USA > Michigan > Michigan official directory and legislative manual for the years 1909-1910 > Part 64
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
It may seem somewhat arbitrary to deprive a member of the floor, when he is con- ducting himself in accordance with the rules. The question is, however, one which involves the time of the house, and when it is apparent to every one that that time is not being used in good faith, but is being used simply to obstruct the business of the house, it is the duty of the speaker to see that the transaction of business is proceeded with, even if it becomes necessary to rule off the floor a member, who is talking against time.
148. A substitute for a substitute is not in order .- S. J. 1903, p. 708.
See comment on No. 3.
149. A bill reported by a committee without recommendation need not be referred to the committee of the whole under the rules .- S. J. 1903, p. 708.
The rule requires that all bills when reported shall be referred to the committee of the whole, and would seem to apply to this case. In the absence of express provision, the bill would not be placed on the general order without being ordered there, but would be subject to any action the senate might wish to take.
150. A point of order that an amendment proposed in committee of the whole and rejected cannot be proposed on the final passage of the bill is not well taken .- S. J. 1903, p. 777.
The amendment is before the senate for the first time, the proceedings in committee of the whole not being the proceedings of the senate, and is consequently not out of order.
151. A bill appropriating money for the purpose of making an exhibit at the Louisi- ana Purchase Exposition does not appropriate public property for a private purpose, and does not require a two-thirds vote for its passage. (Opinion of Attorney General.) -S. J. 1903, p. 795.
See comment on No. 98.
152. Pairs are not recognized by the rules and therefore cannot be made .- S. J. 1903, p. 955.
Pairs in congress are permitted and regulated by the rules, but neither the Michigan house or senate rules make any provision for them.
649
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
153. A second motion to reconsider may be made, one having been made and lost. -H. J. 1903, p. 1035; H. J. 1905, p. 1322.
See house rule No. 34.
154. The fact that a bill, if it became a law, would be unconstitutional is no ground for a point of order .- H. J. 1903, p. 1885.
While, strictly speaking, the question is not one of procedure, and, consequently .. not one upon which to base a point of order, the speaker is doubtless justifiable in ruling out a bill which is clearly unconstitutional.
155. The question being on the passage of a bill, a motion relative to another bill was held out of order .- H. J. 1903, p. 1912.
A question under consideration should be disposed of before another is taken up. 156. The report of a committee recommending that a bill be printed is such a re- port as places the bill before the senate for other consideration .- S. J. 1905, p. 100.
The ruling is not good. The recommendation that a bill be printed is not in reality a report, although called such. If the senate does not concur in the recommendation, the bill still maintains its status and remains in the hands of the committee for further consideration.
157. The report of a minority of a committee is not in order .- S. J. 1905, p. 967. See comment on No. 35.
158. A bill which affects the charter of a city, without directly amending or re- pealing it, requires a notice for its introduction .- S. J. 1905, p. 1403.
The ruling is right in principle, but is not without its practical difficulties. It would be hard many times to determine whether a bill impliedly amends a charter. The rule itself literally construed would not seem to require a notice in such a case.
159. Held, that a bill appropriating money for the state agricultural society is not one appropriating public money for private purposes, and requires but a majority vote for its passage .- S. J. 1905, p. 1609.
This question here is similar to those raised in Nos. 98, 139 and 151, and was decided according to precedent. After the adjournment of the legislature, however, an in- junction issued from the Saginaw circuit court, restraining the auditor general and state treasurer from paying out any money under the provisions of the act, for the reason that the bill was not passed by the two-thirds vote required by the constitution.
160. A title and an enacting clause is not a bill, and cannot be introduced as such. -H. J. 1905, p. 172.
The ruling is a very proper one. Under the operation of the fifty day limit the custom had grown up of introducing "skeleton" bills, and afterward completing them, but this ruling has put an end to the practice.
161. A recess cannot be taken while proceeding under a call of the house .- H. J. 1905, p. 609.
Members would not be permitted to leave the house, if a recess were taken under a call of the house, so that if it is desired to effect more than a temporary cessation of business, it is necessary to raise the call.
