« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
with one already agreed to, it is a fit ground for its rejec-. tion by the house, but not within the competence of the Speaker to suppress as if it were against order. For were he permitted to draw questions of consistence within the vorlex of order, ne might usurp a negative on important modincations, and suppress, instead of subserving, the legis
lative will [*41) Senate Presedent (43). An amendment the effect
of which would be the same as one already rejected, is out of oruer. on r'ebruary 25, 1911, pages 200 and 251, senate journal, Senator Gaylord offered a substitute amendment to No. 29, A., which substitute was rejected. Senator Blaine then offered an amendment the same in effect as the substitute that had been rejected. The president (Lieutenant Governor Morris) ruled that the amendment was out of order.
Senate Precedent (44). Amendment offered as a substitute amenament must be in substitute form. On March 22, 1911, page 4.0, senate journal, Senator Gaylord onereu a substitute amendment to a joint resolution, and the president stated that under the rules the resolution would lie over for the printing of the substitute. Senator Blaine rose to a point of order that the substitute amendment was a substitute in name only, and that it was in reality simply an amendment, in that the change made was easily perceived from the reading of the amendment. The president (Lieut. Gov. Morris) heid the point of order was well taken. See also page 593, senate journal, April 28, 1911.
Senate Precedent (45). Amendment making bill identical with one previously acted upon has been ruled out of order. On June 3, 1909 (pg. 972, senate journal), Senator Lockney offered an amendment to No. 166, A. Senator Owen rose to a point of order that the amendment made the bill identical with one previously acted upon by the senate. The president (Lieut. Gov. Strange) held the point of order well taken and the amenament out of order.
Note. The reasoning used in making this ruling probably was that the auoption of the anenament would mane the bill out of order and that this indirect method of defeating the measure shouid not be allowed. The journal does not show what bill was referred to as the identical bill, but the recollection of the compiler is, that it was a senate bill that had been rejected by the senate, but which was supported by Senator Lockney and preferred by him to No. 166, A., and his purpose in offering the amendment was evidently not the defeat of the bill. That an assembly bill identical with a previously defeated senate bill is out of order would not seem to be good parliamentary law. Jefferson's Manual permits a bill to be introduced in the senate identical with an assembly bill that has been rejected by the senate but does not take up the proposition specifically whether an assembly bill identical with a previously rejected senate bill is in order, but it would seein a reasonable application of the principle the manual does lay down.
Jefferson's Manual (27)-Identity with One Acted upon Must be Absolute to Make Out of Order. A motion is made to amend by striking out certain words and inserting others
in their place, which is negatived. Then it is moved [*4?) to strike out the same words, *and to insert others
of a tenor entirely different from those first proposed. It is negatived. Then it is moved to strike out the same words and insert nothing, which is agreed to. All this is admissible, because to strike out and insert A is one proposition. To strike out and insert B is a different proposition. And to strike out and insert nothing is still different. And the rejecton of one proposition does not preclude the offering a different one.
But if it had been carried affirmatively to strike out the words and to insert A, it could not afterward be permitted to strike out A and insert B. The mover of B should have notified, while the insertion of A was under debate, that he would move to insert B; in which case those who prepared it join in rejecting A.
After A is inserted, however, it may be moved to strike out a portion of the original paragraph, comprehending A, provided the coherence to be struck out be so substantial as to make this effectively a different proposition; for then it
is resolved into the common case of striking out a paragraph after amending it. Nor does anything forbid a new insertion. instead of A and its coherence.
Senate Precedent (46). Question on assembly amendment to senare bill has been dividod and part of amendment rused out of order as identical with matter already rejected. On June 9. 1909 (pg. 1071, senate journal), upon request of Senator Whitehead, question upon an assembly amendment to a senate bill was divided. Senator Whitehead then made a point of order against two paragraphs of the amendment, that they were verbatim with matters already acted upon by the senate and rejected. The journal does not show what these matters were..
