USA > Michigan > Michigan official directory and legislative manual for the years 1909-1910 > Part 61
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 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90
14. When the house adopts a substitute for a senate bill, and the senate concurs with certain amendments, the concurrence of the house to those amendments passes the bill .- Tucker's Appeal, H. J. 1840, p. 516.
The concurrence must be by yeas and nays. When the house has concurred in the senate amendments to the house substitute, every part of the bill as it stands has re- ceived the sanction of both houses.
15. A concurrence in the report of a conference committee by a majority of all the members elect is a passage of the bill .- Conger's Appeal, S. J. 1858, p. 107.
The vote on the report must be by yeas and nays, and it is not adopted unless a ma- jority of all the members elect in each house, respectively, vote therefor.
16. At the first session of the legislature, under the constitution of 1850, it was held in the senate that a motion that the second reading of a bill be by its title only, was out of order under the constitution .- Le Roy's Appeal, S. J. 1851, p. 20. This ruling was confirmed in the senate of the next legislature, by two decisions that the reading of a bill by its title only "was not a reading of the bill within the meaning of the provisions of the constitution."-Griswold's Appeal, S. J. 1853, pp. 12, 22. In the house of 1865, a motion having been made that the reading of a bill in extenso be dis- pensed with, on its third reading, and a point of order having been raised thereon, it was held that it is the right of any member to demand of the house, upon the third reading of a bill, to order that it be read by its title only .- Williams' Appeal, H. J. 1865, p. 1288. See also Williams' Protest, p. 1363, and Brockway's Resolution, p. 1655.
The practice for many years has been and now is to read bills the first and second times by title, and the third time at length, unless by unanimous consent the third reading be dispensed with. Upon third reading of bills the reading at length is never dispensed with against the objection of a single member. If the reading of the bill is dispensed with by unanimous consent, it is "considered read" and the journal shows it to have been read. This reading of bills the first and second times by title and the
633
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
third time at length is now considered a compliance with the constitutional provision which requires that every bill be read three times before the vote is taken on its passage and this legislative practice was held good by the supreme court (72 Mich. 446.), the reasons giyen being that the courts ought not to overturn a legislative practice of such long standing, and that to hold otherwise would invalidate a large portion of the statu- tory law of the state.
17. Under the operation of a call and after the sergeant-at-arms had been dispatched after the absentees generally, a resolution to send the sergeant-at-arms after certain members (naming them), who have remained absent since the beginning of the [extra] session, was held not in order, as its adoption would be resolving a second time to do a thing which the house had already ordered .- H. J. 1870, p. 151.
It is questionable whether this resolution should have been called out of order, for the reason that the previous motion that the sergeant-at-arms be dispatched after ab- sentees was evidently for the purpose of bringing in members who were near at hand, in order to get a fuller attendance at that time, while the purpose of the resolution was plainly not to secure the attendance of the two members named at that session, but to bring them in at a later session and find out why they had absented themselves during the entire extra session up to date. It, perhaps, might have been better had the reso- lution not been offered at that time, but after proceedings under the call had been dis- pensed with.
18. The senate having refused to order a call of the senate, a motion that the sergeant- at-arms be directed to request the attendance of a senator was held out of order .- Barry's Appeal, S. J. 1841, p. 258.
It is difficult to see what parliamentary rule or practice justified the ruling out of order of this motion, even though the action requesting the attendance of a member would have no force.
19. A motion for a call of the senate is a debatable question .- S. J. 1850, p. 432. The previous question would, of course, apply to this motion, the same as to other motions.
20. Under a call of the house, and after the bar has been closed and the sergeant- at-arms dispatched after the absentees, it was held that, as a quorum was present, the business of the house could proceed .- Chamberlain's Appeal, H. J. 1855, p. 191.
When a call of the house is occasioned by lack of a quorum, it is sometimes the prac- tice, upon obtaining a quorum, to dispense with further proceedings under the call, and sometimes to proceed with business under the call. But, the motion for a call is often for the purpose of securing a full vote on some pending question, and the fact that a quorum is present is well understood at the time the call is ordered. In such cases, after the vote on the pending question has been taken, it is the usual practice to dis- pense with further proceedings under the call.
