CONGRESS. (THE RULES.) 



187 



>cen placed before us, we have only appealed to 

 he intelligent judgment of the country. We 

 lave only said that we want rules in this House 

 which w'ill protect the people against rash, ill- 

 idvised, and unwise legislation. We want ma- 

 ;ure consideration given to every question. We 

 ant the right defended ; we want the wrong pre- 

 vented. And where measures are dictated by 

 >artisan considerations and filled with injustice 

 NQ want the right to check them and to require 

 ;he majority party to pass them by their own 

 votes. We are not charged with the responsibil- 

 _ty of legislation. The majority party have been 

 charged by the people with that duty. 



" We are in the opposition to that party and to 

 _ts measures. We claim the right to discharge 

 ;he duties placed on us by our constituents in 

 lie way that seems to us the most effective. 

 We say you should pass your own measures by 

 your own votes. You have no right to compel 

 is to assist you in accomplishing that to which we 

 ire opposed. Why should we be compelled to aid 

 rou in making a quorum l If in our judgment 

 ,hat is the proper course for us to pursue in dis- 

 charge of the trust confided to us, you should 

 not compel us to act against our interests and 

 he interests of our people. 



" You have the majority. Keep them in the 

 louse and attend to your own business, and do 

 lot put any part of it on our shoulders. You 

 how that you can have a majority when it is ab- 

 olutely necessary, why can not you have it all 

 he time. 



" We only want the safeguards our fathers have 

 hrown around the rights of the people in the 

 'Constitution. We simply pause here to empha- 

 j?ize to the country the wrong you are doing. We 

 refuse to vote. We stop and invoke the public 

 judgment on the conduct of the majority. From 

 jtheir judgment we appeal to the judgment of the 

 Ipeople of the country, and by that judgment we 

 are perfectly willing to abide." 



Mr. Payson, of Illinois, said as to the rule pro- 

 jviding for the counting of a quorum : 



" The necessity for the adoption of such a rule 

 was early impressed upon me. 



" I remember, Mr. Speaker, as vividly as any 

 recollection that occurs to me, that during the 

 early part of the Forty-seventh Congress, when 

 the Republicans were in the majority on this 

 floor, a filibuster was instituted on the other side 

 of the House in reference to an election case. 

 We lacked three votes of having a quorum. A 

 warrant was issued to the sergeant-at-arms by 

 the then Speaker of the House ; four or five gen- 

 tlemen were brought in here from some scene of 

 festivity they were engaged in, in dress suits, 

 and arraigned at the bar of the House to answer 

 for contempt to this body for absenting them- 

 selves from its sitting without leave. I sat in 

 the seat I now occupy, and supposed that pro- 

 eeding meant something. 



" I was young in parliamentary experience at 

 that time, and had an idea, Mr. Speaker, that a 

 member of this House, absent from its sitting 

 without leave, when brought in here under ar- 

 rest, on a warrant duly issued under constitu- 

 tional provision that he should aid to constitute 

 a quorum, that that meant something. Gentle- 

 men were arraigned, their excuses were received, 

 and they were permitted to take their seats. A 



roll call was then had ; and we still lacked three 

 votes because the arrested parties refused to 

 vote. One of the gentlemen brought in rose in 

 his place and made the point of no quorum. To 

 me then a singular anomaly presented itself that 

 a gentleman could be physically present and con- 

 stitutionally absent ; that he could be present 

 for the purpose of preventing the representa- 

 tives of the American people in this body from 

 transacting in an orderly way any business, and 

 yet could be constitutionally absent and could 

 not be counted as present for the purpose of 

 making a quorum if he declined to vote, though 

 present and making the objection. But, sir, 

 when I had the opportunity of consulting some 

 older members here I found the precedents were 

 in favor of that practice. To me it was an utter 

 absurdity, and I so expressed myself and have 

 never abandoned that opinion. I believe the 

 rule should be changed. I believe that we have 

 the power to do so, and to that question I first 

 address myself. 



"I agree, Mr. Speaker, with the statement, 

 clearly and concisely expressed, made by the 

 distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 

 Carlisle) when this matter was up on the 29th 

 day of the last month, that this is purely a ques- 

 tion of constitutional law, as contradistinguished 

 from a proposition of parliamentary procedure ; 

 and it is a question, sir, that can never be set- 

 tled by the vehement denunciations of individ- 

 uals, or by wild and tumultuous rushing up and 

 down the aisles and denouncing gentlemen who 

 entertain contrary opinions as being revolution- 

 ary in their opinions and actions; a question 

 which should be dealt with deliberately, the con- 

 sideration of which should be characterized with 

 like care and deliberation as though it was being 

 judicially determined. 



" Whether or not the Constitution of the United 

 States justifies this action should be settled by 

 deliberate judgment rather than by tumultuous 

 outcry. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution provides 

 in terms that 



Each House shall be the judge of the elections, re- 

 turns, and qualifications of its own members, and a 

 majority of each 



" Here is the pith of the proposition 



a majority of e,ach shall constitute a quorum to do 

 business. 



" Mark the expression, Mr. Speaker, 'A major- 

 ity of each shall constitute a quorum to do busi- 

 ness.' 



"Looking over the debates in 4 the constitu- 

 tional convention it is perfectly clear that the 

 only danger apprehended by the framers of that 

 instrument by the action of the Congress in the 

 passing of bills was as to the action of less than 

 a majority when the majority was absent, and 

 so the provision was adopted that a majority 

 should ' constitute a quorum to do business,' 

 not a ' majority present and voting to do busi- 

 ness,' but a ' majority of each House shall con- 

 stitute a quorum to do business.' 



" The practice in the British Parliament was, 

 of course, well known to all, and then furnished, 

 as it does now largely, in the absence of fixed 

 rules, precedent for procedure, and there the 

 practice has been uniform that the presence only 

 of members was necessary to make a quorum, 



