bers elected, although there are notable exceptions to this rule. In the Parliament of Great Britain the quorum is determined by each chamber for itself. In the House of Commons it is fixed at 40 members; in the House of Lords at three. In the German Empire the Constitution fixes the quorum of the Imperial Diet at a majority of the legal number of members. The Federal Council is left to fix its own quorum and the practice requires simply the presence of the chairman, the Lord Chancellor. In France the determination of the quorum in the case of the French Parliament is left to each Chamber separately. By a rule of procedure it is fixed at a majority of the legal number of members of each House. In the United States the Federal Constitution fixes the quorum of the Senate and the House of Representatives at a majority of the whole number of members elected to each House. Until the 51st Congress (1890) it was the practice in the House of Representatives, in ascertaining the presence of a quorum, not to count those present but not voting. This enabled the minority to obstruct the legislative procedure quite frequently and the practice became so annoying to the majority that Speaker Thomas B. Reed (q.v.) introduced the policy of counting, for the purpose of making a quorum, all members present and refusing to vote. His action created something of a furor in the House, and it was denounced by the opposition as arbitrary and revolutionary, but its continued use has commended itself to the members of Congress and bids fair to be a permanent feature of the rules of procedure irrespective of the political complexion of the House.
QUOTIDIAN FEVER. See Ague; Malaria and Malarial Fever.
QUO WARRANTO (Lat., by what warrant). A legal action or proceeding brought to determine the right of an individual or corporation to a public office, franchise, or privilege, and to have a usurper removed by order of a court of competent jurisdiction. This remedy is said to have originated in the twelfth century in England, and was originally commenced by a writ of quo warranto in the name of the Crown, and commanding the alleged usurper to show ‘by what warrant’ he claimed the right or privilege in question. The inquiry was made by a royal commission, and the person named in the writ was often deprived of the rights he claimed without judicial proceedings. To remedy this a statute was enacted in the reign of Edward I. requiring that such cases should be tried by the action of quo warranto. This was begun by an ‘information in the nature of a quo warranto’ being filed by a public prosecutor on behalf of the Crown. By a statute in the reign of Anne, private individuals were permitted, on obtaining leave from a court, to file these ‘informations.’
In most of the United States such proceedings are brought in the name of the Attorney-General of the State in his official capacity, or in his name ‘on relation of’ a private individual. These proceedings can only be brought in the highest courts of original jurisdiction or appellate courts. In most States quo warranto proceedings may be brought against persons wrongfully claiming to occupy public offices; against the officers of private corporations where the latter assume unlawful privileges and powers; against the officers of public or municipal corporations, where franchises are unlawfully exercised by them; or against any person unlawfully claiming and exercising control over a public franchise or privilege such as a ferry franchise or banking privileges. The right of a foreign corporation to do business in a State may be questioned in this manner. Defeated candidates sometimes cause an investigation into the election returns and the rights of their successful opponents by quo warranto proceedings, but many States have provided special statutory proceedings for determining contested elections. A quo warranto proceeding can only be brought to try a right or eligibility to an office, and not to remove a lawful incumbent for official misconduct. The statutes of the various States should be consulted for the details of procedure. Consult also: High, Treatise on Extraordinary Legal Remedies (3d ed., Chicago, 1896); Spelling, A Treatise on Extraordinary Relief (2d ed., Boston, 1901).