162. A bill having been originated in and passed by the senate, then passed by the house and returned, and subsequently retransmitted to the house without its request, is not properly before the house for consideration .- H. J. 1905, p. 711.
The ruling is correct. In this case the senate reconsidered and amended the bill after it had been agreed to by both houses and was ready for printing and presenta- tion to the governor. The proper procedure was for the house to request the retrans- mission of the bill, amend and re-return it for concurrence.
163. A bill may not be tabled after passage, there being no pending motion .- H. J. 1905, p. 789.
The ruling is correct. Under the present practice it is proper to table a bill after its passage, if further action, such as a motion to give it immediate effect, is to be had.
164. The indefinite postponement of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution permitting municipal ownership and operation of street railways by incorporated cities was held to preclude the introduction of a joint resolution pro- posing an amendment permitting municipal ownership of public utilities in Detroit. -- H. J. 1905, p. 902.
See comment on No. 134.
82
1
650
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
165. On a division, the votes of members not in their seats cannot be counted. -H. J. 1905, p. 1239.
This is in accordance with house rule No. 27, which of course applies to votes on . divisions as well as by roll call.
166. On reconvening after a recess a point of no quorum was raised. The speaker directed a call of the roll which disclosed a quorum present .- H. J. 1905, p. 1305.
While a call of the house has been the usual means of determining by roll-call whether or not a quorum is present, there seems to be no reason why the speaker should not take that means as well as another to determine the question.
167. An amendment to a bill is not in order after the previous question has been ordered .- H. J. 1905, p. 1403.
Ordering the previous question is for the purpose of terminating debate, cutting off further amendments, and bringing the house to an immediate vote.
168. A demand for the yeas and nays was held not in order after ordering the pre- vious question .- H. J. 1905, p. 1593.
The decision is in accordance with the rule which provides that "after seconding the previous question and prior to ordering the same * * * * a demand for the yeas and nays may be made." There may be some question whether this rule does not limit the constitutional right of one-fifth of the members to the yeas and nays "on any question."
169. Members may, by motion, be admitted within the bar of the house, under a call, and allowed to take their seats although a quorum is not present .- H. J. 1905, p. 1599. .
The house is not permitted to transact any business in the absence of a quorum. The admission and seating of members was properly held not to be the transaction of business.
170. A notice of a motion to reconsider the passage of a bill was ruled out of order for the reason that the house would adjourn sine die before the expiration of the time limited by the rule .- H. J. 1905, p. 1765.
The house rules require the clerk to hold the bill until the time for its reconsider- ation has expired. In this case such action would prevent the sending of the bill to the senate before its adjournment. The notice was therefore ruled out of order, as being dilatory.
171. A resolution prohibiting lobbying on the floor of the house was ruled out of order for the reason that its subject matter was covered by a rule of the house .- H. J. 1907, p. 88.
The rule in question regulates admission to the floor and, strictly speaking, does not prohibit lobbying. It would have been better to have offered the resolution in the form of an amendment to the rules.
172. The time having arrived for the consideration of a special order and a motionl that the house resolve itself into a committee of the whole thereon having been made, a motion to postpone the consideration of the special order until a time certain was held out of order .- H. J. 190%, p. 482.
The ruling is not correct. The motion to postpone to a day certain should have been held to take precedence, and, instead of being ruled out of order, ought to have been put immediately.
173. A motion to proceed with the regular order of business under a call of the house does not preclude the temporary postponement of the consideration of a particular question .- H. J. 1907, p. 662.
The motion to proceed with business obviously did not refer to any particular matter but to such business as might be on the regular order for the day. In case, however, that the motion had contemplated some particular question, it could not prevent the disposition of that question by commitment, laying on the table, postponing or by any other proper means.
174. A motion to fix an hour of the following day to which the house would adjourn having been made, a motion to amend by substituting an hour of the same day and a motion as a substitute that the house take a recess were not allowed .- H. J. 1907, p. 775.
The motion to amend in effect changed the original motion from one fixing the time to which the house would adjourn to one fixing the time to which it would stand at recess. It should not have been moved as an amendment or as a substitute, but as an
651
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
independent motion that the house take a recess when under the rules it would have had precedence over the other motion.
