USA > Michigan > Michigan official directory and legislative manual for the years 1905-1906 > Part 17
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
It is certainly true that remarks or articles read must be germane. It will be noticed, however, that the bill itself was not under discussion, but simply a motion to make it a special order. If the article had a bearing upon the question of the advisability of making the bill a special order, it was germane. This fact is not shown by the record.
104 .- A member of the minority presented, as a protest, a signed statement of the entire minority. Held, that a member under the constitution may exercise his right to protest against any proceeding of the House, but that the constitution does not con- template collective protests. H. J. 1893, p. 242.
If the protest had been made by the minority as a minority, the ruling would have been justifiable, for the reason that the Constitution does not recognize political parties or minorities. The record, however, shows that the protest was not of the minority as as a minority, but of members of the minority. It should have been considered as the individual protest of each of the subscribers, which, in reality it was, as is shown by the fact that each signer subsequently presented a protest similar to the collective protest.
105 .- A protest which makes a personal attack upon the minority, instead of ex- pressing the objections of the protestant, is not in order. H. J. 1893, p. 244.
See No. 61.
106 .- A protest which reflects upon the Senate in any proceeding had by that body is not in order. H. J. 1893, p. 255.
108
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
See No. 61.
107 .- A member was called to order for not speaking to the question. He insisted that his remarks were relevant, and being ruled out of order, appealed. The Chair was sustained. H. J. 1893, p. 360. See also S. J. 1901, p. 753.
A member is required to speak to the question under consideration. What is and what is not relevant in a given case must depend upon the particular circumstances, and must be determined by the presiding officer subject to an appeal to the House.
108 .- A motion to reconsider the vote whereby the House concurred in amendments made by the Senate was laid on the table. A subsequent motion that the Governor be requested to return the bill to the House was held out of order for the reason that the purpose of recalling the bill was to reconsider it, and such a motion, having once been made and tabled, could not again be made. H. J. 1893, p. 1554.
The ruling involves two points, first, that concurring in the amendments is equivalent to again passing the bill, and, second, that a motion to reconsider having been tabled, no further action can be taken. Therefore, a motion to reconsider the question of the amendments is a motion to reconsider the vote on the passage of the bill. This mo- tion, having once been made and tabled, nothing could have been done with the bill if recalled. While the ruling as to the second proposition was correct when made, it does not now hold good in the House, Rule 34 adopted in 1897 having changed the practice. The procedure in the Senate remains unchanged.
109 .- A rising vote showing that a majority of the members-elect had not voted hav ing been taken, a point of no quorum was raised, whereupon the speaker announced a present and not voting a sufficient number to complete a quorum. H. J. 1893, p. 1700.
Ever since the famous ruling of Speaker Reed in the Fifty-first Congress (Congres- sional Record, Vol. 21, Part I, p. 950,) by which it was held that a member, actually present within the view of the Chair, was present as part of the quorum, the power of the minority in Congress to stop all business by raising the question of a quorum has ceased to exist. It used to be possible for a minority to simply stop proceedings by re- fusing to vote and thus breaking a quorum. The decision worked a revolution in the practice of the House, overturning as it did the precedents of a hundred years, and aroused a storm of protest. It was firmly adhered to and now is quietly acquiesced in as a rule based on both reason and common-sense. It was soon after adopted as the Michigan rule and its efficacy in restraining filibustering is unquestioned.
110 .- A motion for the previous question was made as soon as the main question was stated. A point of order was raised that, there having been no debate, the motion was out of order. The chair refused to entertain the point while the motion for the pre- vious question was pending, but later entertained and over-ruled it. H. J. 1893, p. 1915.
The object of the motion for the previous question is to bring the House to an imme- diate vote. This is true whether or not there has been any debate on the question. The Speaker erred, however, in ruling that the point of order could not be entertained when first made. Even though the point of order was not well taken there is no reason why a question of order could not have been raised at such time.
