The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-04-16

LFdIy 10 all harness.
THE PRACTICES OF CENTURY.
These gentlemen claim that the count
ing of a Quorum is a complete revolution
of democratic doctrines, and a reversal of
the practices of 100 years. They regard
it as thoroughly Ubiquitous, and while
they will submit to it if it is
adopted by a majority of their
party colleagues, they will do so purely
as matter of party loyalty-as
an acquiescence in the will of the ma
jority of the democrats-but they will not
relish it one bit. Conspicuous among the
examples of this class, are Mr.. Turner, of
Georgia, and Mr.. Mcmillan, of Tennessee.
There are some among the new members
who will never vote for the adoption of
rule to count quorum. Among these is
Mr.. Russell, of Georgia.
THE OTHER CLASS.
But there is anothe class, who think it
is time to put aside the sentimental OBJ
lection to counting quorum, and take
whatever steps are necessary land legal
to transact business. They claim that
the supreme court has decided that the
House has right to pass a rule to make
a quorum by counting those who are pres
emit, but do not vote; and that whenever the
supreme court decides thing to be law
that decision makes it law, whatever 1t
have been thought of before. These gen
tlemen say: "Give Reed dose of his own
medicine. Show him and his followers
that they can't stop the business of the
House by refusing to vote, but make them
available in furnishing quorum, whether
they are willing or mott
NOT REEDS METHODS.
1t is being claimed by Mr. Reed and the
republican members and papers that the
democrats have at last adopted Reeds
methods and the eminent swashbuckler
from Maine willnever lose an opportunity
to brag about it from now until the close
of congress.
But, as matter of fact, this will not be
an adoption of Reed S methods. The count
ing of a quorum did not originate with
Speaker Reed. David B. Hill did the
same thing when he was lieutenant gov
ernor of New York, and ex-officio presi-
dent of the Senate of that state. But it
had been done in other state legislatures
notably that of Ohio-years before Mr..
Hill practiced it in New York.
1t was not the mere fact of counting,
but the extremely objectionable manner
in which it was done by Mr.. Reed, that
makes it so open to objections. Mr.. Reeds
counting was arbitrary, unfair and mac
curate. He counted members as present
who were not in the hall, and some who
were not in the city. Acquitting him of
purposely miscounting, his method led
him into gross and conspicuous inaccu-
racles.
HOW HE COUNTED.
To illustrate: He held that some par
ticular time must be recognized as the
time when member was present. He
further held that this particular moment
was when the note wassordered; and that
If member was present when vote was
ordered, he must be considered as
matter of fact, it is frequently an hour or
more between the time when the vote is
ordered and the time when the roll-call is
finished. Generally a viva-Voce vote is
first taken: then a division called for, and
the members rise to their feet and are
counted Then tellers are ordered, and
the members pass, one at a time, between
the two tellers, and are counted.
After all this yea and nay
the calling of the roll, which itself con-
sumes half an hour. Thus, it will be
readily seen, that an hour or more may
elapse between or during a vote and fin
ishing the roll-call. A member who is
present when the vote is ordered may, if
he wants to, get clear out of the city be-
fore his name is reached in the roll call.
And yet MIR. Reed would have counted
him present.
WHAT PLAN WILL BE ADOPTED
1t is impossible to say now what plan
will be reported by the committee on
rules to carry out the wishes of the
caucus. Gen. Catchings, a member of the
committee, said to the MORNING News
correspondent to-day that they would not
adopt Reeds Objectionable methods. He
thinks that ways of counting a quorum
may be devised which win be entirely ac-
curate and satisfactory, and which will
not be offensive to fair-minded men, as
were those practiced in the Fifty-first
congress. He preferred not to state just
now what these unobjectionable methods
were, which he had in mind; but it may
be that they are similar to the ones which
were embodied in the bill introduced by
him short time ago.
WHAT THE SPEAKER SAID.
In the caucus Speaker Crisp made
short speech, in which he said the com
mittee on rules were not welded to the
particular method of producing a quorum
which they had reported to the House the
day before, nor to any other method they
were willing to, adopt any plan which
might be considered best by a
majority of their party colleagues
after full and fair consideration.
For himself personally, he said, he had
no objection TO counting quorum, if it
was the wish of a majority Of the demo-
Gratis in the House. tits said that he has
a number of times made similar state
ment to his friends privately. This is but
a leaffirmation of the position he has held
all along-that the speaker is but the
servant of the House, to execute its
villas expressed, of course, by the ma
jority-and not its master He has al
ways held, both in public and in private,
that he is ready to carry out faithfully
whatever rules the democratic majority
of the House may adopt, whether they
coincide with his views or not.
WHO IS TO BLAME2
Who is to blame for the many deadlocks
of the House and the great waste of time
that has been caused thereby2 Why,
about two-score democrats, who are con-