The president (Lieut. Gov. Strange) held the point well taken and ruled the paragraphs out of order. The remaining paragraph was concurred in
: The same doubt as to the correctness of this ruling lies as lies with the correctness of the ruling in Senate Precedent (45) discussed in the note, for it seems reasonable to apply this rule of Jefferson's Manual to amendments as well as to bills.
Jefferson's Manual (28)-Amendment in Third Degree not Permitted. If an amendment be moved to an amendment, it is admitted: but it would not be admitted in another de.
gree, to wit, to amend an amendment to an amend[•43)ment of a main question. This would lead to too
much embarrassment. The line must be drawn somewhere, and usage has drawn it after the amendment to the amendment. The same result must be sought by deciding against the amendment to the amendent, and then moving it again as it was wished to be amended. In this form it becomes only an amendment to an amendment.
If it be proposed to amend by leaving out certain words, it may be moved, as an amendment to this amendment to leave out a part of the words of the amendment, which is equivalent to leaving them in the bill.
Senate Precedent (47). Amendment not in order when pn pers not in possession of senate. On March 3, 1913, Senator Zophy offered an amendment to No. 122, S. The president held that the bill being in the possession of the committee on Judiciary and not before the senate, the amendment was out of order.
On March 12. 1913. Senator Bichler moved that a bill be recalled from committee, which motion prevailed.Senator Bichler offered a substitute amendment to the bill. The president stated that the amendment could not be received until the bill was returned from the committee and on the clerk's desk, saying: "It is a dangerous practice to endeavor to act upon papers when they are not in the possession of the senate and on the clerk's desk, and it will be the rule of the chair that this senate cannot act upon papers unless they are on the clerk's desk." The bill was returned to the clerk's desk by the chairman of the committee, and Senator Bichler's substitute was then received.
Jefferson's Manual (29)-Rejected Amendment May be 01fered at Different Stage In Parliament a question once carried cannot be questioned again at the same session, but must stand as the judgment of the House. But this does not extend to prevent putting the same question in different stages of a bill: because every stage of a bill submits the whole and every part of it to the opinion of the House, as open for amendment, either by insertion or omission, although the same amendment has been accepted or rejected in a former stage.
Senate Rule 58. Motions to be germane: bills may not be amended, how, No motion or proposition on a subiect different from that under consideration shall be admitted un
der color of amendment; and no bill or resolution shall 1°44) at any time be amended by annexing thereto or in
corporating therein any other bill or resolution pending before the senate.
Senate Rule 59.Amendments to be submitted to revision elerk. The clerk of any committee ordering any bill reported for passage with any amendment shall submit such bill and amendment to the revision clerk, who shall return the same to such committee clerk, with approval if such amendment conforms to the rules, and, if not, with sugges
tions in writing, which suggestions shall be submitted to the chairman of the committee. The revision clerk shall only suggest such amendments as do not change the scope and effect of the bill.
Senate Rule 60. Committee amendments; speaking on amendment. Amendments reported by committees shail be acted upon by the senate in the same manner as though offered from the floor. On an amendment being moved, a member who has spoken to the main question may speak again to the amendment.
Senate Rule 61. Amendments to be reported. Whenever any bill to which an amendment is pending shall be referred to a committee such amendment shall be reported back to the senate.
Senate Rule 62. Order of Aetion. If any amendment be offered, the question shall be first upon the amendment. If rejection is recommended by a committee, the adoption of an amendment shall not change the question.
Senate Precedent (48). Question must be put on commit. tee recommendation for Indefinite postponement. (The last sentence of this rule was adopted on March 5, 1913, to write into the rules the prior practice of the senate.)
On May 3, 1911, page 626, senate journal, No. 95, A., was on the calendar recommended for nonconcurrence. Senator Teasdale moved that the bill be ordered to a third reading. The president (Senator Martin) ruled that the committee's recommendation took precedence, the motion to advance not being a privileged motion under rule 68. On February 20. 1913, No. 59, S., which was recommended
by the rommittee on Judiciary for indefinite postpone[4:] ment, was amended. *The question on indefinite post
ponement was then put and carried. Senator Linley arose to a question of parliamentary inquiry :
Did not the adoption of the amendment make the question, Shall the bill be ordered engrossed and read a third time?
