|
''United States v. Ballin'', 〔''United States v. Ballin'', 〕 is a decision issued on February 29, 1892 by the United States Supreme Court, discussing the constitutional definition of "a quorum to do business" in Congress. Justice David Josiah Brewer delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court, analyzing the constitutional limitations for the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives when determining their Rules of Proceedings. In particular, the Court noted that it is well within the powers of the House and Senate to establish their own rules for verifying the presence of a majority of their members. The case was brought after the U.S. Board of General Appraisers affirmed the decision of the Collector of New York to classify imported worsted cloth as woolens in order to levy a higher rate of customs duty. The importers challenged the validity of the law authorizing the duty increase, alleging an absence of a legislative quorum when the law was passed. On appeal, the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York sustained the claim of the importers and reversed the decision of the Board; the United States appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court, upholding the Board's decision, and establishing unambiguously that when quorum is present, votes of a majority of that quorum are sufficient to pass a bill in Congress. ==Background== For its first 100 years of existence, the United States House of Representatives did not pass legislation unless a full quorum of the House approved the bill. Those present, but not voting, could block votes and prevent a quorum—the technique of the disappearing quorum. The practice was terminated in February 1890, with the adoption of a new set of House rules. In particular, Rule XV (passed on February 14, 1890〔''House Journal'', 230, February 14, 1890, cited in 〕) established that a quorum is satisfied if a majority of members are present, even if they withhold their votes on a particular bill.〔 On March 1, 1888, the Ways and Means Committee of the House had started review of the McKinley Tariff bill, which would eventually pass the House on May 21, 1890. One part of the bill, drafted by Nelson Dingley, Jr. and known as the Worsted act, would "authorize and direct the Secretary of the Treasury to classify as woolen cloths all imports of worsted cloth,"〔, c.200〕 in order to levy a higher rate of customs duty. The Worsted act came up for vote on May 9, 1890, garnering 138 yeas and 3 nays. House Speaker Thomas B. Reed requested a roll call, and 74 representatives were recorded by the clerk in the ''House Journal'' as being present and refusing to vote. The speaker concluded that those voting, together with the 74 members withholding their votes (in total more than 166 representatives), constituted a quorum present to do business. The House at the time comprised 330 seats.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=The Size of the U.S. House of Representatives and its Constituent State Delegations ) While the 51st Congress would eventually reach 332 seats, the Worsted act was voted on prior to Idaho and Wyoming being admitted to the Union.〕 Since 138 yeas were more than one-half of the members present, the speaker declared that the Worsted act had been passed.〔 On July 21, 1890, Ballin, Joseph & Co imported into New York certain manufactures of worsted.〔''In re Ballin et al.'', , (''rev'g'' the Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers), ''rev'd'', .〕 In line with the Worsted act, the collector assessed the duty rate prescribed at the time for manufactures of wool. The importers contended that the duty collected was in excess of what the law permitted, according to schedule K of , c.121. In their request for refund from the Board of General Appraisers, the importers argued that the Worsted act had been enacted in violation of Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution of the United States. In particular, Ballin argued that a quorum of the House had not been present when the vote was taken and therefore the bill had not been legally passed. On October 13, 1890, the Board ruled against Ballin. Judge Henderson M. Somerville drafted the Board's decision, finding that the act of May 9, 1890, had been constitutionally enacted and that the duty had been correctly assessed by the New York collector.〔 The importers appealed to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, which reversed the Board's decision. The circuit court reasoned that the act Congress had passed "expressly confined the exercise of its powers to the Secretary of the Treasury, in exclusion of any other officer" and that the collector had overstepped his bounds. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「United States v. Ballin」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|