The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1892-03-09
In Two Short Years.

1t is just two years ago to-day since
our good friend the Register, which had
been wasting n good deal CT indigna-
ton on Speaker Reed and his rulings,
hurled this thunderbolt at the speaker
and those who agreed with him:
Why are tho Republican politicians constantly
pointing out and raising objections to tho cues.
lion OF the coHstitutionality OF Reeds rulings
being taken before tho supreme court OF tho
United States for decision?
Why arc the Democrats striving to get this
vital question before the highest court in tho
land? y
These questions answer themselves The Re.
publicans know as well as the Democrats know
That Reeds rulings are unconstitutional and
would not stand on the question OF their coustl-
arc thoroughly aware of the iact that tho count.
Ing OF a quorum when quorum docs not vote Is
notwithstanding havo Reed. himself, for
nuthorlty-thGt the men who have been seated
in Congress by this means hold their seats un.
lawfully. aud iha. every measure passed when a
quorum OF the house does not vote on 1t Is not
constitutional or lawful measure.
Democrats want to get the question bcfose the
them to. Why is this il he Republicans believe
they are acting lawfully? Isl,
Republicans werenot Directing to the
quorum question being submitted tothe
supreme court Of the United States. On
the contrary they were pleased with the
idea, but it was not their business to as
sail their own action. That they left to
the opposition.
The importing interest, always tho
firm ally OF the Democratic party, under
took thetask, and, only short time ago.
was hit in the head by the Knockout de-
cision OF the supreme court, the unani-
nous decision OF that high body which
includes in its membership three Dem
ocrnts with the chief justice at their
head. On this anniversary Of the hurl-
ing OF the Registers thunderbolt it is es-
pecially pertinent to quote briefly from
the supreme court decision:
It lis no objection to the validity OF rulcthat
adilercnt ono has been prescribed and in force
for length Of time. Tho power 10 make rules
IS not one which, once exercised, Is exhausted.
1t Is n continuous power, always subject TO be
exercised by the house within the limitations
suggested absolute and beyond challenge of any
other body or tri bunal. The constitution pro-
vidcs thas a majority Of each (house) shall con-
stitutc 4 quorum. to do business In other
words, wher majority are present the house Is
in position to do business Its cnpa city to
transact business Is then established, created by
the mere presence Of q majority, and docs not
depend upon the disposition or assent or action
OF any single member or faction Of the majority
present. All that the constitution requires Is
the presence OF majority, and when that ma.
jority Is present tho power OF TIL house arises.
The constitution has prescribed no method Of
nscertaning the presence OF majority. and 1t is
therefore clearly within tho competency of tho
house TO prescribe any method that shall be rca-
sonably certain to ascertain tho fact.
There wasn quorum present when this bill
was passed. and tho question Is whether, a quo
rum being present, the bill received sufficient
number OF votes and hero the general rule OF
all parliamentary bodies Is that when quorum
is present, the act Of majority OF the quorum Is
the act OF the body. 4
Summing up this matter tho law Is found In
the secretary. OF the lreasurys office, properly
authenticated. five appeal TO the Journal OF
the house. we find that 3 majority Of Its men,
beers were present when the bill passed, maori-
~ creating By the constitution quorum with
authority TO net upon any measured: that the
presence OF that quorum was determined in &C.
Cordance with reasonable and valid rule here.
totore adopted by the house, and of that quorum
q majority voted In favor OF the bill. 1t there.
fore legally passed the house. and the law es
found in the Office OF the secretary OF the treasury
is beyond challenge.
Tho Register and its party were conf
dent. that it was unconstitutional to
counta quorum when n quorum was
present, and they were sure that from
this it followed that "every measure
passed under Speaker Reeds quorum
rulings was not constitutional or law
ful measure" The supreme court may
not he SO we'll posted on the law as tho
Register and tho rest OF them are, but
that body says that Speaker Reeds quo
rum rulings were constitutional and 'in
accordance with reasonable and valid
rule" and law SO passed "is beyond
challenge"
In tho light Of this rcminiscense and
what has happened lately, perhaps the
Register will be glad to embrace tho OPP
portunity to say whether its Wow OF tho
constitutionality OF q counted quorum
has been in any way changed.