USA > Michigan > Michigan official directory and legislative manual for the years 1905-1906 > Part 16
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 | Part 86
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 meaning of the constitution. -Chamberlain's Appeal, H. J. 1849, p. 411; H. J. 1893, 254, 359.
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 pur- pose,-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 of the succeeding day.
65. A motion to reconsider in the senate is not in order while the resolution is in possession of the house .- Mason's Appeal, S. J. 1844, p. 223.
See comment on No. 63.
103
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
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, accord- ing 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 reconsider 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 num- ber 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 comnients 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 with- drawn .- 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 governor's message to an extra session, was held in order and properly before 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 consideration 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 reso- lution 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 in- troduction 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.
1
'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 offi- cer, did not declare that the motion, upon which a tie vote resulted, was lost, instead of calling upon the president of the senate to give the casting vote. It may be that the constitution of 1835 and the rules and practice of 1839 would furnish an explanation.
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 amend- ments 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 amendment was not in order, as it was a substitute for a substitute to a proposition 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 indefintely 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
104
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
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."
The decision was correct. The closing statement, however, that the question must be decided without debate is not true under the present rules, although true under the rules at that time.
76. A motion to lay on the table and print, having been made, held, that the question of printing may be debated .- H. J. 1851, pp. 433-4.
The motion ought not to have been permitted in that form, for the reason that it is not parliamentary to allow a question that is debatable to be united with one that is not debatable.
77. The house passed a bill and the senate adopted a substitute therefor. The vote on the adoption of the senate substitute by the house stood thirty yeas to twenty- six nays. The speaker pro tem. decided the substitute not concurred in, a majority of all the members elect not having voted therefor. An appeal was taken and the decision of the speaker pro tem. was not sustained by twenty-two yeas to twenty-seven nays .- Church's Appeal, H. J. (Ex. Session), pp. 68-76. The bill was ordered enrolled by the house and sent to the governor, and was returned to the house by Gov. Barry upon a statement of the facts .- Id. pp. 90, 96; also House Document No. 1, Ex. Sess. 1851.
When a bill originating in one house is amended in the other, the concurrence in that amendment is necessary to the passage of the bill and requires a vote of a major- ity of the members elect.
78. A bill was pending in the house to declare a certain railroad aid grant of lands forfeited by one corporation and to confer the same upon another by confirming the action of the state board of control in the premises. Held, by the speaker, that a vote of two-thirds of all the members elect was requisite to the passage of the bill under section 45, Art. IV. of the constitution .- Mercers' Appeal, H. J. 1881, p. 1563.
The bill undoubtedly had the effect of conveying public property to a private cor- poration, and hence required a two-thirds vote.
79. One of the six bills prepared by the tax commission of 1881, and submitted to the house by the governor in his message, being upon the order of third reading, Mr. Earle raised a point of order against the house at this time taking any action as to the bill in question, his objection being that it had never been properly introduced into the house; that neither a member nor a committee of either house of the legislature had presented the bill; that by the constitution of this state and the rules of the house, a definite method was provided for the introduction of bills; that that method had been entirely ignored, consequently all future action upon the bill would be entirely unauthorized, as it had no legal standing in the house. Held, that under the law creat- ing the tax commission the bill, with several others, came from the governor as the work of such commission; that the bill entered the house, with others, by special message opening this session; that the objection raised might be a question for the consider- ation of the house, but it was not an objection which could be sustained at this time by the presiding officer .- Earle's Appeal, H. J., 1882 (Ex. Session).
Had the point of order been raised at the time the bill was received from the gov- ernor, or when the first action was taken upon it in the house, it would have been good. Not having been raised until the bill reached the order of third reading, it is doubtful whether it should have been held to be well taken. It might be well to add that it was not the constitution, but a rule, which was violated, inasmuch as the constitution provides no definite method for the introduction of bills.
80. A motion "that the senate do now adjourn" was pending when a motion was made "that when the senate adjourn today it stand adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock." The president ruled the latter motion out of order. An appeal was taken, and the ruling of the president sustained .- S. J. 1885, p. 796.
No principle of parliamentary law is more clearly settled than that a motion to ad- journ takes precedence of all other motions.
81. The senate had voted to place a certain bill "on its immediate passage." The president refused to entertain several motions offered, ruling that nothing was in order but the reading and consideration of the bill in question. Appeal was made but the president refused to entertain it .- S. J. 1885, p. 1297.
A motion to adjourn is always in order, and it would seem that a motion to take a recess, but no other motion, would also be in order during the third reading. After the reading has been completed, any proper motion pertaining to the bill, such as a motion to lay on the table, to amend. to indefinitely postpone,-would be in order. There are few cases in which a presiding officer is justified in refusing to entertain an appeal.
82. A bill authorizing the board of control of state swamp lands to use not to exceed
105
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
a given number of acres of swamp lands for a certain improvement received 55 votes, and was declared passed. An appeal was taken from the ruling which declared the bill passed on less than two-thirds affirmative vote of all the members elect, under Sec. 45, of Art. IV of the constitution. The ruling of the speaker pro tem. was sustained. -H. J. 1885, pp. 1320-2.
