The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1892-03-04

WASHINGTON, March 3.-The decision of
the supreme court sustaining the legality
of the counted quorum was received with
high degree of satisfaction by ex-Speaker
Reed and his friends When asked what
he thought about the decision Mr. Reed
said to a reporter. 81 never had any doubt
about the matter at all. | never thought
there could be found 1t any time or in any
place judge of any supreme court who
would decide in any other way" The
court in passing upon the point said:
"The constitution provides that each
house may determine the rules OF its pro-
cedure. and the question is as to the valid
ity of rule - authorizing the count of
non-voters presently and not what methods
the speaker may adopt TO determine the
preeence of a quorum, or what be 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
constitution empowers each house to de-
ternine rules of proceedings. 1t may not
by its rules ignore constitutional restraints
or violate fundamental rights, and there
should be a reasonable relation between
the mode or method of proceeding estab-
li-hed by the rule and the result which is
sought TO be obtained. But within these
limitations all matters of method are open
is no impeachment of the rule to say that
some other way would be better, more ac-
curate, or even more just.
st is no objection to the validity OF
a rule that different one has been pre-
sented and in force for a length of time
The power TO make rules Is not one which,
once exercised, is exhausted. 1t IS a con-
tinuous power, always subject 10 be eXer-
cised by the house and within the limlta-
nd hCnl "a hPVOnn
challenge of any other body or tribunal.
The constitution provides that ma
iority of each house shall constitute a
quorum to do business.
"In other words, when majority are
present the house is in position to do
business. Its capacity to transact bust
ness 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 member or fraction of
the majority present. All that the con-
stitution requires is the presence of a
majority, and when that majority is pres
ent the power of the house arises.
The constitution has prescribed no
method of ascertaining the presence of Il
majority, and il is therefore clearly with
in the competency of the house TO pre-
scribe any method that shall be reasonably
certain to ascertain the fact. There was a
ouorurn present when this bill passed, and
the question is whether, aquorum being
present. the bill received sufficient num-
Der of votes, and here the general rules Of
all parliamentary bodies is that when q
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 rs is found in certain state
constitutions, that majority OF all the
members elected shall be present necces-
sary to the passage of bill, and therefore
the general law Of such bodies obtains
IF we appeal TO the journal OF the
house we fiud that majority OF Its menu
bers were present when the bill passed a
majority creating by the constitution a
quorum with authority TO act upon any
measure; that the presence OF that quo
rum was determined in accordance with
a reasonable and valid rule heretofore
adopted by the house and OF that quorum
a majority voted IN favor OF tue bill 1t
therefore legally passed the house, and the
law, as found in the Office OF the secretary
OF state IS beyond challenge,