USA > Michigan > Michigan official directory and legislative manual for the years 1903-1904 > Part 14
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85
21. The senate transmitted to the house a resolution described in the message as a "concurrent resolution," although headed with the usual formula of a joint resolution, i. e., "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Michigan." On motion to concur in the adoption of the resolution the point of order was raised that the resolution was a joint and not a concurrent resolution, and must take the course of a bill. . Held, that it was a concurrent resolution, and the motion to concur in order .- Bushnell's Appeal, H. J. 1859, p. 130. See also Bushnell's Protest, p. 187.
. Of course the words "Resolved by the Senate (the House concurring)," would have been the better form, but a concurrent resolution has no pre- scribed form.
Whether or not a resolution is required to take the course of a bill de- pends, not upon its form, but upon whether or not it contains proposed legislation.
22. Held, that a committee of conference may recommend amendments to such parts of a bill as have been previously agreed upon by both houses. -Clark's Appeal, H. J. 1850, p. 448.
This decision is incorrect. It is only those parts of a bill upon which the two houses have failed to agree that are referred to a committee of conference. Therefore the committee would have no authority to make recommendations relative to those parts of the bill which have been agreed to by both houses.
23. A conference committee having recommended certain new amend- ments, the question of order was raised that a committee of conference has no right to report, and the senate no right to concur in new amend- ments, which have not been the subject of disagreement between the two houses. HIeld, that the report of the committee was in order .- Isbell's Appeal, S. J. 1850, p. 425.
If by "new amendments" it is meant amendments to those parts of the bill concerning which there are differences between the two houses, the decision is correct. If by "new amendments" it is meant amendments to parts of the bill upon which the two houses have agreed, the decision is incorrect.
24. Held, that all votes given for a candidate who, on the day of the election, was a postmaster under the United States, were absolutely void in accordance with Sec. 6, Art. IV, of the constitution .- Sutherland v. Hoyt, II. J. 1853, pp. 26, 62 ; Morrow v. Horton, S. J. Feb. 24, 1891.
117
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS
While the two decisions cited seem to be in accordance with the plain reading of the constitutional provision, the two houses of the legislature have for a great many years uniformly decided the other way, with the single exception of the latter case cited. (Morrow v. Horton, S. J. Feb. 24, 1891). Both the house and senate have repeatedly refused to unseat a member because at the time of his election he held a United States, state or county office, as specified in section six, article four of the constitution.
25. The house having once passed upon a contested election case, refused to revoke and set aside its determination, although the supreme court had meanwhile declared unconstitutional the statute upon which the deter- mination of the house had been based .- HI. J. 1865, p: 1056. The same posi- tion was taken in the senate (S. J. 1855, p. 594), and that body also re- fused to adopt a resolution declaring it "the sense of the senate that no senator, the right to whose seat is involved in the resolutions reported from the committee on privileges and elections is entitled to vote upon the question of the adoption of either until the question of the right of each to his seat shall have been decided by the senate."-S. J., p. 595.
The constitution makes each house the judge of the election and qualifi- cations of its own members. There is no appeal from its decisions.
26. A senator has no right to change his vote on the record, after the journal has passed out of the possession of the secretary, on the ground that he voted under a misapprehension. - S. J. 1873, p. 941.
Certainly no senator has a right to change his vote on the record, after the vote has been announced, but it is difficult to see what is meant by the words "after the journal has passed out of the possession of the secretary." The journal does not pass out of the possession of the secre- tary at all, at least during the session. Any member who has voted under a misapprehension may explain the matter, and have his explanation entered on the journal.
27. The president pro tem. in the chair having voted as a senator when his name was called. gave the casting vote on a tie. An appeal taken on the ground that he could not vote twice-once as a senator and once as president pro tem .- was laid on the table .- Drake's Appeal, S. J. 1840, p. 370.
The president of the senate is not authorized to vote except in case of a tie. Every member of the senate must vote when required to do so. The president pro tem. as such is nowhere authorized to vote.
28. A division of the question of concurring in certain amendments recommended by a committee of conference was held not in order .- Britain's Appal, H. J. 1850, p. 449.
