case, which seems to cover the principle involved, is found in Volume 3, Section 2598, of the Precedents. Of course the body itself may change its journal at any time, may even make it fail to record a transaction which took place, although it ought not to do the latter." Joint Precedent (2). Senator has been excused from voting for United States senator. On January 27, 1897 (page 61, senate journal) in joint convention for the election of United States senator, Senator McMullen was excused from voting. Joint Precedent (3). In joint convention for election of United States senator, no motion to proceed to vote is required or in order. Jan. 27, 1909 (pg. 95, senate journal), Senator Owen moved that the joint session proceed to ballot for United States senator. Senator Husting rose to a point of order saying, "The motion is out of order; the statute prescribes the method [*83] by which a *United States senator shall be elected. The statute prescribes the order of proceeding and nothing intervenes between the convening of the joint assembly and the vote; everything else is out of order.", The president (Lieut. Gov. Strange) held the point of order well taken. Joint Precedent (4). Members must remain at seats during vote. On Jan. 28, 1909 (pg. 111, senate journal), in joint convention, the president (Lieut. Gov. Strange) ruled that all members must remain at their seats during voting by roll. Joint Precedent (5). Those not members are not permitted to enter upon the floor to endeavor to influence proceedings. In joint convention Jan. 28, 1909 (pg. 112, senate journal). Joint Precedent (6). Points of order during voting are deelded peremptorily. In joint convention Feb. 9, 1909 (pg. 208, senate journal). In joint convention Feb. 10, 1909 (pg. 228, senate journal). In joint convention March 1, 1909 (pg. 359, senate journal). Joint Precedent (7). Upon roll call showing lack of quorum president has declared joint convention dissolved. March 1 (pg. 359, senate journal). See also March 2 (pg. 367). Joint Rule 2. Committees of conference. In all cases of disagreement between the senate and assembly on amendments, adopted by either house to a bill, memorial or resolution passed by the other house, a committee of conference consisting of three members from each house may be requested by either house, and the other house shall appoint a similar committee. The usual manner of procedure is as follows: The senate, for instance, passes a bill and it is duly messaged to the assembly, which body adopts an amendment to the bill and concurs in it as amended, returning the same, with record of the action of the assembly to the senate; the senate refuses to concur in the assembly amendment and so notifies the assembly; the assembly adheres to its amendment and asks for a committee of conference, and appoints such committee on the part of the assembly, and this action is reported to the senate, whereupon, a like committee is appointed by the senate. The joint committee shall, at a convenient hour agreed upon meet and state to each other, verbally or in writing, the reason of their respective houses for or against the disagree[*84] ment, and *confer thereon, and shall report to their respective houses such agreement as they may arrive at, if any, and if not the fact of a disagreement. The house having possession of the bill at the time the conference report is made shall first act upon such report, if an agreement is reported, and duly message the same to the other house, together with the bill, which if the conference report be concurred in and the bill concurred in as amended, shall be the bill that is finally passed. Note (32). This rule leaves the procedure indefinite in conducting conferences, and in action on conference reports. A joint resolution was adopted by the senate in 1913, amending the rule to read as follows: "In all cases of disagreement between the senate and assembly on amendments, a committee of conference may be requested by the house in possession of the papers. The request, with the papers, shall be at once messaged to the other house. The message shall receive immediate consideration in the other house, and a committee of conference shall be agreed to. The conference committee shall consist of three managers for each house, and each house shall be notified by message of the managers for the other house. "The managers of the conference shall confine their report to the differences between the two houses committed to them. If the disagreement is upon simple amendments, they shall confine their report to the substance of such amendments. If the disagreement is upon a substitute amendment, they shall confine their report to the differences between the bill or resolution and the substitute. "The conference report shall be signed by at least a majority of the managers for each house and shall be presented to each house. A manager may be recorded as dissenting, but shall not present a minority report. The papers shall accompany the report to the house which agreed to the conference and the report shall be placed upon the next calendar. Action on the report should be messaged, with the papers, to the other house at once. The conference report shall not be acted upon by the house that requested the conference until notice of the action of the other house and the papers shall be received by message, but may be considered at once upon receipt of such message. "Conference reports may be presented under any order of business. The question upon adoption shall be indivisible, and the adoption of the report shall be the only action necessary to pass the bill or resolution in the form recommended by the committee of conference. Conference reports may be amended only by joint resolution. "If the conference report recommends no change in the position of one house, action by that house on the report shall be unnecessary and the papers shall accompany the report to the other house." [*85] This embodies the practice in Congress, except in the one important particular that enabled the use of the conference as a tool of the majority organization to force legislation without opportunity for amendment. In congress, if