CONGRESS. (THE RULES.) 



189 



" The practice, sir, of counting members pres- 

 ent and refusing to vote to make a constitutional 

 quorum has not only been adopted in New York 

 in the case cited, but in Indiana ; in Tennessee ; 

 in Kentucky, and I pause to state that a bill so 

 passed in that State and with full knowledge, of 

 the situation was signed by Hon. Proctor Knott, 

 the then Governor, whose deserved high position 

 as a lawyer is attested by his having occupied 

 the position of chairman of the Committee on 

 the Judiciary of the House of Representatives ; 

 in Illinois, and the regularity of such proceeding 

 has been indorsed by the supreme court of that 

 State in a case reported in Volume 113 of the re- 

 ports of that court; in Ohio indorsed in like 

 manner by the Supreme Court of that State, 37 

 Ohio State Repoi'ts : in Massachusetts, by a de- 

 cision of the presiding officer of the Senate in 

 1885, and since followed; in Pennsylvania; in 

 Virginia, by rule in the House of " Delegates ; 

 and as I am credibly advised, in the State of 

 Texas, on a ruling by Gov. Hubbard, not un- 

 known to Democratic politicians, with so many 

 States yet to hear from ; and singularly enough, 

 Mr. Speaker, not one so far as I can learn the 

 other way. 



"The number of ' good Democratic precedents 

 that could have been found' have not as yet 

 materialized in a single instance adverse to our 

 contention here. 



" I am aware that the precedents in this body 

 have in earlier days been against the view I am 

 presenting ; but ' gentlemen will notice that 

 when the question was first presented, and de- 

 cided by Mr. Speaker Elaine, it was considered 

 rather as a matter of parliamentary procedure, 

 rather than the deeper one of constitutional 

 law, because the apparent question discussed and 

 decided was made to turn on whether a member 

 ! could be compelled to vote ; that seemed to be 

 regarded as the important factor, while here the 

 [ question is, if present, though not voting, does he 

 I form a part of a constitutional quorum ? And 

 may the Journal show the exact fact, subject, of 

 course, to its being approved by the House. A 

 very different question. 



" But if the cited precedents were exactly in 

 point my views would not be changed. 



"Precedents in procedure should always be 

 overturned, not only when wrong, but when the 

 changed condition of affairs demonstrate the ne- 

 cessity for new rules or new decisions. 



"The law-books shov- numerous instances of 

 overruled cases, and here is an excellent oppor- 

 tunity for the exercise of a better judgment. 



" I feel content with these views on the ques- 

 tion of power to adopt the rule. 



" As to the policy, because of the necessity for 

 its exercise, I feel equally clear. 



"While there is nothing in the language of 

 the Constitution asserting directly that a mem- 

 ber in attendance shall be compelled to vote, yet 

 the duty rests upon him ; it is his duty to do so. 

 If he is present, he is presumed to be participat- 

 ing and to acquiesce in whatever is done in the 

 body if he does not affirmatively express his dis- 

 approval either by words or vote." 



Mr. Dockery, of Missouri, in arguing against 

 the rule for the counting of a quorum cited a 

 number of parliamentary authorities: "As I 

 turn to the record of the debate in this hall 



Jan. 28, 1880, upon a similar amendment to the 

 rules offered by the gentleman from Virginia 

 (Mr. Tucker), 1 find arrayed against the propo- 

 sition some of the greatest leaders known to the 

 history of the Republican party. I find you, 

 Mr. Speaker, not only ably championing the 

 present position of the Democratic party, but in 

 this eloquent and forcible language defending 

 dilatory and filibustering proceedings : 



Now, what is the practical upshot of the present 

 practice ? It is that the members of the minority of 

 this House upon great occasions demand that every 

 bill which is passed shall receive the absolute vote of 

 a majority of the members elected. They do this in 

 the face and eyes of the country. If thev demand 

 upon any frivolous occasion that there shall be such 

 an extraordinary vote as that, they do it subject to 

 the censure of the people of this land. This practice 

 has hitherto kept this "House in proper condition upon 

 this subject, so that there has been no improper im- 

 peding of the public business. 



It is a valuable privilege for the country th-.it the 

 minority shall have the right by this extraordinary 

 mode of proceeding to call the attention of the country 

 to measures which a party in a moment of madness 



times when they need to be checked, so that they 

 may receive the opinions of the people who are their 

 constituents and who are interested in the results of 

 their legislation. 



" I also find that eminent Speaker Mr. Elaine, 

 during the pendency of the famous dead-lock on 

 the force bill, was frequently solicited to enforce 

 the view contemplated by this rule. He refused 

 to accede to the demand made by several gentle- 

 men on the floor. To one he replied as follows : 



If the point be raised, a gentleman addressing the 

 Chair may be taken off the floor by any member rais- 

 ing the point that no quorum is present. The ques- 

 tion being so raised, the Chair, according to his judg- 

 ment and on his responsibility, can rule that a quo- 

 rum is present. But whan the" roll call is resorted to, 

 that is the last mode of certification, from which there 

 is no appeal. Now, that the rules absolutely require 

 gentlemen to vote is undeniable ; but how the gentle- 

 man from Missouri, on whom the point has been 

 made, can be compelled to stand up and pronounce 

 his vote " aye " or " no " the Chair does not know. 



" To another he said : 



The Chair never heard of that being done. He 

 begs to remind the House, whereas that might and 

 doubtless would be true that there is a quorum in the 

 hall, the very principle enunciated by the gentleman 

 from Indiana has been the foundation probably for 

 the greatest legislative frauds ever committed. 



Where a quorum, in the judgment of the Chair, has 

 been declared to be present in the House against the 

 result of a roll call, these proceedings in the different 

 Legislatures have brought scandal on their name. 



" To yet another he declared : 



There can be no record like the call of the yeas and 

 nays, and from that there is no appeal. 



The moment you clothe your Speaker with power 

 to go behind your roll call and assume that there is a 

 quorum in the hall, why, gentlemen, you stand on 

 the very brink of a volcano. 



I find, further, that in this same debate the 

 views of yourself, sir, and of our present distin- 

 guished Secretary of State were confirmed and 

 supplemented by the gifted and lamented Gar- 

 field in these words : 



I call attention to the first phase of the question, 

 and ask my friend from Virginia, without any regard 