The report of such a committee cannot be amended or divided.
29. A motion to commit with instructions is divisible, and the question must first be put upon the commitment. If that does not prevail the question on instructions fails .- H. J. 1851 (Ex. Session), pp. 44, 46.
It is doubtful whether this ruling is in accordance with the best parlia- mentary practice. In the United States house of representatives it is held that this motion is not divisible.
30. A motion to strike out all after the word "Resolved," in a joint resolution is not divisible .- Fuller's Appeal, S. J. 1842, p. 92.
This motion is analogous to the motion that is frequently made relative to a bill-"to strike out all after the enacting clause." It is a motion, not to amend the joint resolution, but to defeat it, and is, therefore, not divisible. A motion to strike out any part of the joint resolution, less
118
MICHIGAN MANUAL
than the whole, would be a motion to amend and would take precedence of a motion to strike out all after the word "resolved."
31. The rules directing the galleries cleared and the doors closed when the senate goes into executive session, includes all in the chamber, except senators, president, secretary and sergeant-at-arms .- Hawkin's Appeal, S. J. 1840, p. 206.
This is a matter which is now governed by a senate rule.
32. A motion to indefinitely postpone the consideration of a motion to lay on the table a motion to take up a certain bill for consideration, was held not in order .- Summer's Appeal, S. J. 1840, p. 298.
The most direct method to accomplish the purpose aimed at was to vote down the motion to lay on the table ; hence the motion to indefinitely postpone the motion to lay on the table was not in order. It is a principle of parliamentary law that when a motion may be disposed of directly, as by voting it down, another motion to accomplish the same purpose indirectly is not in order.
33. After the third reading of a bill, and pending the vote on the pas- sage thereof, a motion to postpone indefinitely was held out of order .- Snow's Appeal, S. J. 1853, p. 71.
The holding was not correct. The most suitable time for a motion to indefinitely postpone is after the third reading of a bill.
34. Joint resolutions must take the same course as bills .- Pratt's Appeal, S. J. 1845, p. 48; Mason's, p. 97; Griswold's, S. J. 1853, p. 170.
Bills and joint resolutions are the same, so far as legislative action on them is concerned.
35. Held, that it is necessary for a minority to have leave of the senate before making a report .- Greenly's Appeal, S. J. 1840, p. 479.
A report of a majority of a committee is the report of the committee. The minority of a committee have no right to make a report, but as mem- bers of the senate are entitled to have a statement of their dissent to any proposition entered upon the journal.
36. A report having been accepted and adopted from a committee of conference, a subsequent report, purporting to be a minority report, was held to be out of order .- S. J. 1847, p. 478.
Precisely the same question is involved as in the previous decision.
37. A motion to exclude the report of minority from the journal was held in order .- Summer's Appeal, S. J. 1850, p. 27.
It should hardly require a motion to exclude, as it could not be printed in the journal, if objection was made, without affirmative action by the senate.
38. The point was raised that it is not competent for a committee, after the expiration of the fifty days' time for introduction of bills, to report to the house a substitute for a bill referred to them, which substitute is entirely irrelevant to the subject matter embraced in the title, as it is a new bill and cannot be introduced after the constitutional limit. Held, that the speaker has no control over the action of a regular committee of the house on the subject matter referred to them ; that it is competent for a committee to amend a bill as they see fit, and that it is competent for the house to concur or non-concur in their action when reported to the house .- H. J. 1869, p. 1329.
The comment on No. 8 bears directly upon the proposition.
119
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS
39. Matters of general legislation cannot be introduced in the senate after the expiration of the fifty days, in the guise of a concurrent resolu- tion .- Phillips' Appeal, S. J. 1869, p. 1481; Wescott's Appeal, S. J. 1897, p. 1128.
This decision is entirely correct, as the offering after the fifty day limit, and adoption, of a concurrent resolution containing matters of legislation would be in absolute violation of the constitution. Concurrent resolutions of this kind, offered after the expiration of the fifty day limit, have been, in some cases, adopted. Should any of these resolutions come before the courts, there can be no doubt that they would be held invalid. The president of the senate and the speaker of the house would be entirely justified in ruling out of order, after the expiration of the fifty day limit, concurrent resolutions of this nature, thus discountenan- cing attempted evasions of the constitution.