The president (Lieut. Gov. Morris) stated: The practice of the senate when the committee recommends indefinite postponement, is to put the question upon the recommendation of the committee.
Note. Some years ago, an inquiry was made of Speaker Reed by an officer or member of the Wisconsin legislature, whether the adoption of an amendment to a bill having an adverse committee report changed the question on the bill from "Shall the bill be indennitely postponed (or nonconcurred in)" to "Shall the bill be ordered engrossed and read a third time (or to a third reading)." The question does not arise in Congress, because a bill is not reported from committee except it be intended for passage, but Speaker Reed answered to the inquiry that in his opinion the adoption of the amendment evidenced a reversal of the committee report and a preparation of the bill for passage. This practice was followed for some time in the Wisconsin senate, but it is free quently the case that because of the fairness which actuates the senators, the author of a bill is permitted the adoption of amendments to bring his bill into the most favorable form before final vote, without regard to the intent of the senate as to its final disposition. Thus the logic of Speaker Reed is as likely to be wrong as to be right in the Wisconsin senate, on any particular bill; that which he construes as evidence of intent to pass the bill is as likely to be merely tolerance and courtesy'. Another and weightier consideration led to the practice and rule of the senate as it now is. On many minor matters, the senate is likely to be more or less indifferent, no particular interests or principle being involved, and by mere lack of opposition, the affirmative of the question, however put, will carry. It is an old principle, quoted in Jefferson's Manual, that "the former law shall not be changed except by a majority" and it is public policy that the majority should be positive and not merely ac. quiescent. The committee has considered the bill, and in the first test the committee recommendation should have the benefit of any mere acquiescence or indifference on the part of the senate.
Jefferson's Manual (30)–Order of Action. On taking up a bill reported with amendments, the amendments only are read by the Clerk. The Speaker then reads the first, and
puts it to the question, and so on till the whole are adopted or rejected, before any other amendment be admitted, except it be an amendment to an amendment. When through the amendments of the committee, the Speaker pauses, and gives time for amendments to be proposed in the House to
the body of the bill; as he does also if it has been re[*46] ported without amendments; putting no *questions
but on amendments proposed; ar when through the whole, he puts the question whether the bill shall be read a third time?
Note (22). In the senate practice, only the clerk reads amendments or other documents. See senate rule 54, page *39, for readings given amendments.
Order in Debate.
Jefferson's Manual (31)—Messages Recelved During Debate. Message are received during a debate without adjourning the debate.
Senate Rule 63. Recognition; debate. When a member is about to speak in debate or deliver any matter to the senate he shall rise in his place and respectfully address the chair, and upon being recognized, shall proceed, confining himself to the question under debate, avoiding personality.
Senate Precedent (19). Senator cannot speak without first obtaining recognition, nor interrupt another unless he yield. On Feb. 28, 1911, page 252, senate journal, Senator Kleczka, addressing the senate, was several times interrupted by direct queries from Senator Gaylord. Senator Whitehead rose to a point of order that before a senator could speak in the senate, he must address the president and secure recognition, and if one senator had the floor, another senator could not speak unless such senator yielded. The president (Lieut. Gov. Morris) held that the point of order was well taken.
Senate Precedent (50). Debate confined strictly to question. The following entry appears in the senate journal for February 5, 1913;
Senator Burke addressed the senate, discussing the sub- . ject matter of Res. No. 8, S.
The president called Senator Burke to order, stating that the debate must be confined to the question before the senate.
Senator Browne addressed the senate discussing the subject matter of Res. No. 8, S.
Senator Randolph rose to a point of order, that Senator Browne was not speaking on the question before the senate. The president (Lieut. Gov. Morris) held that the point of
order was well taken. [*47] * Senator Browne rose to a question of parliamen
tary inquiry, if the question whether the senate has jurisdiction in the subject matter of Res. No. 8, S., is not germane to the question, "Shall the senate resolve itself into a committee of the whole."
The president (Lieut. Gov. Morris) held that the debate upon the subject matter of Res, No. 8, S., was not in order.