111 .- The question being on the adoption of several proposed amendments to a bill, a point of order was raised that it was not competent for the House to order all of the amendments considered at the same time. The chair over-ruled the point and was sus- tained on appeal. H. J. 1893, p. 1996.
The objection must have been based upon the idea that each proposed amendment should constitute a separate question. This is not true, for there is no parliamentary objection to the adoption of several amendments by one vote, although any member has a right to demand a division of the question and require a separate vote on each amendment.
112 .- A member liaving proceeded with remarks at some length, the Speaker recog- nized another inember, wliereupon, the first member made the point of order that he had not yielded the floor,-Held, that the first member having taken his seat, the second was properly recognized. H. J. 1893, p. 1999.
If, as stated by the chair in making the decision, the member speaking had resumed his seat, there is no question that he had yielded the floor, and that the other member, when recognized, was entitled to the floor.
113 .- The consideration of a special order not having been completed, the chair announced that the time had arrived for a second special order and laid it before the House. Objection was made that the House should dispose of the first special order
.
109
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
before taking up the second. The objection was over-ruled, it being held that the House can change as well as make a special order. Decision sustained on appeal. H. J. 1893, p. 2074.
The decision that the second special order has the right of way, when the time for its consideration arrives, is correct. The reason given for the ruling that the House by fixing the second order changed the first is, however, erroneous. Obviously, it was pre- sumed that the consideration of the first order would be completed before the arrival of the time for the consideration of the second, for the House would not intentionally make two special orders conflict. The first order not having been completed within the time fixed must give way to the second, not, however, because the House has changed its first order, but because the consideration of this order has taken more time than was expected and cannot be allowed to encroach upon a second order which has a right to consideration at the time set by the House for such consideration.
114 .- The chair decided that a motion to suspend the rules had prevailed. A mem- ber appealed from the decision on the ground. that he did not think that two-thirds of those present had voted in the affirmative. The decision was sustained. H. J. 1893, p. 2156.
In this case there was no decision or ruling from which to appeal,-it was the simple announcement of a vote which had been taken, and the Speaker's declaration of what that vote was is final. It would be absurd to say that an appeal would lie and thus enable a member to secure a second vote upon the same question.
115 .- Pending the third reading of a bill, it was moved that the bill be read by sec- tions. A point of order was made that such a reading was not sufficient, but was over- ruled. The decision was not sustained upon appeal. S. J. 1895, p. 937.
A reading by sections, that is, the mere naming of the numbers of the sections, is not a reading of the bill. The point of order was well taken, and should not have been over-ruled. (See comment on No. 12).
116 .- The question being on the adoption of a concurrent resolution, a point of order was made that the resolution was not properly before the Senate under rule thirty-two of the Senate rules. The point of order was over-ruled. S. J. 1897, p. 1214.
The resolution was in the nature of a bill and had taken the same course. A similar resolution had been received from the House and referred to a committee. The rule in question precludes the consideration of a bill or joint resolution which is similar to one already considered and lost. In this case the similar resolution had not been lost and the rule, therefore, did not apply. The ruling is correct.
117 .- A resolution to pay the Sergeant-at-Arms of the preceding Senate for services in assisting in the organization of the Senate was declared carried on a viva voce vote. The point of order was raised that the vote should be by yeas and nays, for the reason that an appropriation was involved. The point was not held well taken. S. J. 1898 (ex. session), p. 11.
The decision was correct, for the reason that the resolution did not involve an appro- priation, but provided merely for the payment of an incidental expense from an appro- priation already made ..
118 .- Against a resolution to pay the Sergeant-at-Arms of the preceding Senate for services in assisting in the organization of the Senate, a point of order was raised that the resolution was not in order, for the reason that the Sergeant-at-Arms was a federal office holder. The point was held not well taken. S. J. 1898 (ex. session), p. 11.
