Senator Kileen rose to a point of parliamentary inquiry, whether the motion was debatable. The president stated that he was of the opinion that the motion was not debatable, the rule providing that: "While the senate was under a call no business shall be transacted except to receive and act on the report of the sergeant at-arms; and no other motion shall be in order, except a motion to adjourn, and a motion to suspend further proceedings under the call," the motion was non-debatable, being "other business." The question was, Shall further proceedings under the call be dispensed with? The ayes and noes were required, and the vote was: Ayes, 14; noes, 12; absent or not voting, 6, as follows: * * * And so the senate refused to dispense with further proceedings under the call. Senator Burke moved that the senate adjourn, and stated that he requested unanimous consent to add to the motion that the time be until Tuesday, July 22, at 10:00 o'clock a. m. The president held the request out of order, because to entertain and put it would be transacting business not within the rule. The question was, Shall the senate adjourn? The ayes and noes were required, and the vote was: Ayes, 14; noes, 12; absent or not voting, 6. The question was, Shall the vote by which the bill was concurred in be reconsidered? And so the vote was reconsidered. The question was, Shall the bill be concurred in? Senator Skogmo debated the question, referring to an amendment which had been informally discussed by senators. Senator Burke rose to a point of order, that the debate by Senator Skogmo was not germane to the question. The president held that debate bearing on the question was in order. Senator Skogmo asked unanimous consent to offer the following amendment: Senator Perry objected. * Senator Skogmo moved that all rules interfering be suspended and the amendment be received. Senator Bosshard requested that the amendment be read by the clerk. Senator Burke rose to a point of order that the amendment not having as yet been received, it could not be read by the clerk. The president held the point of order not well taken, saying: "This amendment has been laid before the senate by the motion to suspend the rules, and any senator has a right to have it read before voting on that motion. Under Jefferson's Manual 'Where papers are laid before the house, every member has a right to have them once read at the table before he can be compelled to vote on them'." Senator Husting debated the question. Senator Burke rose to a question of parliamentary inquiry whether a motion to suspend the rules is debatable. The president held that a motion to suspend the rules, not being included in the enumeration of non-debatable questions in the rules of the senate, was debatable, but that debate was limited to the question, and could not include debate on the proposed amendment. The question was, Shall the rules be suspended and the amendment be received? [July 23] At 8:05 o'clock p. m., Senator H. C. Martin moved that the senate take a recess for fifteen minutes, and that the sergeant-atarms be instructed to lock the doors and bring in the absent senators, Which motion prevailed. [July 23] No. 715, A., was passed by the assembly and messaged to the senate. The senate preferred No. 503, S., on the same subject, and laid the assembly bill on the table and passed the senate bill. The assembly nonconcurred in the senate bill. Upon receipt of this message in the senate, the following entry appears: "Senator Scott moved that a committee of conference be requested on the subject matter of Nos. 715, A., and 503, S., "Which motion prevailed." The conference recommended that the assembly reconsider and concur in No. 503, S., and this was done. [July 24] Joint resolution instructing a special recess committee created by bill, by adding another related subject of investigation, adopted, and as a privileged resolution. (Jt. Res. No. 67, S.) [July 25] The following resolution had been adopted on June 18:. Res. No. 28, S., Relating to the introduction of bills. Resolved by the senate, That after the adoption of this resolution no bills shall be filed for revision except by unanimous con sent. After that time bills were received for revision only by unani mous consent. On July 25 Senator Bichler asked unanimous consent to introduce two bills. Senator Teasdale objected. Senator Bichler moved that all rules interfering, be suspended, and the bills be received. By unanimous consent, The motion was entertained. Senator Bosshard asked for a division of the question. The president did not rule on the question of whether the motion to suspend the rules would admit the bills, but entertained the motion by unanimous consent. One of the bills was received and the other refused reception. The governor withdrew the name of August S. Lindemann, whom he had nominated to be a member of the Industrial Commission, and nominated Thomas J. Mahon. The senate refused to confirm the nomination, ayes 9, noes 11. * * * On August 7, the governor again submitted the nomination of Thomas J. Mahon to be a member of the Industrial Commission. After a call of the senate lasting until August 9, the following entry appears: "And so further proceedings under the call were dispensed with. "The question was, Shall all rules requiring the nominations by the governor to lie over be suspended? "By unanimous consent, "The rules were suspended. "Senator Teasdale rose to a question of parliamentary inquiry, whether the rules that a question once decided must stand as the judgment of the senate at the then session, unless reconsidered under the rules, were suspended. "The president stated that these rules had not been suspended. "Upon request of Senator Husting, and by unanimous consent, these rules also were suspended." The senate again refused to confirm the nomination, ayes 14, noes 18. OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL. FEBRUARY 3, 1913. MR. F. M. WYLIE, Chief Clerk of the Senate, Capitol. Dear Sir: Pursuant to your request, I am herewith submitting draft form with several copies thereof, of subpoena in the matter of the investigation of the charges, proceedings, etc., relative to the removal of Herman L. Ekern as Commissioner of In surance. Very truly yours, W. C. OWEN, By RUSSELL JACKSON, STATE OF WISCONSIN, IN THE SENATE. In the Matter of the Investigation of the Charges, Proceedings, Facts and Matters relative to the Removal of Herman L. Ekern, as Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Wisconsin, and the appointment of Louis A. Anderson to such office, etc., as per Resolution No. 8, S. THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, To You, and each of you, are hereby commanded and summoned to be and appear before the Senate of the State of Wisconsin, as a Committee of the Whole, at the Senate Chamber, in the Capitol building, at the City of Madison, on the day of ——, A. D., 1913, ato'clock in the -noon of said day, to submit to examination and testify in respect of the following matters: 1. The charges made to the Governor in the proceedings for the removal of Herman L. Ekern as Commissioner of Insurance. 2. The proceedings had before the Governor upon said charges and any proceeding or action thereon had subsequent thereto. 3. The facts surrounding the appointment of Louis A, Anderson as Commissioner of Insurance, and the proceedings had thereon and subsequent thereto. 4. All matters relating to any attempt to take possession of the office of the Commissioner of Insurance and to remove therefrom the said Herman L. Ekern by force or otherwise. Dear Sir: In your letter of May 7th, 1913, you state: "The legislature, at the 1909 and 1911 sessions, adopted Joint Resolution No. 48, found on page 1121 of the 1911 session laws, creating section 3a of Article XI of the constitution, relating to the acquisition of lands by the state or cities for public purposes. This amendment was ratified by the voters at the last election. "At the 1911 session the legislature adopted Joint Resolution No. 73, found on page 1142 of the 1911 session laws, also creating section 3a of Article XI of the constitution, providing for home rule in cities. This amendment is now in the senate enrolling room, having passed both houses at the present session. 'As both of these constitutional amendments create section 3a of Article XI, but relate to entirely different matters, the question arises as to what effect the passage of the last named resolution would have on the one already ratified by the electors, and whether it would be advisable or within the province of this legislature to change the section number in the amendment now pending.” If the amendment now pending should have any effect upon the amendment already adopted because it bears the same section number, it is verymanifest that to change such section number would be a material departure from the resolution adopted at the session of 1911 and would interfere with the orderly adoption of the present amendment, for the reason that the two resolutions would not be alike. If, therefore, any necessity exists for changing the section number, it is clear that to make such change would be fatal to the adoption of the amendment. As I view it, the |