Jefferson's Manual (32)—Debate in One House Not to be Quoted or Noticed in Other. It is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been said on the same subject in the other House, or the particular votes or majorities on it there, because the opinion of each House should be left to its own independency, not to be influenced by the proceedings of the other, and the quoting them might beget reflections leading to a misunderstanding between the two Houses.
It is highly expedient, says Hatsel, for the due preservation of the privileges of the separate branches of the legislature, that neither should encroach on the other, or interfere in any matter depending before them, so as to preclude, or even influence, that freedom of debate which is essential to free council. They are, therefore, not to take notice of any bills or other matters depending, or of votes that have been given, or of speeches which have been held. by the members of either of the other branches of the legislature, until the same have been communicated to them in the usual parliamentary manner.
Jefferson's Mannal (33)—Proceedings of One House not Noticed by Other Unless Mensaged Regularly. A report of a committee of the Senate on a bill from the House of Representatives being under consideration: onmotion that the report of the committee of the House of Representatives on the same bill be read in the Senate, it passed in the negative.
Senate Precedent (51). Reference to proceedings in other house out of order. On March 6, 1913, several senators made reference to the action of the assembly upon a bill similar to the one under debate. The president (Senator Martin) called the senators to order and ruled that mention in debate
of any action of the assembly was out of order. [*48] Senate Precedent (52). Reference to member of
other house out of order. On Feb. 2, 1909 (pg. 133, senate journal), in debating a resolution, Senator Marsh spoke of the action of the speaker of the assembly when the resolution was under consideration in that house. Senator Burke rose to a point of order that the remarks were out of order, quoting Jefferson's Manual. The president (Lieut. Gov. Strange) held the point of order well taken, and Senator Marsh retracted the remarks.
Senate Precedent (53). Not in order for statement by member to be messaged to other house. On Feb. 9, 1909 (pg. 203, senate journal), Senator Lehr asked to file a protest with a resolution and have the protest messaged to the assembly with the resolution. Senator Husting rose to a point of or.. der that such procedure was out of order. The president (Lieut. Gov. Strange) held the point well taken.
Jefferson's Manual (34)--Reading Papers or Speech in Control of House, It is an error to suppose that any member has a right, without a question put, to lay a book or paper on the table, and have it read, on suggesting that it contains matter infringing on the privileges of the House.
For the same reason, a member has not a right to read a paper in his place, if it be objected to, without leave of the House. But this rigor is never exercised but where there is an intentional or gross abuse of the time and patience the House.
A member has not a right even to read his own speech, committed to writing, without leave. This also is to prevent an abuse of time, and therefore is not refused but where that is intended.
Jefferson's Manual (35) Member Whom Debate Concerns to withdraw. No member may be present when a bill or any business concerning himself is debating: nor is any member to speak to the merits of it till he withdraws.
Senate Rule 64. Presiding officer to name first speaker. When any two or more members shall rise at the same time, the presiding officer shall name the person who is to speak
first. [*49) *Jefferson's Manual (36). If two or more rise to
speak nearly together, the Speaker determines who was first up, and calls him by name, whereupon he proceeds, unless he voluntarily sits down and gives way to the other. But sometimes the House does not acquiesce in the Speaker's decision, in which case the question is put, "which member was first up"?
In the Senate of the United States the President's decision is without appeal.
Sepate Rule 65. Member out of order. When a member is called to order. he shall sit down, and shall not speak, except in explanation, until it shall have been determined whether or not he is in order; and if a member be called to order for words spoken, the exceptional words shall be taken down in writing, that the presiding officer may be better able to judge as to whether they are in violation of the rules.
Jefferson's Manual (37) Procedure on Disorderly Word. in Debate. Disorderly words are not to be noticed till the member has finished his speech. Then the person objecting to them, and desiring them to be taken down by the Clerk at the table, must repeat them. The Speaker then nay direct the Clerk to take them down in his minutes: but if he thinks them not disorderly, he delays the direction. If the call becomes pretty general, he orders the Clerk to take them down, as stated by the objecting member. They are then a part of his minutes, and when read to the offending member. he may deny they were his words, and the House must then