Democratic Sentinel, Volume 14, Number 3, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 February 1890 — MR. REED’S IRON HAND. [ARTICLE]

MR. REED’S IRON HAND.

LIVELY DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The Speaker Holds that Non-voting Members May Be Counted as “Present” for the Sake of a Quorum— His Decision Is Denounced as Revolutionary by the Democrats and a Bitter Debate Ensues. [Washington dispatch.] The expected battle in the House on Wednesday over the Smith-Jackson election case from West Virginia was hotly contested on both sides. Mr. Crisp (Ga.) fired the first gun as soon as the case was called up by raising the question of consideration. On this vote the Democrats, with three exceptions (Messrs. Buckalew, Covert and Cowles), refrained from voting. While the cltrk was. calling the roll the Speaker was carefully noting the names of those Democrats who were present and not voting. Before the announcement of the vote Mr. Rogers (Ark.), who had inadvertently voted in the affirmative, deaided to withdraw his vote, but he was met with a storm of objections from the Republican side. Mr. Rogers endeavored to secured ruling from the Speaker on the question in order that he might enter an appeal, but the Speaker declined to rule. Mr. Covert (N. Y.) changed his vote from the negative to the affirmative. Mr. Rogers was then given permission to withdraw his vote, as was also Mr. Cowles (N. C.). 'VThe vote was announced as standingr-yeas, 101; nays, 2. Mr. Crisp raised the pointof no quorum.* The Speaker directed the Clerk to record the names of members present and not voting, as jotted down by the Speaker. This was the signal for a burst of applause froug the Republicans and of jeers from the Democrats. When the name of Mr. Breckinridge (Ky.) was called, he stepped into the aisle, and, in a resounding voice, said: “I deny the right of the Speaker to do this, and I denounce it as revolutionary. ” During the remainder of the roll call the wildest confusion prevailed, a dozen Democrats being on the floor at once denouncing the action of the Speaker. Mr. Bland (Mo.) roared out that he was responsible for his action only to his constituents and not to the Speaker, and Mr. O’Ferrall (Va.) protested in the name of his State against this action. Mr. McCreary (Ky.) denied the right of the Speaker to count him as present. The Speaker— The Chair is making a statement of fact that; the gentleman is present. Does the gentleman deny that he is present? Continuing, the Speaker said that the question was now before the House and the Chair proposed to give a statement, accompanied by a ruling, from which an appeal could be taken if any gentleman was satisfied therewith. Mr. Crisp (in advance)—l enter an appeal. The Speaker then proceeded to quote precedents in Democratic Legislatures for his action, reading in full a decision of Gov. Hill when President of the New York State Senate, but ignored Mr. Flower's request to have the Re>publiqan protest against that decision also read. The Speaker continued : “But there is an entirely familiar process which every old member will recoguize, whereby the opinion of the Chair is incontestable evidence of the recognition at all timed of the right to record members present as constituting a part of a quorum. It has been almost an every-day occurrence at certain stages of the session tor votes to he announced by the Chair containing obviously and emphatically no quorum. Yet, if the point was not made, the bill ■was always declared passed, and that could only be on a very distinct basis, and that was that everybody present silently agreed to the fact that there was a quorum. There was no ground on which by any possibility such a bill could be passed constitutionally unless the presence of a quorum was inferred, and it was inferred from the fact that no one had raised the question. All methods of determining the vote were of equal value. It has always bsen the practice in parliamentary bodies of this character, and especially in the Parliament of Groat Britain, for the Speaker to determine the quesiion if there was or was not a quorum present, by count. It was because that was a determination of actual fact, and the determining of that was intrusted to the presiding officer in almost all instances. Again, there was a provision in the Constitution which declared that the House might establish rules for comix Uing the attendance of members. If members could be present and refuse to exercise their functions, and yet not be counted as a quorum, that provision would seem to be entirely nugatory. The Chair therefore rules that there is a quorum present within the meaning of the Constitution." Mr. Crisp said that this was the first time in the history of the Government *-hat the Speaker had decided that he could go behind the rollcall provided for by the Constitution. This was more than a mere question of rules. It was a constitutional right— the right to have the yeas and nays entered on the journal—and it necessarily followed that when the Constitution said that the yeas and nays should be so entered they could not be added to or taken from. Ho then quoted from Speaker Blaine’s ruling on the force bill to the effect that the Speaker had not the power to count a quorum, and declared that the decision just made by Speaker Reed would be the foundation of the greatest legislative frauds ever committed. He quoted Mr. Garfield as denouncing a similar rule when it was proposed in his time, and as asking the questions : “Who is to control the seeing of the Speaker?” and “How do we know but that the Speaker may see forty members-for his own purpose—more than there are in the House?” Mr. Crisp also quoted from the remarks of Mr. Reed (the present Speaker) in the same debate, when he used these words : “Tlte constitutional idea of a quorum is not the physical presence of a majority of the members of the House, but a majority of tie members present and participating in the business of the House.” “I appeal." Mr. Crisp exclaimed, “from drunk to Philip sober." Mr. Cannon declared that the presence of the members rot voting, but counted by the Chair, constituted more than a quorum. Gentlemen on the other side might rise and say that the action of the Chair was revolutionary. As they disagreed, they should consult the Constitution. The Constitution provided as follows : “Each house shall be the judge of the election returns and the qualifications of its own members, and the majority of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business.” < Did the Constitution say that a majority should be required to vote for a measure, a motion, or a resolution in order to pass it? Not at all. It merely said that a majority of each house should constitute a quorum to do business. Mr. Cannon laid down the proposition that, by general parliamentary low and under the Constitution, when a quorum is present and when that fact is ascertained, and when there is a majority voting in favor of a measure, that measure is adopted, whether it be motion, resolution. or law r . He believed that thereby the Constitution was satisfied ip form and substance, and that the people all over the country would justify that course. Mr. Carlisle declared that every Speaker from the beginning of Congress had held that a majority must not only be present to constitute a quorum, but that a quorum must participate in the legislation. He then quoted tue section of the Constitution which provides for the keeping of a journal and for the entering upon it,ot the yeas and nays when demanded by one fifth of the members present, And also that section which says that le-s than a quorum can adjourn from day to day and can compel the attendance of absent members. Now the Constitution, continued Mr Carlisle, did not say in exprtqp terms that in order to transact business a majority of the House should be present, but that a majority of the House should constitute a quorum “to 'do business.” and then it proceeded to specify distinctly what those things were which a majority could do. When the framers of the Constitution provided that a majority of the momberselect should constitute a quorum to do business they saw that if it stoppM there less than a quorum could do certain things. If the ruling made this morning was correct there was no necessity for any provision of the Constitutipn defining what less than a majority could do. He denied absolutely the right of the presiding officer of the House to make the journal. Suppose the Speaker was right; then one man could pass a bill as well as 160. If the Speaker had a right to make a journal and to make a . noium, and to have the Clerk of the House, under his direction, put upon the journal the fa't that there was a quorum present, then there was no longer any use for the representatives of the people in the House. The Speaker was simply the organ of the House, not its Mr. McKinley then took the but yielded to • motion to adjourn, wuich wm oairisd without division. j _