POWERS OF THE TWO HOUSES OF CONGRESS IN THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
Protest in the Senate, at its Opening, July 3, 1867.
July 3d, according to the provision in the resolution of adjournment at the last session, Congress met at noon this day. The Chief Clerk read the resolution.[228] Mr. Sumner then said that he rose to a question of order on the resolution.
The resolution under which Congress is to-day assembled, so far as it undertakes to direct the adjournment of the two Houses of Congress without day, in the absence of a quorum of the two Houses, is unconstitutional and inoperative, inasmuch as the Constitution, after declaring that “a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business,” proceeds to provide that “a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members”; and therefore such resolution must not be regarded by the Chair, so far as it undertakes to provide for an adjournment without day.
As, according to the view, there is a quorum already present, the incident contemplated by the resolution will not arise; but I felt it my duty, by way of precaution and caveat, to introduce this protest, to the end that the resolution may not hereafter be drawn into a precedent so as to abridge the rights of the two Houses of Congress under the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, differed from Mr. Sumner, and entered his “protest against any such construction of the Constitution as denies to the two Houses of Congress the right to regulate their own adjournments.” After quoting the text of the Constitution, that “a majority of each 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,” Mr. Sumner said:—
Here is a concurrent resolution providing for a future meeting of Congress. To that extent it is unquestionably constitutional; but when the resolution imposes shackles upon the two Houses of Congress assembled by virtue of that resolution, then, I submit, it does what, under the National Constitution, it cannot do,—its words are powerless. Congress, when once assembled by virtue of that resolution, has all the powers of a Congress of the United States under the Constitution. That resolution cannot restrain it. Such, at any rate, is my conclusion, after the best reflection that I have been able to give to these words of the Constitution; and I feel it my duty to make this protest, to the end that what we now do may not be drawn into an example hereafter. It is well known that those words were introduced in order to tie the hands of Congress, should it come together and there be no quorum present,—in short, to despoil the Congress then assembled of the prerogative secured to it by the National Constitution. To that extent I suggest that the resolution hereafter shall be regarded as of no value, and not be quoted as a precedent.
After reply from Mr. Trumbull, the subject was dropped.