries in Behring Sea. Decisions
in these cases have been awaited
with anxiety for months, and the
"vindication" they furnish ex-
Speaker Reed, Major Mckinley,
President Harrison and his admin
istration will furnish much of the
material for the campaign orators
during the coming fight for the
Presidency.
"ToM" REEDS vINIDcATIoN.
Ex-Speaker Reeds "vindication"
is in the decision of what has be-
come known as the ono quorum"
case. This was suit brought by
Balm, Joseph & Co., importers, to
test the validity of the DINGHY bill
fixing the cl, ssifications of worsteds.
The bill was declared passed by the
then Speaker Reed at a time when,
though quorum of members was
in the House, the number required
to make up quorum did not vote.
The Speaker counted a quorum"
and the importers who brought the
suit declared the Speakers act to
be unconstitutional and contended
that the bill as passed was void.
The position taken by the impor-
ters was upheld by the United
States Circuit Court for the South
ern district of New York, but the
opinion of the United States Su-
preme Court, written by Justice
Brewer, overrules that decision, and
"vindicated" Mr.. Reed by declar-
ing that his manner of determining
a quorum was legal and constitu-
tional.
The constitution provides that
each house may determine the
rules of its procedure, and the ques-
ton is as to the validity of rule Is
authorizing the count Of nom
voters present-and not what meth
DDS the Speaker may adopt to de-
termine the presence Of a quorum,
or what he may place upou the
journal. Neither do the advantages
or disadvantages, the wisdom or
folly of such q rule present any
matters for judicial consideration.
With the courts the question is
only one Of power. The constitu-
ton empowers each house to deter
mine rules of proceeding. 1t may
not by its rules ignore constitu-
tlonal restraints or violate funda-
mental rights, and these should be
a reasonable relation between the
mode or method of proceeding es-
tablished by the rule and the result
which is sought to be obtained. But
within these limitations all mattets
of method arc open t. the determi-
nation of the House, and it is no
impeachment of the rule to say that
some other way would be better,
more accurate or even more Just.
1t is no objection to the validity of
a rule that different one has been
prescribed and in force for length
of time.
A CONTINUING POWER.
The power to make rules is not
one which once exercised is ex-
hausted. 1t is continuous power,
always subject to be exercised by
the House, and within the limita-
tons suggested absolute and beyond
the challenge Of any other body or
tribunal. The constitution pro-
vides that ga majority of each
house shall constitute a quorum to
do business" In other words when
a majority are present the House is
in position to do business. It's
capacity to transact business is then
established created by the mere
presence of a majority--and does
not depend upon the disposition or
assent or action Of any single men,
Der or fraction of the majority pres
ent. All that the constitution re-
quires is the presence of a majority,
and when that majority is present
the power of the House arises.
The constitution has prescribed
no method of ascertaining the pres
ence of a majority. and it is there
fore clearly within the competency
of the House to prescribe any meth
cd that shall be reasonably certain
to ascertain the fact. There was a
quorum present when the bill passed
and the question is whether, a quo
rum being present, the bill received
\