the difference is upon a substitute, the whole subject is opened up, and the conference may report out any kind of a bill it desires, even incorporating provisions that have been rejected by both houses, and the indivisibility of the report compels the passage of these provisions. This feature is eliminated in the rule proposed by the senate by confining the conference in all instances, when the disagreement is upon a substitute as well as when it is upon simple amendments, to the absolute differences between the houses, so that the principle of conference may then be carried out by making the report indivisible without subjecting the conference to the abuse seen in Congress. The assembly, however, nonconcurred in the senate amendment to the rule, and it remains in its old form. Jefferson's Manual (59) —Only Those Favoring the Matter Appointed on Committee. Those who take exceptions to some particulars in the bill are to be of the committee, but none who speak directly against the body of the bill; for he that would totally destroy will not amend it, or, as is said, the child is not to be put to a nurse that cares not for it. It is therefore a constant rule "that no man is to be employed in any matter who has declared himself against it." And when any member who is against the bill hears himself named of its committee, he ought to ask to be excused. Thus, March 7, 1606, Mr. Hadley was, on the question being put, excused from being of a committee, declaring himself to be against the matter itself. Note (33). The committee for each house should represent the views of that house. Joint Rule 3. A nonconcurred in amendment reconsidered. Whenever an amendment has been nonconcurred in by the other house, any member may move to recede from such amendment. If the motion prevail such amendment shall thereby be reconsidered and rejected, and the bill or amendment to which said amendment had been adopted by the house shall thereby be passed or concurred in, as the case may be, so that no further action shall be required thereon in either house. [*86] Jefferson's Manual (60)—Amendments between the Houses. A motion to amend an amendment from the other House takes precedence of a motion to agree or disagree. A bill originating in one House is passed by the other with an amendment. The originating House agrees to their amendment with an amendment. The other may agree to their amendment with an amendment, that being only in the 2d and not the 3d degree; for, as to the amending House, the first amendment with which they passed the bill is a part of its text; it is the only text they have agreed to. The amendment to that text by the originating House, therefore, is only in the 1st degree, and the amendment to that again by the amending House is only in the 2d, to wit, an amendment to an amendment, and so admissible. Just so, when, on a bill from the originating House, the other, at its second reading, makes an amendment; on the third reading this amendment is become the text of the bill, and if an amendment to it be moved, an amendment to that amendment may also be moved, as being only in the 2d degree. When either House, e. g., the House of Commons, sends a bill to the other, the other may pass it with amendments. The regular progression in this case is, that the Commons disagree to the amendment; the Lords insist on it; the Commons insist on their disagreement; the Lords adhere to their amendment; the Commons adhere to their disagreement. The term of insisting may be repeated as often as they choose to keep the question open. But the first adherence by either renders it necessary for the other to recede or adhere also; when the matter is usually suffered to fall. Latterly, however, there are instances of their having gone to a second adherence. There must be an absolute conclusion of the subject somewhere, or otherwise transactions between the Houses would become endless. The term of insisting, we are told by Sir John Trevor, was then (1679) newly introduced into parliamentary usage, by the Lords. It was certainly a happy innovation, as it multiplies the opportunities of trying modifications which may bring the Houses to a [87] concurrence. Either House, however, is free to pass over the term of insisting, and to adhere in the first instance, but it is not respectful to the other. In the ordinary parliamentary course, there are two free conferences, at least, before an adherence. Either House may recede. from its amendment and agree to the bill; or recede from its disagreement to the amendment, and agree to the same absolutely, or with an amendment; for here the disagreement and receding destroy one another, and the subject stands as before the disagreement. But the House cannot recede from or insist on its own amendment, with an amendment: for the same reason that it cannot send to the other House an amendment to is own act after it has passed the act. They may modify an amendment from the other House by ingrafting an amendment on it, because they have never assented to it; but they cannot amend their own amendment, because they have, on the question, passed it in that form. Nor where one House has adhered to their amendment, and the other agrees with an amendment, can the first House depart from the form which they have fixed by an adherence. [Note: Briefly defined: Under Jefferson's Manual to insist is to urge upon the other house concurrence in the position of the house insisting-to adhere is an irrevocable decision. and the other house must recede and accept the position of the house adhering, or the matter fall.] Where questions are perfectly equivalent, so that the negative of the one amounts to the affirmative of the other, and leaves no other alternative the decision of the one concludes necessarily the other. Not so in questions of amendments between the two Houses. A motion to recede being negatived, does not amount to a positive vote to insist, because there is another alternative, to wit, to adhere. A bill originating in one House is passed by the other with an amendment. A motion in the originating House to agree to the amendment is negatived. Does there result from this a vote of disagreement. or must the question on disagreement be expressly voted? The question respecting amendments from another House are-1st, to agree; 2d, disagree; 3d, recede; 4th, insist; 5th, adhere. [*88] 1st. To agree. 