It is certainly the right and duty of the Senate to pay, as an incidental expense, for services necessarily rendered in the organization of the Senate, no objection having been made at the time the services were performed. Furthermore, it was not within the knowledge of the Senate that the officer acting as Sergeant-at-Arms was a federal office-holder.
119 .- A concurrent resolution declaring it to be the sense of the Legislature that no change be made in the sugar bounty law was declared adopted in the Senate by a ma- jority of those voting. A point of order, that the resolution required the votes of a ma- jority of the Senators elect, was decided by the President not to be well taken, which de- cision was sustained upon appeal. S. J. 1899, p. 355.
The decision was correct, as the concurrent resolution did not contain matters of legislation, but merely sought to express the opinion of the Legislature.
120 .- Held that a motion to adjourn was in order pending a call of the roll. S. J. 1899, p. 758.
The decision is correct. The motion to adjourn, however, would not be in order after the roll call had been begun, until it had been completed and the result announced.
110
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
121 .- A motion to reconsider a vote by which the Senate refused to concur in the recommendation of the committee of the whole, relative to a bill, was held not in order. S. J. 1899, p. 979.
No reason for this ruling appears upon the face of it. The Journal, however, shows that a similar motion had previously been made and laid on the table and this undoubt- edly explains the ruling. It has been the practice in the Senate to consider that the laying of a motion to reconsider on the table precludes further action. This practice is convenient as a means of finally determining the question of reconsideration. It is more decisive than a negative vote on a motion to reconsider, as that motion might again be made within the period limited by the rules. The House has done away with the practice by rule.
122 .- Upon the question of the adoption of an amendment, the roll-call showed but fourteen Senators present and voting. One of several Senators present and not voting raised the point of order that a quorum of the Senate was not present. The President pro tem directed the Secretary to record as present and not voting such Senators as were actually present and had not answered to their names on the calling of the roll, and. finding that the total number of Senators present was sufficient for a quorum, declared a quorum present. S. J. 1899, pp. 993, 1207.
See No. 109.
123 .- A motion to reconsider a vote by which the further consideration of a bill was indefinitely postponed was held out of order. S. J. 1899, p. 1288.
Under the practice in American legislative assemblies, the only purpose of the mo- tion to indefinitely postpone is to suppress or reject the matter under consideration. Indefinite postponement in Michigan practice is considered absolutely final and the motion is not subject to reconsideration.
124 .- A motion to suspend the rules and place a bill upon its immediate passage having been declared carried, a point of order was made that the bill was not properly before the Senate for passage for the reason that two-thirds of the Senators present had not voted to suspend the rules: Held, that the point of order was not well taken for the reason that two-thirds of those voting had voted in favor of suspending the rules, and under the practice of the Senate, the number voting determined the num- ber present, no question being raised at the time that Senators were present who did not vote. S. J. 1899. p. 1586.
125 .- The Speaker declared that a motion to suspend the rules had not prevailed, for the reason that two-thirds of the members present had not voted therefor. An appeal was taken upon the ground that but two-thirds of those actually voting was necessary to suspend the rules. The decision of the chair was sustained. H. J. 1899, p. 210.
Since the Senate decision was made, that body has by rule (1901) determined that the number required to suspend the rules is two-thirds of those actually present. The House decision, that the number present is determined by the last roll call taken for the purpose of ascertaining that number, has since been followed in that branch of the legislature.
126 .- The announcement of the vote upon the passage of a bill having been delayed by numerous demands by members for the votes of other members, the House at length ordered upon motion that the vote be announced. It being evident, before the an- nouncement of the vote, that the bill had failed of passage, the member who intro- duced it asked leave to change his vote doubtless with the intention of moving to re- consider the vote by which the House refused to pass the bill. The Speaker decided that the House having ordered the announcement of the vote, it was not permissible for any member to change his vote. H. J. 1899, p. 1071.