40. Held that the oath of office could not be administered to the secre- tary elect while a motion to reconsider the vote by which he was elected was lying on the table .- Loomis' Appeal, S. J. 1848, p. 11.
There is no apparent reason for this ruling.
41. The speaker called a member to order and directed him to take his seat, for alluding disrespectfully to another branch of the government .- Hay's Appeal, H. J. 1845, p. 413.
A disrespectful allusion to another branch of the government is not considered parliamentary. By the house rules, a member is now required to take his seat when called to order.
42. Held, that it is not in order for the house to entertain a resolution similar in import to one already passed by the house and transmitted to the senate .- Carter's Appeal, H. J. 1845, p. 390.
The better practice would be, at least, before permitting any action on a new resolution of similar import, to recall from the senate the resolu- tion previously adopted and transmitted.
43. A member in the course of his second speech on the same question was called to order. Held, that the point of order should have been raised when the member first rose to speak. As it was not, the member was entitled to the floor .- Cutcheon's Appeal, H. J. 1861, p. 1076.
Not being in order when he began to speak, the member was certainly out of order during all of the time in which he continued to speak. The decision was wrong.
44. A proposition to commit with instructions being before the house, a motion to commit without instructions is not in order, as the object sought could be more directly reached by dividing the question before the house .- H. J. 1870, p. 79.
As stated in the comment on No. 29, it is doubtful whether the motion to commit with instructions is divisible, but the same result can be reached by an amendment to the motion to strike out the instructions.
45. Held, that it is not in order for a member on the floor to speak of the "acts of a committee when in committee."-Greenly's Appeal, S. J. 1840, p. 479.
There is no reason apparent why a member should not be permitted to discuss in a proper manner the acts of a committee.
120
MICHIGAN MANUAL
46. The secretary having commenced to call the roll, all debate is out of order .- Etheridge's Appeal, S. J. 1840, p. 469.
After the calling of the roll has been begun by the clerk, the speaker should not recognize a member for any purpose, except to announce or change his vote, to demand the vote of another member, or to raise a point of order.
47. A motion to lay on the table a motion to take from the table was held not in order .- Summer's Appeal, S. J. 1839, p. 405.
See comment on No. 32.
48. Held that until a select committee is discharged, a bill and its report thereon are not in the possession of the senate and a motion to lay the same on the table is not in order .- Denton's Appeal, S. J. 1845, p. 252.
When a bill is reported to the senate it is in the possession of the senate and subject to its action. The act of reporting the matter referred to it discharges a select committee. The decision is incorrect.
49. A motion having been made to refer a bill and a substitute to a committee, a motion made pending that to lay the substitute on the table was held out of order .- Thompson's Appeal, S. J. 1849. p. 609.
The holding is wrong. The motion to table the substitute, if it had been allowed and had prevailed, would have carried with it the original bill. A motion to lay on the table takes precedence of a motion to refer, and was, therefore, in order.
50. The chair refused to entertain a motion to lay on the table a motion to lay a concurrent resolution on the table .- Summer's Appeal, S. J. 1850, p. 515.
See comment on No. 32.
51. A motion to suspend a rule is in order, even though the house is not on the order of "Motions and Resolutions."-Hawley's Appeal, H. J. 1849, p. 353.
This is true if the proposed suspension of the rules relates to a pending question.
52. A demand for the previous question was held out of order on . a motion to postpone indefinitely .- Chase's Appeal, H. J. 1857, p. 629.
The decision was correct under the rules of the house at the time it was made, but the motion to indefinitely postpone is debatable under the present rules, so that the previous question applies.
ยท 53. A motion for the previous question takes precedence of the motion for the call of the senate .- S. J. 1850, p. 431.
This ruling would not be correct under the present rules of the senate and house. Under rule forty-one of the senate and thirty of the house, a motion for a call would be in order at any time prior to the ordering of the previous question.