The ruling seems to have been in accordance with the practice in passing bills of that kind, and vet bills making direct appropriations without the intervention of the board of control have been held to require a two-thirds vote. There is no resaon for the distinction.
83. A motion was made to discharge the committee of the whole from the further con- sideration of a bill, and claimed carried on a registered vote of 47 yeas to 43 nays. The question was raised, that to discharge the committee of the whole was to divert a bill from the regular course laid down by the rules, and was therefore a suspension of the rules and as such required a two-thirds vote. The speaker ruled that a majority vote was sufficient. An appeal was taken and the ruling of the speaker was sustained .- H. J. 1885, pp. 1789-40.
This decision, under the present rules, would not be correct. The rules provide that the bills shall be referred to the committee of the whole and that they shall be taken up in the order of their reference. To discharge the committee of the whole from the consideration of a bill is a suspension of the rules.
84. A bill passed both houses and was sent to the governor for his approval in regular order; shortly afterwards it was discovered that the bill contained a mistake. The house sent a respectful message to the governor, asking the return of the bill. Mean- time the governor had placed his signature to the bill and left the city. Upon receipt of the request the private secretary of the governor thought that courtesy demanded that he should return the bill as requested, which he did. When it came up under reconsideration the governor's signature was discovered, and the question raised that it was no longer a bill but an act; that having received the governor's signature it could not be reconsidered. There was no dispute as to the facts; all it lacked of being an act was the mere deposit in the office of the secretary of state, and a formal message of approval, which of course the governor was ready to make, because he had approved the bill itself .- H. J. 1885, pp. 1253-4.
A practice has grown up of requesting the return of bills from the governor for the purpose of amendment. This practice has no standing beyond courtesy, and is one which should seldom be indulged in, as it is surrounded with many difficulties, only one of which the case in point illustrates. This case is entirely out of the reach of par- liamentary law or practice. The whole trouble was occasioned by too much courtesy on the part of the governor's secretary; he should have replied by message that the bill had been signed.
85. The bill relative to the manufacture of oleomargarine, being on its final passage was declared passed on 55 affirmative votes. The question was raised that, as certain provisions of the bill forced the sale of property to the state at an appraisal, it there- fore required a two-thirds vote. The speaker ruled otherwise and an appeal was taken. The ruling was sustained .- H. J. 1885, pp. 1715-6.
This bill was very unusual in its provisions, in that it was an effort to do something that could not be done even by a two-thirds vote, and the courts so held.
86. A joint resolution extending the time for the completion of a railroad, and thereby continuing a land grant, was declared passed on a vote of 62 yeas. The question was raised that this was a direct vote of public property to private use, and that the resolution therefore required 67 votes under the constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 45. The speaker ruled a majority sufficient; an appeal was taken and the ruling sustained. H. J. 1885, pp. 1377-8.
The decision was not correct. See comments on No. 78.
87. A protest was offered in due form for publication. A motion was made that the protest be received but not published in the journal of proceedings. The president of the senate ruled the motion out of order because of Sec. 14 of Art. IV of the constitu- tion, which particularly gives any member of either house the right of protest and of having the same entered in the journal. An appeal was taken and the ruling sustained. -Edward's Appeal, S. J. 1887, p. 1422.
It was the member's constitutional right to have his protest spread upon the journal and a motion to deprive him of that right was very properly ruled out of order.
88. A member of the senate arose to a "question of privilege," stating that he wished to introduce a resolution calling for the investigation of a certain state institution. The chair ruled that to introduce such a resolution was not a "question of privilege," and that consequently the resolution was not in order. An appeal was taken and the ruling sustained .- Babcock's Appeal, S. J. 1887, pp. 1432-3.
A resolution to investigate the conduct of a state institution is not a question of privilege, and the decision is correct.
14
106
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
89. The senate sent a request to the house for the return of a concurrent resolution passed some days before relative to the April adjournment. Motion was made to grant the request. The speaker ruled both the request and the motion out of order, as they related to a matter which had been concluded some days before, and all action relating thereto being fully completed, it was not competent for the house to accede to the request. An appeal was taken and the ruling sustained .- Oviatt's Appeal, H. J. 1887, p. 1110.
As the resolution was to fix the time to which the legislature should stand adjourned, when it did adjourn on a given day still in the future, there seems to be no reason why, in accordance with the ordinary courtesy between the two houses, the request and mo- tion should not have been entertained.
90. The question was raised as to whether a bill affecting chartered rights acquired prior to the constitution of 1850, having passed the house by more than a two-thirds vote, should not have been declared by the speaker as having received the vote of two- thirds of all the members elect. Held, that notwithstanding the bill did receive the requisite two-thirds, it should have been so declared .- Lakey's Appeal, H. J. 1887, p. 862.
The fact that the bill received a two-thirds vote was sufficient, even though the speaker, in declaring the bill passed, did not state that it was by a vote of two-thirds of the members elect.
