The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-11-02


the Senate. convened in special session
for the relief Of the country in a perilous
emergency, has allowed its hands to be
tied and the legislation Of both houses OF
Congress to be stopped Tor two months
through the factious use Of its rules
OF procedure by a dexterous minou-
~, and the subject Is oil great
and permanent public importance,
may be Of benefit 10 give TO the iesai
nature Of those rules and the power OF
legislative control over them, a more
careful consideration, in popular way
than, so far as is known, has yet APP
peared.
In respect to all corporate bodies OF
definite number, IT is established law
daily acted upon everywhere, that at any
legally assembled and organized meeting
a majority Of the members constitute a
quorum for the transaction Of business
and that the majority Of quorum mas
full right and power Of action as 10 All
ordinary matters pertaining % the cor
poration within the scope Of the powers
committed TO the acting body or depart
ment of the corporation. This, indeed, Is
amcng the fundamentals of corporation
Jurisprudence In United States VS.. Bal
llU--l3a I4HAtN s1stttSf wv ~ NilI DuFA N.'i'~
Court said CD. ., that it was true that
most OF the decisions touching the ques-
ton have been I'm respect to the action of
trustees and directors Of a private cor
poration, or Of the minor legislative
bodies which represent and act for cites
and other municipal corporations. but
that "the principle Is the same i'm respect
to the two houses Of Congress which are
legislative bodies representing larger con-
stitue ncies Power Is not vested In any
ore individual, but in the aggregate OF
members who compose the body and IT'S
action is not the action Of any separate
member or number Of members, but the
action of tie body as n whole, and the
question which has over and over again
been raised Is, what is necessary TO con-
stitutc the official action Of this legisla-
tive and representative body" And then
the court proceeded to show by a number
Of decisions and elementary writer's Of
the highest authority that In a legislative
bo1y of a definite numbers majority at a
meeting duly assembled constitute the
body for the purposes Of legislation, and,
that the action of the majority Of those
present whether voting or not, is the
legal action Of the whole body. and IS
finding upon the whole, and the court
concluded its citations by referring TO
Hampshire, 3S3-3Si--in which the question
was whether an amendment 10 a city
charter had been bpropGrly adopted by the
Board Of Aldermen, consisting Of seven
persons OF whom six were present at the
meeting, and three voted IN the affirmative
and three refused " vote, and.it was held
by the Supreme. Court OF New Hampshire
that the amendment was duly adopted,
saying that "the laWtmaking power IS not
stopped by the mere silence and inaCtiOn
Of some Of the lawmakers who are present
An arbitrary technical and exclusive meth
Cd OF sscertaining whether a quorum 81
present, opeysting to prevent the perform
ance of official duty and obstruct the bust
ness Of government is no part Of our com
mon law. The ststute reqbiwng the pres
ence of four aldermen does not mean that
in the presence Of four majority Of the
woes cast may not be enough. The jour
nal properly shows how many members
were present when the vote was taken
by yeas and nays; there was no difficulty
I'm ascertaining aud recording the fact;
and the requirement OF q quorum at that
time was not intended 10 furnish means
Of suspending the legislative power and
duty Of quorum. NO ileeality appears
in the adoption Of the amendment"
In the case Of United States vs. BALM.
Ia which that ruling was adopted as good
law, the main question was, whether the
tariff act Of 1883 was duly passed by the
lower house Of Congress. II appeared
that the yeas were 13S, nays none. and
not voting 49, Under a rule Of the House
authorizing all members present Whether
voting or not 10 be counted i'm ascertain
ing a quorum, the speaker counted those
not voting G0 as present and part of the
House, making in all 212, Of which 13S
were a majority, and so held that the
act had been duly PASSED.
The constitutional validity Of the rule
and hence of the action Of the Speaker.
was the great question before the court
In deciding It, the court Of necessity had
to consider the organization Of the House
and its legitimate mode OF proceedure IN
enacting legislation. And in the unani-
nous opinion delivered 81 was said "The
constitution empowers each house TO deter
nina its rules OF proceedings. Ii may not
by Ms rules ignore constitutional re-
straints or violate fundamental rights.
and there should be a reasonable relation
between the mode or method Of proceed
ing established by the rules, and the re-
suit which is sought 20 be attained But
within these limitations all matters Of
mett cd are open to the Termination Of
the House, and IL is no impeachment OF
would be better. more accurate or even
more just. 1t is no objection TO the validi-
~ OF rule that a different one has been
prescribed and in force for length Of
time The power 10 make rules Is not one
which once exercised is exhausted. II is
continuous power, and within the limits
suggested. absolute and beyond the chal-
lenge Of any other body or tribunal The
Constitution provides that a majority Of
each (house) shall constitute a quorum to
do business. In other words when a
majority are present the House Is in po-
siuon to do business Its capacity 10
transact business Is then established
created by the mere presence of a maior
~ and does not depend upon the dispose
ton or assent or action OF any single IN
dividual member or fraction Of the ma
jority present. All that the constitution
requires is the presence Of a majority.
ana when that majority are present the
power OF the House arises" The co3I~t
theH proceeded to inquire how shalt the
presence of a majority be determined
and held that as the constitution had pre-
scribed no method OF making that deter
mination, each house had the power 10
prescribe for itself any method reason
ably certain 10 ascertain the fact and
that the rule in question was OF that
character; that "a quorum being present.
the bill received a sufficient number OF
votes. and here the general rule OF parlia-
mentary law is that when a quorum Is
present, the act Of a majority OF the quo
rum is the act OF the body This has been
the rule for all time. except so far as IN
any given case the terms OF the organic
act under which the body have assembled
have prescribed specific limitations. .
No such limitation is found in the Federal
Constitution, and therefore the genera
law Of such bodies obtains"
Senator Hin was clearly right, therefore
when he said the other day in the Senate