The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1894-04-23
Perhaps Carl Schurz is a humble camp
follower of the CoXey army.
Counting a Quorum.

The democratic house has at last set
tied down to business.
The evils of absenteeism and filibus-
terng will now be dealt with in a vigor-
GUS manner that will suppress them.
1t is natural that many democrats
should oppose the new rule, but there is
Il growing belief that the question has
two sides Two years ago the democrats
in the house fought Tom Reeds method
Of counting a quorum and opposed IT.
on the ground that it was practically an
arbitrary uSlIrpation of authority. Inc
fight was one of the most memorable
struggles i'll our parliamentary annals.
But the democratic congressman have
changed or ut least modified their views.
The house has spent month after month
doing nothing. The democrats have been
unable to redeem the pledges of their
platform and carry out the routine or
legislation because the absent members
of their own party, the non-yotlng mem
hers and the tilibustering tactics OF the
republicans have placed the house at the
mercy of the minority. Something had
to be done or the legislation of this
SO the democrats have adopted rule
which authorizes the speaker to appoint
tellers representing each side OF pend
ing question, who shall count the non
voting members present and ada them 10
those who respond in order to make
quorum This obtains the result OF Keed S
rule by faircr methods.
The democrats favoring the new rule
say that they were forced to it by the
conduct of democratic absentees ana the
insolent republican minority. The ad-
y0cates of the new rule claim that 1T
was Il case of necessity, and they had
to Go something or waste the session ana
so home without attending to the bust
ness of the people.
Mr. Reed may think that he has been
vindicated, but he will find that the re-
DublicanS viii no longer be able to OBJ
strurt business and the house will go
RIGHT ahead with its work His yindica-
ton will cost him and his party more
than it is worth.
Whether the new rule is right or
wrong we do not pretend to say. 1t must
be admitted, however, that the demo
Gratis voting for it had strong provoca-
ton. There is another interesting matter
in this connection. The democrats with
about 100 aiority, would be forever dis
graccd if they remained Idle and dis
APPOINTED their constituents simply be-
calse the minority stood in their way.
The democrats who went into caucus
to consider the new rule and then boltcd
occrpv n peculiar condition. They hold
that they are not bound by caucus.
but If this be true how can concert of
action be secured on any great issue,
and how can the party be held together?
In view of the fact that the tariff Dill is
in danger in the senate it was well for
The democrats in the house to hold eau
chs and emphasize their eafneStneSS by
taking steps to secure quorum IN
future. The boilers from the caucus
who hold that they are not bound by its
action may possibly give plausible rea-
sons for their course, but Old-fashioned
democrats fear that we are entering Il
period of political anarchy in which the
disintegration OF the party may be
brought about by the rule or ruin policy
of a stubborn minority. The situation
bristIes with doubtful and perilous
features,