91. A bill having passed both houses in due form, was returned by the governor, without his signature, to the house in which it originated. The vote by which the bill was passed was then reconsidered in constitutional form, and the question then recurred: Shall the bill pass, the objection of the governor notwithstanding? The bill failed to pass, not receiving the necessary votes of two-thirds of all the members elect. A motion was then made to reconsider the vote by which the bill failed to pass, when the point of order was raised that a reconsideration was not in order at this stage of the bill's history-that the constitution, in providing for one reconsideration and no more, presented a bar to all forther action. Held, that the point of order was well taken .- Rumsey's Appeal, H. J. 1887, pp. 2266-7.
This decision seems to be in accord with congressional practice and precedents.
92. A protest against the action of the senate, to be such a paper as must be entered upon the journal under the provisions of the constitution, shall be in language which does not impute improper motives to the senators in taking the action .- Taylor's Appeal, S. J. 1887, p. 222.
The constitutional provision relative to individual protests cannot be held to re- quire the senate to enter on its journal insulting and contemptuous matter, under color of a protest; and the senate may insist that the protest contain nothing but the member's "dissent" and bare statement of his "reasons" therefor.
93. A motion was made to dispense with a further reading of a protest against the action of the senate in seating two contestants, on which motion the point of order was made that the contestants should not be allowed to vote on the question. Held, that the point of order was not well taken. S. J., February 24, 1891.
The cases having been decided by the senate, and the contestants seated, they were technically entitled to vote on all questions.
94. A motion was made that the senate return a house concurrent resolution. The point of order was raised that, inasmuch as a resolution has nothing tangible in its character, it cannot be recalled; and further, that it is contrary to the practice of former legislatures. Held, that anything sufficiently tangible to be submitted to the senate should be sufficiently so for its return, and that as the constitution requires concurrent resolutions to be submitted to the executive, they must be considered tangible .- H. J., February 6, 1891.
The practice as to the return of concurrent resolutions had not been definitely set- tled prior to this decision, for such action is seldom taken. The holding is correct.
95. Against a resolution that the committee on engrossment and enrollment be discharged from further consideration of a house bill, the point of order was raised that "the resolution was not in order," which point of order the speaker ruled not well taken .- H. J., March 26, 1891.
. The speaker was correct in his ruling, for the house had an undoubted right to recall the bill from the committee.
96. The speaker declared passed on a majority vote a bill authorizing and directing the auditor general of the state to credit to the county of Muskegon certain delinquent taxes. A point of order was raised that the bill, under the provisions of section 45 of article IV of the constitution, required the assent of two-thirds of the members elect. The speaker ruled the point not well taken .- H. J., April 23, 1891.
The only question involved is whether or not the bill appropriated money for a pri- vate or local purpose.
107
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
97. The house having under consideration a bill to provide for the improvement of the highway on the town line between two townships, and to appropriate state swamp land for that purpose, the speaker announced the bill passed on a majority vote. A point of order was raised that the bill came under the provision of the constitution relative to the appropriation of public property for a private or local purpose. The speaker held the point well taken .- H. J., May 8, 1891.
See comment on No. 96.
98. The house having under consideration a bill to make an appropriation for an exhibit of the manufactures and products of the state at the World's Exposition, in Chicago, the speaker announced that the bill had passed, a majority of all the members elect having voted therefor. The point of order was raised that this appropriation was within the meaning of the constitutional provision which requires a two-thirds vote. The speaker ruled the point of order not well taken .- H. J., June 3, 1891.
This appropriation was clearly not one for a private or local purpose; hence the ruling of the speaker was correct.
99. During the special session of 1891, there was offered a resolution, providing for the adoption of rules. A point of order was raised that the rules of the regular session were still in force. Held, that the point was not well taken, inasmuch as the senate had adopted no rules for the special session and was acting under accepted parliamentary law .- S. J., Aug. 5, 1892.
The decision is wrong. At the beginning of the session of 1891, rules were adopted for "this senate." Those rules were in force during the existence of that senate, whether convened in regular or special session.
100 .- Under the head of motions and resolutions, it is in order to move to discharge the committee of the whole from the further consideration of a bill. Decision sus- tained on appeal. S. J. 1893, p. 967.
The point of order was doubtless based on the idea that, inasmuch as the rules pro- vide that bills shall be referred to the committee of the whole and there considered in their order, a motion to take a bill from the committee is a violation of the rules and consequently not in order. While it is true that the motion amounted to a suspension of the rules, it was not out of order.
101 .- A protest must be consistent with the facts as shown by the Journal. S. J. 1893, p. 988.
The Journal is conclusive evidence of the proceedings of the House. A protest, therefore, to any action taken by the House must be an objection to or remonstrance against the proceeding as it is shown in the record.
102 .- A Senator, in debate, must avoid the use of language reflecting on the Senate. The word "villainy" is objectionable. S. J. 1893, p. 1318.
This ruling needs no comment, as it is so clearly in accordance with all parliamentary practice.
103 .- While debating a motion to make a bill a special order, a Senator attempted to read from a newspaper an article concerning the action of the Senate relative to an- other bill. A point of order was raised and held well taken. Decision sustained upon appeal. S. J. 1893, p. 1353.
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.