54. The senate having adjourned pending an appeal relative to receiving and entering on the journal a protest ; upon convening again, the presi- dent held that as the appeal related to a privileged question, it must take precedence of the regular order of business .- S. J. 1850, p. 434.
According to congressional practice a protest against the action of the house or senate is not properly a question of privilege. Questions of privi- lege are of the highest order and supersede all others. By our constitu- tion it is the right of any member of either house to have placed in the
121
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS
journal his protest as to any proceeding or resolution, but be must offer it at the proper time. But an appeal from the decision of the president to receive for entry on the journal a protest, offered at the proper time, is undoubtedly a question of privilege.
55. The senate corrected the journal of the preceding day in relation to a report of a committee of conference. Mr. Conger, as chairman of said committee, entered a "protest against the action of the senate in altering the journal by amending the report of the committee of confer- ence, contrary to the facts in the case, as unjust to the committee and an innovation upon all ordinary usages of legislative bodies." The senate then reconsidered the motion to correct and the same was lost .- S. J. 1858, p. 119.
The protest was, without doubt, justifiable, inasmuch as the action of the senate in changing the record, by virtually amending the report of the conference committee, was in violation of all parliamentary law and practice.
56. A portion of the previous day's proceedings may be expunged from the journal .- Cust's Appeal, S. J. 1845, p. 130.
"The right to expunge whatever it pleases from the journal of its pro- ceedings is one which can only be limited, like the right of expulsion, by the absolute discretion of the assembly ; and is not restrained by the con- stitutional right of a member to enter a protest thereon, or by the con- stitutional injunction to keep and publish a journal."-Cushing's Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, page 172.
57. A report having been laid on the table, held, that the same could not be ordered printed until first taken from the table .- H. J. 1859, p. 727.
There seems to be no reason why the house or senate cannot have printed anything which relates to matters under consideration by it. That a report was on the table is no reason why it could not be ordered printed. The ordering printed of a bill, resolution or report does not change its legislative status. It amounts simply to securing copies which the body needs in the transaction of its business.
58. Held, that a substitute for a bill, which was in possession of the committee of the whole, could not be printed until the committee had been discharged from the further consideration of the bill .- H. J. 1861, p. 173.
See comments on No. 57.
59. Held that papers which have been referred to a committee may be ordered printed by the senate before being reported back by said com- mittee .- Barry's Appeal, S. J. 1841, p. 285.
See comments on No. 57.
60. On the reconsideration of a certain motion, a senator declined to vote on the ground that he was not present when the vote was taken upon which the reconsideration was had. Held, that the motion to reconsider was a constituent aprt of the first motion, and he could not be required to vote .- Mason's Appeal, S. J. 1844, p. 341.
Every member in the hall, when the question is stated from the chair, must vote unless excused. It is hard to see what parliamentary reason there was for excusing the senator from voting.
61. A paper which is not confined to a discussion of the action objected to, but contains reflections on the house, is not a protest within the mean- ing of the constitution .- Chamberlain's Appeal, H. J. 1849, p. 411.
16
122
MICHIGAN MANUAL
A protest which contains reflections on the house is properly ruled out of order.
62. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the sergeant-at-arms was dispatched after the absentees is in order .- Carter's Appeal, H. J. 1845, p. 389.
Such motion is certainly in order, but a better motion would be to move that further proceedings under the call be dispensed with, and it would accomplish the same purpose,-unless the house desired to proceed under the call for the purpose of holding the members present, without desiring to send for absentees.
63. A motion to reconsider cannot be entertained after the bill has passed out of possession of the house. The proper motion is that the senate be requested to return the bill .- H. J. 1850, p. 210.
The house cannot take any action on a bill not in its possession.
64. A notice that a motion will be made tomorrow to reconsider a vote was held not to cut off an immediate motion to reconsider .- H. J .. 1861, p. 1370.
This ruling is correct. It is also true that a failure of the motion to carry would not prevent another motion of the same kind on the suc- ceeding day.
65. A motion to reconsider in the senate is not in order while the reso- lution is in possession of the house .- Mason's Appeal, S. J. 1844, p. 223.
See comment on No. 63.
