The advocate and Topeka tribune., 1893-03-08

BAAA AhA OpOn AOuAA GlpCbCA Oy
the board Of oanVnssers in Haskell
county. That board did It's duty; even
that board did no wrong; but the clerk
Of that board, Intentionally or uninten-
tionaly, care not which, sent an erron-
eous return to the state board of can
vassers, but that mistake was not at
tempted TO be corrected until after
the state board Of canvasserS had
finally adjourned. That board stated
that IL could not meet again
and canvass the latter or the 81 ubsequent
return. This court, in accordance with
all the authorities, sustained the state
any one had the right to complain Of
that decision it was Joseph Rosenthsl.
And yet, Joseph Rosenthal, after he had
heard the decision Of this court delivered,
presented to the chief justice OF this
court q letter, stating that he was
convinced that the decision Of this courb
was not only the law, but that it ought
to be the law, and that he respected
the court for its decision in
that case.
~ know that very much iS said about
what 10 the prevailing practice in Wash
inRton in the House OF Representatives
under what is known as the Reed rule,
and many persons who have not taken
time TO examine this question, have
said that under the Reed rule in
any assembly, or in any legislature, or in
any convention for that matter, il
persons were present and did not
vote or answer to their names,
the speaker or the clerk
could count them in order TO make
O quorum. 1t would look $$to me that
what is known as the DunsmorS House,
OK the persons who prepared this revised
journal acted upon this theory because
10 no other way could they count q quo
rum. But an examination of what 10
known aB the Reed rule permits no suoh
thing whatever to be done; no such
thing whatever. The Reed rule was
subject Of Investigation before the su-
prsms court Of the United States upon
what is known as the tariff bill 1t 10
reported in IA u. s., page /.
II appears from that decision that be-
fore the speaker or the clerk counted
any one present, and not voting, that
the House Of Representatives had ex-
pH0Bsly adopted rule upon that queS-
tion and that rule is as follows:
On tho demand Of any member, or at the
suggestion OF the speaker, names Of mem.
bSrs sunlclent to make quorum In the hall
Of the House who do not vote shall be noted
by the clerk and recorded in the journal,
and reported to the speaker with the names
OF the mOmber0 voting, and be counted and
announced In determining the presence OF
quorum TO do business. &M
"The supreme court says that after
the House adopts such rule 40 that,
under the authority OF the House itselt,
she Speaker may order persons present
and not voting to be counted to c0nSti-
tntO q quorum, but that court, or any
other court, or any legislative authority
viii not hold in the absence Of such
an express rule, that the Speaker or the
clerk or any other person, can assume
those persons present in leRisla-
tive assembly who do not answer to
thOlH names on the roll call, or who do
AOS vote, Shall for the purpose OF .
quorum be counted as present, and
the counting of such votes in
the record or journal OF the
Dunsmore House has no founda-
sion to rest upon. Tnere is no pre-
tense that such a rule was
adopted by either of the Houses.
There is no pretenss that the speaker OF
the Dunsmore House had any authority
from the House to do what was done in
this case, but more than that: The per-
Sons who were called and counted as
present and voting, in order TO >oonBti-
EutO q quorum in the Dunsmore House
were never members of the DunsmorO
House, never recognized Mr.. DunBmorS
as speaker Of that House, and accord
Ing to the evidence Of Mr.. Dunsmore
himself, each one of the bodies
after they were organized, acted