Rensselaer Republican, Volume 22, Number 24, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 February 1890 — MR. CARLISLE'S STATEMENT. [ARTICLE]

MR. CARLISLE'S STATEMENT.

Democratic Address to the Con a try ' Concerning the Course of Speaker Heed. An addresß to the country, explaining the position of the Democratic mem. bers of 4 the House, has been prepared by ex-Speaker Carlisle, and will be signed by all the minority members The address is as follows: The present situation in the House of Representatives is so anomalous, and the unprecedented decisions of the Speaker so full of danger to the integrity of future legislation, that we consider it our duty to submit a brief statement of the facts in order that the propriety of the course we have taken may be fairly determined. The House met on the 2d day of December, ' 1889, and immediately organized by the election of a Speaker and other officers, i On the same day, by a-resolution of the; House, the Speaker was authorized to appoint a committee on rules, and the rules of the last preceding House were referred to that committee. The committee, consisting of the Speaker himself and four other

members, was appointed on the sth day of December, and on the 9th it made a report authorizing the Speaker to appoint all the other committees, and defining their jurisdiction. The committee on elections, to which was referred all cases involving the rights of members to their seats, was appointed on the 9th day of December. Although nearly two months have elapsed since the committee on rules was appointed, it has made no report on the matters referred to it, except the partial one made on the 9th of December, and consequently the House has been compelled to conduct its business without any rule or system except the general parliamentary law as construed by the Speaker. There have been no calendars, no order of business, no fixed time to receive reports ( -from committees or for the consideration of bills or resolutions, and, in fact, no regular methods whatever in the proceedings of the House. The American House of Representatives has been during all this time, and still is, so far as rules for its government are concerned, in precisely the same condition as a popular meeting or a political convention,

in which the chairman and his partisans absolutely control all the proceedings. No measure can get before the House for consideration unless the Speaker chooses to allow it to be presented, and members have no means of knowing in advance what they are to he called upon to discuss or decide. This is the first time in our history that a legislative assembly or even a public meeting has attempted to transact business for any considerable period without a regular code of rules preserbing the order of its proceedings, and the inconvenience and injustice resulting from such an attempt have been forcibly illustrated in the present instance. The Speaker has repeatedly during these extraordinary proceedings refused to entertain parliamentary motions that have been recognized as legitimate ever since the government was established, and when attempts have been made to appeal from his decisions he has refused to submit the question to the House. By his arbitrary rulings, sustained in some instances by less than a quorum, he has subverted nearly every principle of constitutional and parlimentary law heretofore recognized in the House. This personal and partisan domination of the House was submitted to, though not without repeated protest, until we became convinced that it was deliberate purpose of the Speaker and his supporters to proceed without rules to oust the Democratic members, whose seats are contested, and admit their Republican opponents whether elected or not. On Wednesday, Jan. 29, the committee on elections called up a contested election case and the Democratic members determined that in the absence of rules it should not be considered if they could prevent it by any proper parliamentary proceedings. Accordingly they raised the question of consideration demanded the yeas and nays, and on the call of the roll refrained from voting. The result was that less than a constitutional quorum voted, but the Speaker, in violation of the uniform practice of the House for more than a century, proceeded to count members who were present but not voting, and declared that the House had decided to take the case tip. From this decision an appeal was taken, and on a motion to lay this appeal on the table the yeas and nayswere taken, and less than a quorum voted, but the Speaker again counted members not voted, and decided that the motion was agreed to and nis ruling thereby sustained. The Constitution