According to the practice in American legislative assemblies, which conforms to the ancient practice of the House of Commons, a member has the right to change his vote before the announcement of the result. In this case the right was most improp- erly denied. The House could not order the vote announced. The vote was being taken by roll call. As long as any member desired in good faith to change his vote the roll-call was not completed, and, as nothing was then in order but the completion of the roll-call, the motion that the vote be announced was clearly out of order. Fur- thermore, the right of a member to demand the vote of another cannot be cut off by any such motion.
127 .- A demand for the yeas and nays cannot be entertained after a division is had and the result announced. H. J. 1899, p. 1582.
See comment on No. 13.
128 .- Several motions to adjourn and to take a recess having been made and lost, questions of order, motions to table the pending question and demands for the
111
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
, yeas and nays intervening, a motion to take a recess was held to be dilatory and ruled out of order. S. J. 1899, p. 1585.
The congressional practice requires the chair to rule out motions obviously intended purely for delay. The practice is designed to prevent a minority from stopping the business of the House by repeated motions, which it knows cannot be carried, and which its members make for the sole purpose of taking up time. The decision is a very proper one, and, while it is the only time the question has been raised, the ruling has doubtless established the Michigan practice.
129 .- Upon a question of personal privilege that the chair had refused to recog- nize a member, who arose for the purpose of presenting a matter of privilege. Held, that when a member has the floor another member cannot properly be recognized even to present a matter of privilege. H. J. 1899, p. 1865.
The reason for the ruling was that it had been the uniform practice during the session not to recognize a member while another had the floor. While this may have been the practice during the particular session, it was contrary to accepted parliamentary procedure. It is and has been from the early sessions of the House of Commons the accepted manner of procedure for a member, if he so desires, to arise in his place and address the chair while another is speaking, and for the presiding officer to inquire the purpose for which the member desires recognition. If it is a point of order, it may then be stated. If it is a question of privilege, it is for the chair to decide whether the question is one requiring immediate consideration. In either event, the member is entitled to recognition to make known his purpose. The chair, however, was not called upon to decide any question, in fact, the so-called decision was rather in the na- ture of an explanation.
130 .- The Speaker announced a message from the Governor, which was read. The Speaker then ruled that the subject matter, not being within the purview of the con- stitution, and the manner of discussion of said subject matter being in the form of a plea, the message could not be received by the House, and would therefore be returned to the Governor. H. J. 1899, p. 1984.
The ruling would seem upon the face of it somewhat arbitrary. Evidently the mes- sage was not considered proper to be spread upon the Journal, which may explain to some extent the action of the Speaker.
131 .- Upon a motion to take from the table a bill tabled pending passage, the pre- vious question was ordered. The motion prevailed, and the question being on the passage of the bill, a call of the House was moved. Held, that the motion for a call was out of order, the force of the previous question not being exhausted until the vote was taken upon the passage of the bill. H. J. 1899, p. 2279.
The decision is incorrect, being made, doubtless, under the impression that the ques- tion of the passage of the bill was the main question. It is very clear that the main question was upon the motion to take from the table, for the reason that each is inde- pendent of the other. The question of the passage of the bill could not possibly arise until the question of taking the bill from the table had been determined, and deter- mined affirmatively. The bill being upon the table the next stage through which it must pass in case of further action is the taking of it from the table. Then, the ques- tion being on its passage, the next stage is the taking of the vote upon it. It is estab- lished parliamentary law that the previous question has no operation beyond the main question, hence, the motion for a call of the House was in order.
132 .- The question being upon a motion to suspend the rules and the vote upon the question having been ordered and partly taken, a motion to commit was held out of order. S. J. 1901, p. 417.
The motion to commit would take precedence if made at the proper time. It is not parliamentary to interrupt the taking of the vote on one question to allow a second proposition to receive consideration.
133 .- Either house may amend an amendment made by the other. S. J. 1901, p. 643.
This is not only permissible under general parliamentary practice, but is expressly provided by rule four of the joint rules.