175. A motion to place a bill upon its immediate passage upon introduction having failed, a motion was made to refer to the committee of the whole. A motion to amend the motion to commit by substituting the name of a proper standing committee was held out of order .- H. J. 1907, p. 1396.
The ruling is correct, for, as stated in the point of order on which the decision was based, if the motion to refer to the committee of the whole did not prevail, the next regular action on the bill would be its reference by the speaker to a standing committee.
176. A bill providing for the manner of appointing certain officers in the city of Detroit being on its final passage and a substitute relative to the appointment of a civil service commission in such city having been offered a point of order was raised that the substitute was not germane. Held, that as both the bill and proposed sub- stitute related to the appointment of officers in the city of Detroit, the substitute was germane and the point of order not well taken .- H. J. 1907, p. 1516.
This ruling is somewhat doubtful. The bills were certainly not very closely related. One provided for the manner of appointment of certain minor officials of the depart- ment of public works and other departments of the city government of Detroit and the other provided for a civil service commission affecting officers of the city in general. A duplicate of the substitute had been introduced as a bill and referred to the committee on city corporations, which had not reported it. The substitution was evidently for the purpose of getting the measure before the house without suspending the rules, which requires a two-thirds vote. It is not an instance of good practice. Substitutes are in effect nothing but amendments and in order to prevent surprise and confusion, should at least relate to the subject matter under consideration.
177. A member at the bar of the house in custody of the sergeant-at-arms under a call of the house was held not to have the right to vote on a roll call then being taken. -H. J. 1907, p. 1519.
A member not within the bar when the question is stated cannot, under the rules, be compelled to vote, nor has a member a right to vote while under arrest and waiting at the bar of the house for admission.
178. A bill having been substituted, it is not in order to move the original bill as a substitute for the bill as substituted .- H. J. 1907, p. 1735.
Very clearly not. The proper procedure is to reconsider and reject the substitute. for the original bill.
179. Debate upon a motion to fix a special order having been prolonged until the hour named had passed, a point of order that the question could not be put as stated was held not well taken .- H. J. 1907, p. 1794.
The ruling is certainly a sensible one. It is evident by naming an hour so close at hand that the intention was to give the matter practically immediate consideration in case the motion prevailed.
180. The committee of the whole having risen and made its report, a demand for the yeas and nays on certain amendments proposed in committee and not adopted was held out of order .- H. J. 1907, p. 1795.
Correct. The only question before the house is the report of the committee of the whole, which shows what the committee did and not what it did not do. The amend- ments not adopted by the committee are, of course, in the latter class and are therefore not part of the report. They may be offered on third reading where a roll-call upon the question of their adoption may properly be had.
181. The house having passed a general primary election bill, a bill providing for primary elections for the nomination of candidates for the office of United States senator was ruled out of order on the ground that the house had already expressed its judgment upon the question .- H. J. 1907, p. 1911. See also H. J. 1907, p. 1977; H. J. Ex. session 1907, p. 84.
See No. 134.
182. The senate refused to concur in the adoption of a house substitute for a senate bill and against a motion for the appointment of a conference committee on the part of the senate a point of order was raised that the motion was premature as the house had not yet been notified of the refusal of the senate to concur. Held, that the point of order was not well taken .- S. J. 1907, p. 1719.
See No. 141.
183. A tie vote having resulted on a motion to table an appeal, the president of the
652
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
senate voted "yea" and declared that the motion had prevailed. A point of order that, under section 14 of article V of the constitution, the lieutenant governor had no vote except in cases of equal division in committee of the whole, was overruled .- S. J. 1907, pp. 1720, 1920.
The authorities are divided on the question of the right of the presiding officer to vote on the question of disposing of appeals from his decisions. Cushing says that he may sustain his own decisions by means of his casting or other vote. Reed says that he may vote if he is a member of the assembly. The latter also states that, if a tie vote results, the chair is sustained, as the decision stands unless overruled. Either view leads to the same result, the only difference being that according to the latter, the chair is not subjected to the embarrassment of voting on his own decision. If this rule had been followed in this case, the motion to table would have been lost by a tie and the chair sustained by the same vote.