of the United States provides that a major ity of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may be authorized to compel the attendance of members in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide. Another clause of the Constitution requires the House to keep a journal of its proceedings, and provides that when one fifth of the members present desire'it the yeas and nays shall be taken. On any question and entered on the journal. Since the beginning of the government under the Constitution more than a hundred years ago, the House of Representative and the Senate have uniformly construed the first clause of the Constitution quoted above to mean that a majority of all the members elect must be present and actually participate in the transaction of business, and that whenever, upon a call of the yeas and nays, it appeared from the journal, which is the only official record, that less than the constitutional quorum has voted on any proposition, the vote was a nullity and no further business could be done until the requisite number appeared and voted. Every presiding officer in the Senate, and every Speaker of the House except the present one, has held that when less than a quorum voted on a call of the yeas and nays, no matter how many might be actually present, it was his duty to take notice of the fact and declare that the pendiLg bill or motion had not passed. When the vote is not taken by yeas and nays; it is not entered upon any journal, but if any member makes the point that no quorum has voted, the proceeding is a nullity, and the vote must be taken over. The presumption of the law is that when nothing appears to the contrary the proceedings of a legislative body are regular and valid, and, therefore, when the official record does not show that less than a quorum voted, or attention is not called to the fact in sueb. a way as to furnish legal evidence of it, the question cannot be made afterwards. Many bills have been passed when there was no quorum voting, and it is equally true that many have passed when there was no quorum actually present, but this does not prove that the proceeding would have been valid in either case if the official record had shown the fact. In order to secure certainity and stability in the administration of the law it is a rule in our jurisprudence that when a particular construction of a constitution,

or a statute, has, for a long time, been acquiesced in, not only by those whose duty it is to execute it, but also by those whose personal and property rights are affected by it, the courts will recognize it as the true construction and enforce it accordingly, Even if this were an original question it would not be difficult to show that the practical construction of the Constitution whioh has prevailed i iu the House and Senate for over one bun-. dred vears is the correct one. Speaker Reed himself, when in the minority on the floor Of the House, stated the true meaning and the true philosophy of the Consti-1 tution when he said: “The constitutional idea of a quorum is not the presence of a majority of the member? present and par ticipaling in the business of the House. It is not the visible presence, but ment and votes which the Constitution calls for." General Garfield, Mr. Blaine, Mr. Conger, Mr. Rohesou and other eminent Republicans have taken the same position, and their arguments have never been answered. If any legal or political niTTVrmm—«n» mimlM ntV

I question can be settled in this country by i the long acquiescence of jnr.sts and state* men of all parties, ceitaialy this question has passed beyond the domaiu of discus ! “ on -. When, therefore, tbß present Speaker repudiated this settled construction of the Constitution, and decided that when the offical record, which the Constitution requires the House to keep shows on a call of the yeas aud nays tliau a quo rum has not voted, he can c mu t mo nbe s present and not voting, and taut, oy hit own act, outside of the recorded vote, determine that a measure has p.nsed,we considered it o.ur duty, as a part of the representatives of the people, to onter our protests in every form available to us under the circumstances. We are not contending rfor the fight of the minority to govern, as the supporters of the Speaker nave endeavored to make the country be“®ve; On the contrary, we are denying the right of a minority to elect members from their seats or to pass laws for the government of the people. Under the Constitution a majority of the members of the House constitute a .quorum to do business, and we

are simply insisting that less than a majority shall not do business. We are contending that the majority shall take . the responsibility which properly belongs Jto them, and shall come in the House of i Representatives and vote if they desire to control its proceedings; and we are pro- . testing against their right to carry their measures by counting us when we do not vote. The claim of the majority that they have a right to govern the House without attending its sessions and taking part in the conduct of its business is too preposterous torequire refutation. It must be evident to any one who understands the position taken by the Democratic minority in the House that it cannot possibly resul t in any injury to the country, or any injustice to the majority. Its only effect will be to compel the Republican majority, elected Dy the people, to assume the responsibility imposed upon them. On the other hand, no one can foresee the evu» that may result from the inauguration of

the practice of counting votes rnr, trin Order to make a quorum. Under it a minority of the members elect to the House and Senate may pass the most tyrrannical laws for the oppression of the people, the most corrupt laws lor the spoliation of the public treasury. If intended or not, its direct ten eney is to break down the barriers heretofore existing for the protection of the citizeu against the encroachments of . power and the spoliation of the treasury by despoilingthe limitations which the Constitution has wisely imposed upon the legislative department. Constitutions are made to restrain majorities and protect minorities. A majority ruling without limitations or restraints upon its power is a pure despotism, and is inconsistent with our system of government.