182 



CONGRESS. (THE RULES.) 



I pass on to discuss clause 3 of Rule XV in the 

 proposed code. It is as follows : 



8. On the demand of any member, or at the sugges- 

 tion ol'the Speaker, before the second^oll call is entered 

 upon, the names of members [sufficient to make a 

 quorum] in the hall of the House who do not vote 

 shall be noted by the clerk and recorded in the jour- 

 nal, and reported to the Speaker with the names of 

 the members voting, and be counted and announced 

 in determining the presence of a quorum to do busi- 

 ness. 



" I call attention to the general parliamentary 

 law, to adjudications of courts, both State and 

 national, and the practice of general legislative 

 assemblies in the several States in harmony with 

 this rule. 



" In the case of Launtz vs. The People, ex rel., 

 113 111. Rept., the charter of the city of East St. 

 Louis provides that ' a majority of the council men 

 'shall constitute a quorum to do business,' directs 

 the council ' to determine the rules of its proceed- 

 ings in conformity with the usual practice of de- 

 liberative bodies,' requires the council to ' keep 

 a journal of it proceedings,' and that ' the yeas 

 and nays, when demanded by any member present, 

 shall be entered on the journal,' makes the mayor 

 its presiding oiFicer at city council meetings, and 

 gives him the casting vote in the case of a tie and 

 in no other. 



" There were eight members in the body of the 

 city council, of which five members constituted 

 a quorum. On the 21st and 29th of May, the 

 council being duly convened and all its members 

 present, the motion was made to approve the de- 

 fendant's bond, who was city treasurer, and one 

 half of the aldermen (4) and the mayor voted to 

 approve the bond, and the other half refused to 

 vote. 



" The court held that where a city council, con- 

 sisting of eight aldermen and the mayor, are all 

 present, or a quorum is present, and the election 

 of an officer is properly proposed, whoever re- 

 ceives a majority of those who vote will be elected, 

 although a majority of the members of the council 

 may abstain from voting, or even may protest 

 against the election. If they neglect to vote, it 

 is their own fault, and such neglect shall not in- 

 validate the act of the others, but be construed an 

 assent to the determination of the majority of 

 those who vote. The court further says : ' What 

 the propriety of giving to a refusal to vote more 

 potency than to a vote cast or allowing a gain 

 from the violation of duty in making the refusal 

 to vote of more effect in guiding the action of a 

 body of which one is a member than voting? ' 



" The Supreme Court of Indiana, on the 10th 

 of December, 1889, by unanimous opinion of the 

 court in the case of the Rushville (las Company 

 vs. The City of Rushville and others, held that a 

 resolution may be legally adopted by the vote of 

 three of the six members of the city council 

 where the other three are present and refuse to 

 vote, as the vote of the majority of the quorum 

 present is effective. The act authorizing the in- 

 corporation of the city of Rushville provided 

 that a majority of the members of the council 

 should constitute a quorum to do business. The 

 same principle is involved and asserted in many 

 cases. 



" The doctrine is well established that those 

 who are present and who help to make up a 



quorum are expected to vote on any question, 

 and their presence alone is sufficient, whether 

 they actually vote or not.' If eighteen are pres- 

 ent and nine vote, all in the affirmative, the 

 measure is carried ; the refusal of the other 

 nine to vote being construed as a vote in the affir- 

 mative, so far as any construction is necessary. 



" Now, gentlemen, we have counted a quorum 

 in this House and entered their names on the 

 Journal when they were present, through the 

 Speaker, and the action of the Speaker has been 

 ratified time and time again by the House ; and 

 in placing this rule in the co'de we do it as a 

 matter of convenience, so that the Clerk may per- 

 form that duty under the eye of the Speaker and 

 hand the names when the vote is handed to the 

 Speaker. If gentlemen on that side want to go 

 to the country upon the principle contained in 

 this rule, we are ready to go and let the people 

 choose between us. But as sure as we remain 

 here and remain in a majority during this Con- 

 gress, after due consideration and debate, a ma- 

 jority of the House of Representatives in the Fif- 

 ty-first Congress will perform the function that 

 the Constitution and the people make it their 

 duty to perform. 



" Now, sir, I come to speak of another rule pro- 

 posed. Clause 2 of Rule XXIII provides in sub- 

 stance that a quorum in the Committee of the 

 "Whole shall consist of one hundred members. 



" The reasons for making the quorum one hun- 

 dred in the Committee of the Whole are so tersely 

 and clearly given in the report of the Committee 

 on Rules that I read the same, as follows : 



Tliis proposition is not a new one. For many years 

 past, since the Thirtieth Congress, as the business of 

 Congress has steadly increased, numerous propositions 

 have been introduced in the House by members of 

 long service looking to a reduction of the number ne- 

 cessary for a quorum in the Committee of the Whole, 

 but the issue has never been presented to the House, 

 owing to the fact that until recently it has never been 

 confronted with the question of the want of a consti- 

 tutional quorum through the refusal of the members 

 present in the House to vote when their names were 

 called in the House, or by division in the Committee 

 of the Whole, thus breaking a quorum. It has never 

 been made a political question and never should hu. 

 It goes directly to the bottom of the question of trans- 

 acting business in the Committee of the Whole. 



The Constitution provides, Article I, section 5, clause 

 1, that " a majority of each House shall constitute a 

 quorum." 



.Neither House of Congress has ever had a rule fixing 

 the number of a quorum in the Committee of the 

 Whole, but from the First Congress to the present 

 the practice has been to require the same number as 

 in the House. The quorum of the House of Commons 

 (consisting of 670 members) is 40. The Committee 

 of the Whole, like a standing or select committee, has 

 merely advisory powers and jurisdiction. Its action 

 concludes nothing, and must be reported to the ] I 

 which approves or rejects, as it pleases. The 

 principle is true with respect to a quorum of standing 

 and select committees. The House has never adopted ;i 

 rule on this subject, and it has been a common practice 

 for such committee, in arranging its days of meeting, 

 order of business, etc., to fix the number of its quorum, 

 which is less than a majority of its whole number, 

 far, therefore, as the constitutional or legal question is 

 concerned, it has never been denied or questioned tri 

 it was entirely competent for the House to select imy 

 number it might please as a quorum of the Commit- 

 tee of the Whole. The only question involved is one 

 purely of legislative expediency and propriety. 



The reason that the issue has never heretotore been 



