No. 509, S.

[June 24.]

The president stated that the point of order raised by Senator Bosshard that the bill is out of order because it is the same in substance with a bill previously considered by the senate at this session, was an important point, and so far as he has been able to investigate, a close one in this case, and requested a discussion of the point of order.

After discussion, the president expressed a wish that he might have further time to consider the point of order.

Senator Weissleder moved that the point of order be decided by a vote of the senate.

The president held the motion out of order.

Senator Bichler rose to a point of order that the point of order by Senator Bosshard, to hold, should have been made when the bill was introduced. The president held: Under the old procedure outlined in Jefferson's Manual, the time for a point of order against a bill was on its first reading, which was for information, and which, under the procedure in vogue in the days of Jefferson, was a reading in full. Under the procedure in this senate it is not practicable for a point of order to be raised until the matter is up for consideration, it not being until then that the members of the body would have adequate notice of what it contains. Any other rule would deprive members of their right to raise a point of order against a bill and would effect practically the repeal of the rule. The point of order need not have been made until this time.

Senator True moved that the bill be laid over until Thursday, June 26, 1913.

And so the senate refused to lay the bill over.

The president stated that he would not avail himself of the power to postpone decision of the point of order, but would accede to the wish of the senate and rule upon it at this time.

Senator A. E. Martin then moved that the rules be suspended, and the bill laid over until tomorrow.

* * *

And so the senate refused to suspend the rules.

The president said: "The president holds, on the limited inves tigation he can give this matter, that No. 509, S., is identical in substance with a bill that has been considered, the only difference being, so far as the president is informed, a difference in date, which does not change the substance or identity of the bill. point of order is well taken."

The

Senator Bichler appealed from the decision of the chair. The question was, Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate?

The ayes and noes were required, and the vote was: Ayes, 14; noes, 11; absent or not voting, 7.

* * *

And so the decision of the chair was sustained.

[June 20]

The chief clerk reported that the bill offered for revision by the committee on Judiciary at the evening session on June 18, 1913, had been inadvertently received without unanimous consent having been given as required by resolution No. 28, S.

Upon motion of Senator Bosshard,

The journal of Wednesday, June 18, 1913, was corrected by cancelling under, "Bills for Revisions," at the evening session the following: The committee on Judiciary, with unanimous consent, filed one bill for revision.

No. 384, A.

[June 25.]

The question was, Shall the bill be non-concurred in?

The ayes and noes were demanded, and the vote was: Ayes, 9; noes, 14; absent or not voting, 9.

And so the senate refused to non-concur in the bill, thereby ordering it to a third reading.

Senator Zophy moved that the vote by which the senate refused to non-concur in No, 384, A., be reconsidered.

Which motion prevailed.

After the president had announced the result of the vote, Senator Bichler asked for a division.

Senator Monk rose to a point of order that a division could not be had after the result of the vote had been announced.

The president held the point of order well taken.

[June 25.]

No. 89, S.,

Was read a second time.

*

The question then was, Shall the bill be indefinitely postponed? The ayes and noes were demanded, and the vote was: 12; noes, 12; paired, 2; absent or not voting, 6.

Ayes,

And so the senate refused to indefinitely postpone the bill. The president stated that the question then was: "Shall the bill be ordered engrossed and read a third time?"

Senator Randolph rose to a point of order that under the practice of the senate a refusal to indefinitely postpone ordered the bill engrossed and read a third time.

The president held that the vote, being a tie vote, the bill was not thereby ordered engrossed and read a third time, and that the point of order was not well taken.

The question was, Shall the bill be ordered engrossed and read a third time?

[June 25.]

Upon motion of Senator A. E. Martin, and with unanimous consent,

No. 748, A.,

Was laid over until Tuesday, July 1, 1913.

* * *

The assembly requests the return of No. 748, A.

Senator Weissleder moved that the request of the assembly for the return of No. 748, A., be taken up and considered at this time.

The president ruled the motion out of order, because the bill had been laid over until Tuesday, July 1, 1913; and the request was filed with the bill.

No. 578, S.,

[June 25.]

