188 



CONGRESS. (THE RULES.) 



and this presence was ascertained always by a 

 count by the Speaker. On one announcement 

 by him, from a count, that a quorum was pres- 

 ent, either on the assembling or pending busi- 

 ness, on the point being made, business was pro- 

 ceeded with. 



" So I maintain that the constitutional con- 

 vention had clearly in mind the idea that pres- 

 ence only of a majority was necessary to make a 

 quorum. Some light may be shed on this ques- 

 tion by a reference to some important later leg- 

 islation. 



" Let me call the attention of the House to the 

 twelfth amendment to the Constitution of the 

 United States, adopted, as members will remem- 

 ber, in 1803, and doubtless many of those who 

 sat in one or the other branch at the time were 

 members of the constitutional convention that 

 had framed the Constitution and knew the con- 

 struction to be put upon it. That amendment 

 to the Constitution provides 



But in choosing the President the votes shall be 

 taken by States, the representation from each having 

 one vote ; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of 

 a member or members from two thirds of the States, 

 and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a 

 choice. 



" Do gentlemen on the other side claim it re- 

 quires the affirmative action of two thirds 1 Not 

 at all. All that is necessary under that clause 

 of the Constitution is two thirds shall be present, 

 and a majority of the States acting affirmatively 

 is all that is required to elect the President of 

 the United States, the highest officer of our 

 Government. If anything shows by implica- 

 tion what was clearly in the minds of the framers 

 of the Constitution as to what should constitute 

 a quorum, as in the case of the election of Presi- 

 dent, that does : the presence of a quorum to do 

 business, their presence and acquiescence are all 

 that is necessary. 



' Therefore, the framers of the Constitution, if 

 we may judge from the history of legislation, re- 

 garded it as their duty not only to be present 

 but to participate in whatever presented itself for 

 their consideration, and therefore they provided 

 that a majority of the members elected a ma- 

 jority of the members of each House should 

 constitute a quorum. What for ? To do business. 

 If to do business, then business may be done . 

 and if it may be done, when ? Manifestly when- 

 ever a majority of the members of the House is 

 present. 



" The logic of the gentlemen on the other side 

 is this: that not only does it require a ma- 

 jority of the House to constitute a quorum, but 

 the dominant party must always furnish that 

 quorum. 



" Any proper construction of the Constitution 

 may be regarded as written in it. 



" Try this, Mr. Speaker. 



" Insert in the Constitution the conclusion of 

 the gentlemen on the other side, and see how it 

 would read : 



A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum 

 to do business, and on demand of a single member 

 the political party having a majority shall furnish the 

 quorum. 



" Do I make myself understood, Mr. Speaker! 

 The gentleman from Kentucky insists, and others 

 upon that side argue as he argues, that under the 



Constitution of the United States it was in t 

 contemplation by the framers of that great i 

 strument that the dominant political party mu 

 at the demand of the minority, always be rea 

 and willing and prepared to furnish the neei 

 sary quorum to do business. A greater absurd: 

 never was uttered ; for it presupposes, Mr. Spej 

 er, that political situations and political exig< 

 cies were in the minds of the framers of t 

 Constitution when that great instrument v 

 adopted. If that policy should be carried out 

 us refer to the history of the last Congress fo 

 moment to determine what legislation could hs 

 been effected in this House if the last Congr 

 had adopted the views that the other side n 

 contend for. 



" I am advised, Mr Speaker, on authority tl 

 I regard as credible, that there was not a legis 

 tive day in the Fiftieth Congress when the Den 

 cratic party had a quorum in attendance, 

 the time of the contest over the seat of Mr. G 

 lisle there was not a quorum present on \ 

 Democratic side of the House, nor was there d 

 ing the entire Fiftieth Congress : yet will it 

 pretended that in view of that situation nothi 

 whatever should have been done ? Could it 

 sincerely contended by gentlemen on the otl 

 side, Mr. Speaker, that in view of that situati 

 the framers of the Constitution had in conte 

 plation that a political party of this Union mi 

 always have on hand a quorum in this Hoi 

 ready to act precisely as though every meml 

 upon the other side were absent beyond 1 

 power of discovery. 



" I believe that if a majority is here thai 

 quorum is here. 



" If the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Crisp 

 here, he is present to make part of a quorum " 

 do business," and a fundamental principle is, tl 

 with a quorum present a legal enactment may 



The principle involved in this clause of 1 

 new rule, denounced as it has been by all on 1 

 other side of the House, not only commends 

 self to me as correct, but has received the 

 dorsement of very respectable authority. Up 

 your decision, Mr. Speaker, on the 29th of Jai 

 ary, that you could and would note the presei 

 of* certain members and their declining to vc 

 you cited the opinion of Lieut.-Gov. Hill, as 1 

 presiding officer of the Senate of the State of N 

 York, in a case identical with ours, which op 

 ion appears in the record of the proceedings 

 that date. 



" The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Carlis 

 in the debate on that day said : 



I say that I do not agree with Gov. Hill that 

 had a fight to count a quorum when it was not votii 

 but that is an entirely different question from the ( 

 now before the House ; and I was about to say wl 

 the Republicans have to resort to Democratic pre 

 dents for their action in this House that it is to 

 regretted that they should have taken the very w 

 ones they could find. There are a number ofg( 

 Democratic precedents, which you could have foun 



" Mr. Speaker, since the speech so loudly 

 plauded was made some investigations have b< 

 made as to what the precedents really are, and tl 

 are not only numerous, in legislative bodies. 1 

 these affirmed by courts of last resort in diffen 

 States, and all, without exception I believe, in t 

 line of the rule we are seeking to adopt. 