134 .- Of two bills introduced into the Legislature of 1901, one included all of the provisions of the other. When the former came up for consideration it was amended so as to be an exact counterpart of the other which had previously failed of passage. Held, that under the rules of the Senate providing that when a bill shall have been lost neither the same bill nor any other on the same subject nor containing similar
112
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
provisions shall be subsequently considered, the further consideration of the bill was out of order. S. J. 1901, p. 817.
Cushing says that it is a rule of parliamentary practice that no question or motion can regularly be offered upon which the judgment of the house has been expressed during the current session. The action of the Senate, one of the ways of indirectly suppressing a matter recognized by authorities on parliamentary law, was evidently taken for the purpose of defeating the bill without coming to a vote upon the question of its passage.
135 .- A point of order, that a motion to request a committee to report a bill is out of order because the committee may or may not comply with the request, is not good. S. J. 1901, p. 982.
The mere fact that the committee might or might not comply with the request is certainly no ground for a point of order.
136 .- A joint resolution for the relief of a certain person was held to appropriate public property for private use and to require for its passage a vote of two-thirds of the Senators elect. S. J. 1901, p. 1000.
If the joint resolution in reality was for the relief of an individual, there being no valid claim against the state, it certainly required a two-thirds vote for its passage. Many of these joint resolutions, however, simply authorize the Board of State Auditors to examine claims and to audit them if found to be good. For the passage of these, there may be some question as to whether or not a two-thirds vote is required.
137 .- The discussion of the merits of a bill is not in order pending a motion to sus- pend the rules and place the bill on its immediate passage. S. J. 1901, p. 1039.
While arguments upon the bill might tend to influence the vote upon the suspension of the rules, the bill was not before the house, and could not properly have been dis- cussed.
138 .- A motion to reconsider the vote whereby a motion to lay on the table a mo- tion to reconsider had prevailed was held out of order. S. J. 1901, p. 1049.
It is well settled practice in the Senate to regard as conclusive the tabling of a mo- tion to reconsider, and the motion is frequently made for the sole purpose of finally determining a matter. The procedure is supported by several Congressional decisions, but it is not now sanctioned by the rules of the Michigan House of Representatives.
139 .- A bill appropriating money for an exhibit at the Pan-American Exposition was held not to appropriate public property to a private use. S. J. 1901, p. 1118.
(See comment on No. 98.)
140 .- A minority report cannot be spread on the Journal until it has been received by the Senate, but the minority may protest and have the reasons for such protest entered on the Journal. S. J. 1901, p. 1123.
See comment on No. 35.
141 .- When a House bill amended by the Senate is retransmitted to the Senate, with a message that the amendments have not been concurred in by the House, the question is upon insisting upon or receding from the amendments and a motion for a committee of conference is not then in order. S. J. 1901, p. 1184.
As soon as the House refused to concur in the Senate amendments, a difference had arisen between the two houses and a motion in either house for a conference was in order. The ruling is not correct.
142 .- Under rule five of the joint rules, the initiative in the appointment of a com- mittee of conference, need not necessarily be taken by the House refusing to concur. S. J. 1901, p. 1185.
See comment on No. 141.
143 .- A motion to take from the table a bill just laid upon the table is out of order, there being no intervening business. S. J. 1901, p. 1194.
To hold the motion good would permit the taking of a vote upon a question already determined. This can only be done by a motion to reconsider, which is the proper motion in such a case.
144 .- A bill having been lost. a motion was made to reconsider the vote whereby it failed to pass, and a second motion having been made that the further consideration of the bill be indefinitely postponed, a point of order was raised that inasmuch as the bill had not passed, nothing was in order but its reconsideration. Held, that the point of order was well taken. S. J. 1901, p. 1532.
The bill, having failed of passage, was no longer before the Senate for consideration; consequently, a motion to indefinitely postpone its further consideration was out of order.
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.