Senator Weigle rose to a point of order that the bill was the same as an assembly bill previously considered and rejected by the

senate.

Senator Ackley rose to a point of order that the point raised by Senator Weigle to hold, should have been raised not later than when the bill was on its second reading.

The president held the point of order by Senator Ackley well taken, but stated that he would rule also on the point of order raised by Senator Weigle.

The president held the point of order raised by Senator Weigle not well taken, reading the following from Jefferson's Manual: "A bill begun in one house, and sent to the other, and there rejected, may be renewed again in that other, passed and sent back."

[June 26.] MOTIONS.

Senator Tomkins moved that No. 748, A., be taken from next Tuesday's calendar and placed at the foot of this calendar.

The president held the motion out of order, stating that the only way such action could be taken would be by reconsidering the vote by which the bill was laid over.

[June 26.]

Senator Bichler moved that the vote by which No. 206, A., was concurred in, be reconsidered.

The ayes and noes were demanded, and the vote was: Ayes, 10; noes, 13; paired, 8; absent or not voting, 1.

* * *

And so the senate refused to reconsider the vote.

Before the announcement of the vote, Senator Bosshard rose to a point of order that a motion to reconsider was a motion collateral to the bill, and that Senator Skogmo, being paired on the "bill only and not amendments" was not paired on the motion.

The president held that the motion to reconsider was a question directly upon the bill, and that Senator Skogmo, being paired on the bill, was paired on the motion to reconsider, just as he would be upon a motion to lay over, or otherwise act upon the bill, except to amend.

No. 728, A.

[July 8.]

MOTIONS CONSIDERED.

Senator White moved the previous question.

* * *

And so the previous question was ordered to be now put.

Senator Burke, when his name was called, rose to a question of parliamentary inquiry: Whether, the main question having been ordered to be now put, a serator was permitted to explain his vote.

The president held: The main question being ordered to be now put. debate is out of order, but the explanation of a senator's vote in not debate. A senator may at all times, when his name is called, make a statement in explanation of his vote, but at no time while the roll is being called may he make an argument.

No. 487, A.

[July 9.]

Senator Stevens moved the previous question.

* * *

And so the main question was ordered to be now put. Senator Bosshard moved that the bill be non-concurred in. Senator Ackley rose to a question of parliamentary inquiry, whether, the main question having been ordered to be now put, a motion to non-concur is in order.

The president held: Under the practice of the senate, the effect of the previous question is to put an end to debate but not to prevent the making of any privileged motion.

The question was, Shall the bill be non-concurred in?

The ayes and noes were demanded, and the vote was: Ayes, 10; noes, 19; absent or not voting, 3, as follows:

* * *

And so the senate refused to non-concur in the bill and thereby the bill was concurred in.

Before the vote was announced, Senator Bosshard asked unanimous consent to offer the following amendment:

Senator Stevens objected.

* * *

Senator Bosshard then moved that the rules be suspended and the amendment be received.

The president ruled the motion out of order.

* * *

Senator Stevens moved that the vote by which the bill was refused non-concurrence, be reconsidered.

Senator Bosshard rose to a question of parliamentary inquiry: whether the previous question operates on the motion to reconsider, or whether the motion is debatable.

The president held: The previous question extended only to the vote upon the final concurrence in the bill, not having been made to apply to a motion to reconsider, and hence the motion is debatable.

Senator Bosshard debated the bill.

Senator Kileen rose to a point of order, that the question was upon the motion to reconsider, and debate must be confined to that question.

The president held that a motion to reconsider opened the main question to debate.

The question was, Shall the vote by which the bill was refused non-concurrence, be reconsidered?

*

And so the senate refused to reconsider the vote. [See July 10, and July 17.]

[July 9.]

No. 754, A.,

Was read a third time.

The question was, Shall the bill be concurred in?

The ayes and noes were demanded, and the vote was:

Ayes,

13; noes, 16; absent or not voting, 3, as follows:

And so the senate refused to concur in the bill.

Senator A. E. Martin moved that the vote by which the senate refused to concur in No. 754, A., be reconsidered.