The record-union., 1894-03-08
CURIOsITIEs OF VOTING IN CON.
GRESS.

The Constitution of the United States
clearly intended that the majority should
rule. But Congress observes a code that
practically defeats this aim. The Consti-
tuition makes each house the judge of the
qualifications of its own members, and
provides that majority of each shall
constitute quorum to do business, but
a smaller number may adjourn from day
to day. Under this it is held that ma
jority of quorum may enact laws.
So it comes about that one lot of MEM
bers of the House desires to pass bill
and they constitute a majority Of the
members present. But an opponent
raises the question of quorum and
roll-call follows. Under Mr.. Reed, as
Speaker, if member was present and
refused to answer on roll-call, the Clerk
was ordered to enter the fact and the
member was counted as present. The
Supreme Court sustained this rule. I'm
der the Democrats the rule was abro-
gated, and one could sit silent and though
present be considered absent. So that
now when quorum is found wanting it
is proposed to compel members to come
in under warrant of the Speaker, and
being in, to vote yea or nay.
To this last point the, House has not yet
attained. It proceeds to business, how
ever; want ofquorum is suggested; a roll
call had; the challenge found true; the
Sergeant-at-Arms sent out and absentees
brought in; excuses made, fines i'm
posed that are never collected, but always
remitted at the close of the SESSION. and a
quorum being present, business is re-
sumed.
The moment vital point is reached,
however, there is another suggestion of
want of quorum, another batch ofarrests.
more excuses made and business is again
resumed, to be again checked by want OF
quorum" members going out as soon as
business is taken up.
Of course, now that the House is so
large body, this state Of things cannot
be much longer endured. But it is not a
new condition. Examination of the his
tory of Congress will disclose that from
the very beginning the same tactics have
been resorted to to check the progress OF
measures. But it is not so in the State
Legislatures; it is not so in California
legislation, and why it should obtain in
national houses it Is impossible to ex-
plain on reasonable grounds.
We have the "call of the house" resort,
it is true, but there is no test Of want of a
quorum to do business by reason of
silence on the part of member present.
If an Assemblyman is in his seat he
counts to make quorum; if he is not, he
can be brought in on a warrant to be
counted, so that business may proceed.
With us, however, as given number
Of affirmative votes must be recorded to
enact, there is no rushing about to bring
in members who are opposed to the
measure: the friends Of the bill must
rally in constitutional number, regard
less of the mere question of quorum for
business. But in Congress, as majority
of quorum may pass bill, 1t follows
that one-fourth and one of all the MEM
bers elected to the House may enact. The
situation, therefore. in Congress is so far
different from that in State Legislature
that whereas in the latter there must be q
majority brought in favorable to meas
ure, in Congress it is not necessary, but
it is frequently only essential that num-
Der opposed to the bill be brought in to
secure its passage.
Let us suppose, for illustration, that
there are 800 members. hence 151 consti-
tute quorum. OF that number, let it be
supposed that 100 favor the bill pending,
bat that there are present only 30 mem
bers, 20 being opposed. Now the 100 can
not pass the bin until 81 others are pres
ent. and all of these may be brought in
though opposed to the measure, and thus
by their presence made to serve for the
.nurposes of passing the bill. But if the
rule required that a majority of all the
am members must vote for bill to Sc