3d. To recede. Either of these concludes the other necessarily, for the positive of either is exactly the equivalent of the negative of the other, and no other alternaative remains. On either motion amendments to the amendment may be proposed; e. g., if it be moved to disagree, those who are for the amendment have a right to propose amendments, and to make it as perfect as they can, before the question of disagreeing is put. You may then either insist or adhere. You may then either recede or ad- You may then either recede or Joint Rule 4. Joint committee hearings. Joint hearings before the corresponding committees of the two houses may be held upon agreement between the chairmen of the two committees, who shall give three days' notice to the members of their respective committees of the time and place of such hearings. Such joint hearings shall take the place of separate hearings, and shall be final unless the house where the bill is pending shall order a further hearing before its own committee. [*89] Joint Rule 5. Chairman of joint committee. In joint committees standing or select, the chairman of the senate committee shall be chairman of the joint committee. *Jefferson's Manual (63)—How Joint Committees Act. It appears that on joint committees of the Lords and Commons, each committee acted integrally in the following instances: 7 Grey, 261, 278, 285, 338; 1 Chandler, 357, 462. In the following instances it does not appear whether they did or not: 6 Grey, 129; 7 Grey, 213, 229, 321. Note: The practice in the Wisconsin Legislature is for a joint committee to act integrally, not the committee of each house composing the joint committee. Senate Precedent (112). Either house may instruct joint committee as to papers referred to such committee by the house lustructing. On May 26, 1909 (pg. 874, senate journal), a resolution was introduced instructing the joint committee on Claims to report without delay two bills referred to the joint committee by the senate. Discussion upon the power of the senate to instruct a joint committee arose and later in the day the resolution was withdrawn upon agreement by the committee to bring in the bills. On the following day (pg. 890, senate journal), the following entry appears: "In order to settle a question of parliamentary practice which came up in the senate yesterday, Senator Sanborn asked to have the following telegrams printed in the journal: Asher C. Hinds, Clerk of Speaker's Table, Washington, D. C. Madison, Wis., May 26, 1909. Can senate by senate resolution ask a joint committee to report a senate bill which has been referred to it by the senate? We would like answer before evening. Room 417, Capitol. C. McCarthy, Madison, Wis. C. McCarthy. Washington, D. C., May 26, 1909. A joint committee may be instructed by the two houses acting concurrently, or by either house acting independently. Asher C. Hinds. Senator Whitehead said: The interrogatory addressed to Mr. Hinds did not specify a joint committee created under a statute, so that the particular point of the controversy before the senate yesterday has not been settled by the answer of Mr. Hinds." Note. It would seem that regardless of whether the committee were created by statute or by rule, that reference of papers by either house to a committee did not place those papers beyond the jurisdiction of that house. On many joint committees the committee from each house acts integrally, although the practice on the joint committee on Claims has been and is now for the entire committee to act integrally. [*90] Joint Rule 6. Record of committee proceedings. 1. The chairman or acting chairman of each committee of the legislature shall keep, or cause to be kept, a record, in which there shall be entered: (a) The time and place of each hearing, and of each meeting of the committee. (b) The attendance of committee members at each meeting. (c) The name of each person appearing before the committee, with the name of the person, persons, firm or corporation in whose behalf such appearance is made. (d) The vote of each member on all motions, bills, resolutions and amendments acted upon. 2. Such record shall be read and approved before the expiration of ten days after each committee meeting, or at the next regular meeting of the committee. 3. Every committee hearing shall be open to the public. 4. There shall be filed, in the proper envelope, with every bill or resolution reported upon, a sheet containing the foregoing information as to such bill or resolution, with a duplicate thereof to be filed by the chief clerk numerically by the number of the bill in such form to be most accessible for the use of the members and the public, during the session and at the end thereof in the office of the secretary of state. Note. This rule is operating for the first time at this session. It was adopted as part of the movement for more publicity in legislation, which began in Wisconsin with the passage, several years ago, of the law which required paid lobbyists to register with the secretary of state, appear only in formal argument before committees or by formal brief, refrain from approaching members individually, and file expense accounts. The proceedings of the legislature of 1913 are subject to a great deal of publicity not heretofore had, because of this new rule which requires public record of all business in committee. The citadel in congress of those whose legislative desires are apt to be opposed to public wish is the secret caucus and the executive commit[*91] tee session, of the proceedings of which the public has no knowledge and of which there is no official record kept. No semblance of working under cover remains in the Wisconsin legislature. Every move is a record, and every member assumes full responsibility to the people for the part he plays. Joint Rule 7. Form of Bills. 1. All bills shall be typewritten or printed on paper eight and one-half by eleven inches, shall be in triplicate, shall not be folded, and shall |