Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

The number of committees will, of course, vary with the work to be done by a convention, but if all parts of a constitution are to be examined with care there should be a separate committee for each important subject. Separate committees will also be necessary to deal with questions which are at the time of great popular interest, because an effort will naturally be made to have these subjects dealt with in the constitution. For example, should a convention be assembled in Illinois, it would be appropriate to have a separate committee upon the initiative and referendum. The New York convention of 1894 had thirty-one committees; the New York convention of 1915, thirty committees; the Virginia convention of 1901-02, sixteen committees; the Michigan convention of 1907-08, twenty-nine committees; the Ohio convention of 1912, twenty-five; the Massachusetts convention of 1917, twenty-four. The Illinois convention of 1869-70 had thirty-nine committees, a number much larger than was needed. Of these committees six made no report whatever to the convention, and because of the lack of care in planning the scope of committees, several committees were considering and reporting upon the same subjects. A much more satisfactory distribution of the work could have been made in the Illinois convention of 1869-70 had there been fewer committees; for example, there were separate committees on canals and canal lands,` internal improvements, roads and internal navigation, which might well have been consolidated into one; and in several cases there were two separate committees to deal with closely related subjects, both of which were relatively unimportant from a constitutional standpoint. Upon the proper organization of committees and a proper distribution of work among them depends to a large extent the success of a convention.

The size of committees must, of course, vary. The number and size should be such that each member may have some committee service, but each member should not be burdened with service upon four committees, as in Illinois in 1869-70. Somewhat the same situation existed in the Ohio convention of 1912. The size of a committee must depend somewhat upon the function which it is to perform. For a convention there may be said to be three types of committees; (1) those on the formal business of the convention, such as committees on rules, printing, etc.; (2) those whose functions are largely technical, such as a committee on phraseology and style; (3) those whose function would be largely that of obtaining agreement upon broad questions of principle, such as might be to a large extent a committee dealing with the subject of municipal home rule. Of course, most committees will have duties of all three types, but some difference in size is justified. Committees of the first type should naturally be small; those of the second type may well be larger, but even for the third type committees of more than fifteen members are apt to work ineffectively. The average size of committees in the Ohio convention of 1912 was seventeen, and a number of committees had 20 or 21 members. Because of this the committee work was less effective than it might have been. There is a tendency to organize either a legislative body or a convention into too many committees and into committees

each of which is too large for effective work. In the New York Convention of 1915 a large number of the committees had seventeen members each, and in the Massachusetts Convention of 1917 most of the committees were composed of fifteen members.

Committees are, of course, organs of the convention, appointed for the puprose of maturing matters for consideration by that body. A committee should, therefore, be subject at all times to control by a majority of the convention, and should have no power (by failing to report upon any matter) to prevent its consideration by the convention. Abuse of committee power is not apt to occur in a convention, but the rules should be so framed as to prevent the possibility of such abuse. In the New York Convention of 1894 there was the following rule: "Whenever a committee shall have acted adversely on any proposed amendment to the constitution such committee need not report such adverse determination, unless requested in writing by the member introducing such amendment so to do and it was determined (by the committee) in the affirmative." However, in this convention any matter might be recalled from a committee by the majority action of the convention; and a similar rule for recalling matters from a committee existed in the Michigan Convention of 1907-08, the New York Convention of 1915, and the Alabama Convention of 1901-02. In the Michigan Convention of 1907-08, there was a rule that "all standing committees before reporting adversely on any proposal shall notify the member presenting such proposal when and where he may meet such committee to explain the same."

In the Ohio Convention of 1912, there was a rule which read as follows: "Any time after two weeks from the time when the convention shall have committed any proposal to any committee, a report thereon in the meantime not having been made by said committee, the author of such proposal may, when no other business is pending and in any order of business, demand that such proposal be reported back to the convention; and such demand when so made shall be deemed the action of the convention, and the proposal is at once before the convention subject to all rules of procedure as before. Provided, however, that this shall not apply to a member whose proposal has passed its second reading and has been referred (to the committee on arrangement and phraseology). The convention by a majority vote may demand the forthwith report of any proposal that has been committed to any committee."

In the Arizona Convention of 1910 committees were required to report upon each proposal referred to them within eight days after the day of reference, unless otherwise ordered by the convention. In Massachusetts in 1917 all proposals of amendment were required to be submitted to the convention by June 25, and all committees were required to file their reports upon such proposals of amendment by July 16. The New York convention of 1915 regarded it as sufficient. to require that "the several committees shall consider and report without unnecessary delay upon the respective matters referred to them by the convention." The Arizona rule is unwise. Upon any importan matter a number of proposals will be introduced and referred to a

committee. The committee in framing a proposed constitutional provision upon the matter should consider all the proposals, and should report upon the matter as a unit. Any rule requiring a report upon each separate proposal within a limited time would greatly handicap the work of committees.

The form of committee proceedings and of committee reports ought to be left to the committees themselves. It has been urged in some conventions that committees should confine their reports to recommended clauses or articles without giving reasons for such recommendations. Where a recommendation relates to a change in existing constitutional provisions explanation is, however, usually desirable and should be given. A committee report should in all cases indicate what changes in an existing constitutional provision are being recommended.

Committees have ordinarily been appointed by the president of the convention, and this is the more satisfactory arrangement. As has been suggested, partisanship should be absent from the deliberations. of a convention, but this, unfortunately, is not always the case, and where the person chosen as president is elected because of distinct partisanship the power of appointment is apt to be abused. In the New Mexico convention of 1910 the person chosen as president was a railroad attorney and apparently because of the fear that the convention might be charged with being under the control of corporations the appointment of committees was vested in a committee chosen by the convention itself.