66. A motion to reconsider a vote by which an appeal was tabled was held out of order .- Eldredge's Appeal, S. J. 1848, p. 405.
The reason for this holding is that a motion to lay an appeal on the table is, according to parliamentary practice, a motion to dispose of the appeal adversely, and is final.
67. A motion to reconsider a vote by which the senate refused to recon- sider another vote was held out of order .- Fenton's Appeal, S. J. 1846, p. 502.
This is so, because the most direct procedure would be another motion to reconsider the vote on the main question. To rule otherwise would be to allow an infinite number of motions to reconsider votes on other motions to reconsider, and there could be no final decision of any question.
68. A motion to reconsider is not in order after the bill has been sent to the house.
See comments on No. 63.
69. A resolution to allow the respondent in proceedings on a breach of privilege to withdraw his answers to the interrogatories propounded to him by the senate was held out of order, as the answer would form part of the journal and could not be withdrawn .- Mason's Appeal, S. J. 1845, p. 437.
The resolution was not out of order. It was for the senate to decide whether or not it would permit the withdrawal of the answers.
70. The official journal cannot be altered so as to record a member's vote on a question three days after the determination of that question .- H. J. 1862, p. 30.
See comment on No. 26.
71. A concurrent resolution containing matter not included in the gov- ernor's message to an extra session, was held in order and properly be-
-
123
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS
fore the house, because the right of the house to act upon concurrent resolutions does not depend upon the recommendation of the governor ; and the resolution having been received and acted upon by the house, the privilege of raising the point of order had been waived .- H. J. 1862, p. 30.
This decision is subject to criticism, because it is both inconsistent and wrong. If the matter contained in the resolution was subject to con- sideration without having been submitted by the Governor, the point of order would not have been good at any time. If the resolution contained matters of legislation, the point of order was well taken and good at any time, for the reason that it involved the validity of the resolution and not a method of procedure.
72. A member having offered for introduction a joint resolution under the order of "Motions and resolutions," after the expiration of the fifty days' limit for the introduction of bills, the speaker ruled the same out of order, on the ground that joint resolutions are considered the same as bills, by both the constitution and the rules of the house, and the receipt of either at that time would be the receipt of new business, and would be in conflict with the constitution .- Thorp's Appeal, H. J. 1879, p. 1036.
The resolution was very properly ruled out. See comments on Nos. 8 and 34.
73. The legislature of 1839 met in joint convention and was called to order by the speaker of the house, who continued to preside. On a motion to adjourn a tie vote resulted in each house. The speaker, who had voted with the representatives, on the announcement of the vote, decided, as presiding officer, that the president of the senate, being present, should give the casting vote .- Hawkin's Appeal, H. J. 1839, p. 175.
This is a most unusual case. It is difficult to understand why the speaker presided, the lieutenant governor being present, or why the speaker, acting as the presiding officer, did not declare that the motion, upon which a tie vote resulted, was lost, instead of calling upon the presi- dent of the senate to give the casting vote. It may be that the constitu- tion of 1835 and the rules and practice of 1839 would furnish an explana- tion.
74. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution by adding a section to stand as section 16 of article XVIII, having been put upon its passage, a substitute was offered for the whole joint resolution, to which substitute two amendments were made. A motion was then made to amend the substitute for the joint resolution by inserting in lieu of the proposed section 16 another section 16. Held, that the latter amend- ment was not in order, as it was a substitute for a substitute to a proposi- tion pending before the house, which substitute had been amended by the house, and the effect of the proposed substitute would be to entirely change the character of the one which has been partially agreed to by the house in its present form .- H. J. 1870, p. 132.
The ruling is correct, but the reasoning is bad. The real reason is that a substitute for a substitute is never in order.
75. A majority of the committee on elections having recommended the adoption of a resolution to postpone indefinitely the further consideration of the eligibility of certain members to hold their seats, and the minority having submitted a contrary report, a motion was made to adopt the resolution reported by the majority. A motion to amend by adopting the resolution reported by the minority was held out of order "on the ground that the majority resolution was simply a motion to indefinitely postpone, which was not susceptible to amendment, and must be decided without debate."
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.