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 resolu- tion, 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 prescribed form. Whether or not a resolution is required to take the course of a bill depends, not upon its form, but upon its subject matter.
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 a con- ference committee has 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 amendments, 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 amendments, which have not been the subject of disagreement between the two houses. Held, that the report of the committee was in order .- Isbell's Appeal, S. J. 1850, p. 425.
80
P
634
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
If by "new amendments" it is meant amendments to those parts of the bill concern- ing 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, H. J. 1853, pp. 26, 62; Morrow v. Horton, S. J. Feb. 24, 1891.
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 determination of the house had been based. - H. J. 1865, p. 1056. The same position was taken in the senate (S. J. 1855, p. 594), and that body also refused 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 qualifications 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 mis- apprehension .- S. J. 1873, p. 941.
Certainly no senator has a right to change his vote on the record, after the result 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 secretary 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 .- Drakes' 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 Appeal, 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 parliamentary prac- tice. 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 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.
1
635
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
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 .- Sum. mer's Appeal, S. J. 1840, p. 298.
These motions being subsidiary and therefore equal cannot be applied to each other. 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 accom- plish the same purpose indirectly is not in order.
33. After the third reading of a bill, and pending the vote on the passage 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 con- cerned. The constitution of 1909 provides that all legislation shall be by bill.
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. S. J. 1901, p. 1123.
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 members of the senate are en- titled 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 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 ex- piration of the fifty days' time for introduction of bills, to report to the house a sub- stitute 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 it; that it is competent for a committee to amend a bill as it sees fit, and that it is competent for the house to concur or non-concur in its action when reported to the house .- H. J. 1869, p. 1329.
There are two reasons why this ruling is wrong. First, because the subject mat- ter of the substitute was not germane; and, second, because it permitted the introduc- tion of a new bill after the expiration of the fifty day limit. This latter reason is not now applicable, since the abolition of the fifty day limit.
39. Matters of general legislation cannot be introduced in the senate after the ex- piration of the fifty days, in the guise of a concurrent resolution .- Phillips' Appcal, S. J. 1869, p. 1481; Wescott's Appeal, S. J. 1897, p. 1128.
This decision was correct at the time made, though it did not go far enough. The offering of concurrent resolutions embodying legislation should never be permitted. Of course, the decision so far as it applies to the fifty day limit no longer has any force.
40. Held, that the oath of office could not be administered to the secretary 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 par- liamentary. 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, II. J. 1845, p. 390.
636
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
The better practice would be, at least, before permitting any action on a new resolu- tion of similar import, to recall from the senate the resolution 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.
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 president or 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. This was but a piling up of questions and an attempt to do indirectly what could be done directly.
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 com- mittee. 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 post- pone 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 pre- vious question applies.
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 liouse. Under rule forty-one of the senate and fifty-one of the house, a motion for a call is in order at any time prior to the ordering of the previous question.
54. The senate adjourned pending an appeal relative to receiving and entering on the journal a protest. Upon convening again, the president 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
637
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
is not properly a question of privilege. Questions of privilege are of the highest order and supersede all others. By our constitution it is the right of any member of either house to have placed in the journal his protest as to any proceeding or resolution, but he must offer it at the proper time. But an appeal from the decision of the presi- dent to receive for entry on the journal a protest, offered at the proper time, is undoubt- edly 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 conference, contrary to the facts in the case, as unjust to the com- mittee 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 proceedings 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 constitutional right of a member to enter a protest thereon, or by the constitutional 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. See also H. J. Ex. session 1907, p. 29.
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, resolu- tion 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 .- HI. J. 1861, p. 173.
See comment 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 committee .- Barry's Appeal, S. J. 1841, p. 285.
See comment on No. 57.
60. On the reconsideration of a certain motion, a senator declined to vote on the ground that he was not present at the taking of the vote which was being reconsidered. Held, that the motion to reconsider was a constituent part 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 meaning of the constitu- tion .- Chamberlain's Appeal, H. J. 1849, p. 411; H. J. 1893, pp. 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.
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.