Introduction of proposals: The committees must do the detailed work of the convention and each committee should have before it as soon as possible all of the proposals relating to the subject which it is to consider. In order to accomplish this purpose conventions have often definitely agreed that after a certain date no proposals should be entertained unless presented by one of the standing committees. In the New York convention of 1915 (which met on April 6) no proposed constitutional amendment could be introduced. after June 11, except on the report or recommendation of a standing or select committee. The Massachusetts convention of 1917 met on June 6, and proposals of amendments were required to be presented by the close of the day of June 25. In the Ohio convention of 1912 the rules made the introduction of proposals more difficult after the first two weeks of the session. Members will usually present their proposals as soon as possible, because early introduction may make a proposal more influential, but some rule is necessary in order that committees shall have all proposals before them in the early days of a convention.

Many convention rules have very properly prescribed the form in which proposals shall be introduced, requiring that all proposals be in writing, contain but one subject and have titles. In the Ohio convention of 1912 all proposals were required to be presented in duplicate.

Committee of the whole : With respect to the general conduct of a convention's work the committee of the whole has been found a convenient instrument. In the Alabama convention of 1901, where this committee was not employed, there was much wrangling over rules and points of order. In the Virginia convention of 1901-02 objection was made to the committee of the whole on the ground that its use would lead to repetition of debate upon each subject, an objection which finds support in the Kentucky convention of 1890-91, but this objection is more than counterbalanced by the simpler method of procedure in committee of the whole. A committee of the whole, completely unrestricted, is probably undesirable, but a simpler procedure may be had in committee of the whole, and the convention may at the same time adopt rules which place some limitation upon acting in committee of the whole. The rules of the Michigan convention of 1907-08 seem fairly satisfactory for this purpose. "The rules of the convention shall be observed in committee of the whole, so far as they are applicable, except that the vote of a majority of said committee shall govern its action; it cannot refer a matter to any other committee; it cannot adjourn; the previous question shall not be enforced; the yeas and nays shall not be called; a motion to indefinitely postpone shall not be in order; a member may speak more than once. A journal of the proceedings in the committee of the whole shall be kept as in convention." A similar rule existed in the Ohio convention of 1912. The important portion of this rule is that requiring that a journal be kept of proceedings in the committee of the whole. Stenographic reports should also be made of debates in committee of the whole, as well as of debates in the convention.

Limitation of debate: Most conventions have begun their work practically without limitation of debate, although the previous question has been permitted. In the Michigan convention of 1907-08 any member could move the previous question but must be seconded by ten members and it could be ordered by a majority of those present and voting. In the Ohio convention of 1912 a two-thirds vote was necessary to sustain the previous question. In the New York convention of 1894 several rules limited debate. The previous question could be carried by a majority vote, and the committee on rules could, when ordered by the convention, report a rule limiting debate upon a particular question.

Obstructive tactics seem to have been resorted to by the minority in the New York convention of 1894 and a rule was finally brought in and adopted denying the ayes and noes on formal and dilatory motions. The Michigan convention somewhat late in its session limited the length of speeches in committee of the whole, and the Illinois convention of 1869-70 found it necessary to adopt a similar limitation. In the South Carolina convention of 1895 the expedient was adopted late in the session of appointing a steering committee, to apportion the time and direct the work of the convention.

Convention debate should be free enough to allow adequate consideration of every proposal, but experience has shown that if a convention starts its deliberations without any limitations upon debate a large portion of the time is likely to be taken up with excessive debate upon the earlier questions presented, so that the later work of the convention must be unduly rushed. It is wise for a convention to impose a moderate limitation upon debate at the outset, and such a limitation should exist not only for the convention itself but also for action in committee of the whole.

In the Michigan convention of 1907-08 the first committee appointed was one on permanent organization and order of business. This committee was afterward made permanent. It reported the plan of committee organization and made other reports during the session of the convention. One of its recommendations, which was adopted, provided for a weekly meeting of the chairmen of committees, to be presided over by the president of the convention, "at which meeting the chairmen of the several committees shall report progress and consider such other matters as may be of interest in advancing the work of the convention." Such a plan, if properly carried out, should do much to unify the work of a convention. In any organization of a convention there should be some central organization which will effectively direct the work and prevent loss of time. Much of the usual loss of time may be avoided by careful consideration in the first instance of the rules under which a convention is to proceed.

Editorial committee: A committee on phraseology and style is perhaps the most important single committee of a convention. Practically all conventions have had a committee of this type but the name of the committee has varied. In the Federal convention of 1787 there was a committee on style, and in the Illinois convention of 1869-70 there was a committee on revision and adjustment. A recess has often been taken by the convention so as to allow sufficient time for the work of this committee. In the greater number of conventions the committee on phraseology and style has been merely a proof-reading committee, and in some cases fear has been expressed lest this committee change the sense of proposals adopted by the convention. However, a committee is needed to do something more than the mere editorial work of removing inconsistencies in sense and language. The work of a convention is necessarily made up from reports of a number of committees and the proposals presented will naturally lack consistency in draftsmanship. The committee on phraseology and style should serve in large part as a central drafting organ to give unity to the work of a convention.

In the Michigan convention of 1907-08 effective use was made of a central drafting committee. Proposals introduced by members were read and referred to the appropriate committee; when reported by the committee they were taken up in committee of the whole, and when reported upon by the committee of the whole, were referred to a com

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »