In addition thereto, there is deposited, as soon as printed, in PUBLIC DOCUMENTS-DISTRIBUTION OF. The usual number of documents, being 1,607, and the number 1 (See also PRINTING, PUBLIC; WASTE PAPER, and FRANK- ING PRIVILEGE.) PUBLIC LANDS, COMMITTEE ON THE. When appointed, and number of members of.-RULE X. One Delegate to be added to.-RULE XII. Duties of.-RULE XI, clause 15. This committee was created on the 17th of December, 1805 (2d sess. 8th Congress), a proposition for its creation having been rejected in the preceding session. Prior to its creation all business relating to the public lands was either sent to the Committee on Claims or to a select committee, and frequently to both. PUBLIC PRINTING AND PUBLIC PRINTER. (See PRINTING, PUBLIC, and PRINTING, COMMITTEE ON.) QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS. (See VOTERS, QUALIFICATIONS OF.) QUESTIONS. (See RULE I, clause 5.) While the Speaker is putting a question or addressing the House, no member shall walk out of or across the hall.-RULE XIV, clause 7. (See DIVISION OF QUESTIONS.) (See QUESTIONS OF ORDER.) (See MOTIONS.) In case of an equal division on a question, the question shall be lost.-RULE I, clause 6. (See also TIE VOTE.) QUESTIONS OF ORDER. Under the practice of the House, a "question of order" has been treated substantially as a "privileged question." It has been and is still subject to abuse, as under the guise of a "question of order" a member would interject an argument for or against the pending proposition. There has never been a rule of the House in this respect, and of necessity it has been left to the discretion of the Chair to regulate the matter. It may be said, however, that so far as it is possible to ascertain, the ruling has been that the "question of order" must relate to the business and proceedings of the House, and must directly and immediately connect itself with the pending matter. The following résumé of the practice in the English Parliament, and which may be said to have become a part of the common parliamentary law of this country, is compiled from Hansard's Parliamentary History: "Questions of this nature, to be admissible consistently with order, should relate to matters in reference to which it is the duty of the Speaker to inform the House. Thus the Speaker may be inquired of as to the proper mode of carrying up an address; as to whether an instruction to a committee, which a member bad given notice of his intention to move, could be moved consistently with the forms of the House; as to the course of proceeding which a member proposes to pursue in a particular case, and whether it would or would not be regular; as to the extent and meaning of a rule or order laid down by the Speaker on a former occasion; as to whether a system of proceeding in common use was strictly in order.” The Clerk shall note all questions of order, with the decisions thereon, the record of which shall be printed as an appendix to the Journal of each session.-RULE III, clause 3. It is entirely within the discretion of the Chair to permit debate on a question of order, the only restriction being that fixed by clause 3, RULE XVII.-Cong. Record, 1, 43, p. 3020. QUORUM. "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States"-Const., 1, 2, 4—and "a majority of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide."-Const., 1, 5, 8. In view of the foregoing clauses of the Constitution, it was decided, during the Thirty-seventh Congress, to which several of the States had failed to send Representatives, that a majority of the members chosen constituted a quorum to do business.— Journal, 1, 37, p. 117. In view of the important ruling of Speaker Reed on the 29th of January, 1890, on the point of order raised by Mr. Crisp that "no quorum" had voted on the question of "consideration" raised by him against the report of the Committee on Elections in the contested-election case of Smith vs. Jackson, from the Fourth Congressional district of the State of West Virginia, that ruling is herewith given in full as a matter of interest and convenient reference. At the conclusion of the rollcall on the said question of consideration raised by Mr. Crisp, the Speaker announced the result to be, yeas 162, nays 3. Thereupon Mr. Rogers, who had voted in the affirmative, and Mr. Covert and Mr. Cowles, who had voted in the negative, withdrew their votes, leaving the vote, yeas 161, nays 1. The said vote having been announced by the Speaker, Mr. Crisp raised the question of "no quorum." Thereupon the Speaker directed the Clerk to enter upon the Journal the names of certain members as "present and refusing to vote," and announced and ruled that a quorum was present within the meaning of the Constitution upon the following grounds, viz: The Clerk announces the members voting in the affirmative to be 161 and 2 in the negative. The Chair thereupon, having seen other members present, having heard their names called in their presence, directed the call to be repeated, and, since gentlemen did not answer when thus called, the Chair directed a record of their names to be made showing the fact of their presence as bearing upon the question which has been raised, namely, whether there is a quorum of this House present to do business, according to the Constitution of the United States; and accordingly that question is now before the House, and the Chair purposes to give a statement accompanied by a ruling, from which an appeal can be taken if any gentleman is dissatisfied therewith. There has been for some considerable time a question of this nature raised in very many parliamentary assemblies. There has been a great deal of doubt, especially in this body, on the subject, and the present occupant of the chair well recollects a proposition or suggestion made ten years ago by a member from Virginia, Mr. John Randolph Tucker, an able constitutional lawyer as well as an able member of this House. That matter was somewhat discussed and a proposition was made with regard to putting it into the rules. The general opinion which seemed to prevail at that time was that it was inexpedient so to do; and some members had grave doubts whether it was proper to make such an amendment to the rules as would count, as a part of the quorum, the members present and not voting as well as those present and voting. The evils which have resulted from the other course were not then as apparent as now, and no such careful study had been given to the subject as has been given to it since. That discussion took place in the year 1880. Since then there have been various arguments and various decisions by eminent gentlemen upon the subject, and these decisions have very much cleared up the question, and it is much more apparent what the rule is. One of the first places in which the question was raised was in the senate of the State of New York. The present governor of New York was then the presiding officer and upon him was devolved a duty similar to that which has been devolved upon me today. He met that duty in precisely the same manner. The question there raised was as to the necessity, under their constitution, of the actual participation by voting of the three-fifths constituting a quorum for the passage of certain bills, and he held that that constitutional provision as to a quorum was entirely satisfied by the presence of the members even if they did not vote, and accordingly he directed the recording officer of the senate to put down certain names as a part of the record of the transaction; that is, to put down the names of the members of the senate who were present and refused to vote in precisely the manner in which the occupant of this chair has directed the same thing to be done. That decision must be regarded as in no sense partisan, at least as the Chair cites it. There has also been a decision in the State of Tennessee, where the provisions of the law require a quorum to consist of two-thirds. In the legis lature of 1885 the house had ninety-nine members, of which two-thirds was 'sixty-six. A registration bill was pending which was objected to by the Republican members of the house. Upon the third reading the Republicans refused to vote, whereupon the speaker, a member of the other party, directed the clerk to count as present those there but not voting, and, a quorum being present, declared the bill passed upon this reading. These two decisions, made, the first in 1883, and the other in the year 1885, seem, to the present occupant of the chair, to cover the ground; but there is an entirely familiar process which every old member will recognize, which, in the opinion of the Chair, is incontestable evidence of the recognition at all times of the right to regard members present as constituting a part of a quorum. It has been almost an every-day occurrence at certain stages of the session for votes to be announced by the Chair containing obviously and mathematically no quorum; yet if the point was not made of no quorum the bill has always been declared to be passed. That can only be upon a very distinct basis, and that is that everybody present silently agreed to the fact that there was a quorum present, while the figures demonstrated no quorum voting. There is no ground by which under any possibility such a bill could be passed constitutionally, unless the presence of a quorum is inferred. It is inferred from the fact that no one raised the question, and the presence was deemed enough. |