184. A motion to refer a bill introduced in the senate to a committee other than the one indicated by the president was held to involve a suspension of the rules and to require a two-thirds vote. The president refused to entertain an appeal. Objection that "appeals were always in order" was overruled on the ground that "there were positive fixed rules of the senate which could not be abrogated or changed by a mere appeal, which could be sustained by a majority vote of the senate."-S. J. 1907, p. 1806.
The ruling of the chair relative to the suspension of the rules was correct. While the rule does not specify that bills shall be referred by the president, it does provide that they shall be referred to "proper" committees. The bill in question related to primary elections and its reference to the committee on elections was obviously more appropriate than to the committee on judiciary. According to the long established practice of the senate, this was for the president to decide. The rules further provide that the president shall decide all questions arising under the rules and practice subject to an appeal, but as stated in the decision, an appeal will not lie when a refusal to sus- tain the chair will result in abrogating or changing the plain reading of the rules.
185. A concurrent resolution having been offered, a motion was made to discharge a committee from the further consideration of a certain bill and to substitute the bill for the resolution. A point of order against the motion was sustained .- S. J. 1907, p. 1914.
The only excuse that could be offered for such a motion was the fact that the con- current resolution very improperly contained matters of legislation. Had such matters been embodied in a bill, however, instead of a resolution, the motion to substitute one pending bill for another would not, as stated in the comment on No. 7, have been in accordance with good practice.
186. A concurrent resolution offered in the senate provided for the submission to the people of the question of the direct nomination of United States senator, governor and lieutenant governor. A substitute was offered and a yea and nay vote resulted as follows: Yeas, 16; nays, .16. The president voted "nay" and declared that the substitute had not prevailed. A vote having been taken on the resolution with the same result, the president voted "yea" and declared the resolution adopted. Objection that the president had not the right to vote on the resolution was overruled .- S. J. 1907, p. 1914.
The president voted to break a tie on the question of receiving amendments to a bill on third reading, objections were made and overruled on the question of recommitting and on the question of adopting amendments made by the committee. On motion to table the appeals taken, the president voted "yea" .- S. J. Ex. session 1907, p. 40. The president also voted on a motion to reconsider the vote wliereby a bill failed to pass, and on a motion to take up business out of its regular order .- S. J. Ex. session 1907, p. 75.
These decisions cover various phases of the question of the right of the president to vote. The constitution of 1850 is somewhat ambiguous in regard to the powers of the lieutenant governor. It provides that "in committee of the whole, he may debate all questions; and when there is an equal division, he shall give the casting vote." (Sec. 14, Art. V). The president insisted that the latter clause gave him the right to vote upon any question when the senate was equally divided; voted in favor of the adoption of the resolution and declared it adopted. The resolution was presented to the gov- ernor and signed by him. The secretary of state refused to act in accordance with its provisions and mandamus proceedings were brought by the lieutenant governor to compel him to do so. The supreme court in deciding the case (see 149 Mich. 343) held that the so-called resolution embodied legislation; that the section under which
-
653
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
the lieutenant governor claimed the right to vote was limited by section 19 of article IV of the constitution, which provides that "no bill or joint resolution shall become a law without the concurrence of a majority of the members elected to each house;" and that the section so limited, could not be construed to permit him to give the casting vote for the purpose of making a law. The court did not determine whether the lieu- tenant governor's right to a casting vote is limited to the committee of the whole or extends to resolutions, " if there be such, which do not have the force of law," saying that that question was not before it for decision. One effect of this decision will be to confine the use of concurrent resolutions to the exercise of their proper functions-the regulation of the internal affairs of either or both branches of the legislature and the mere expression of legislative sentiment or opinion. The new constitution provides that the lieutenant governor shall have no vote.
187. HIeld, that a bill on the general order not having been printed as required by the rule was not ready for consideration by the committee of the whole and that a motion that the house resolve itself into a committee was not in order .- H. J. Ex. session 1907, p. 35.
It happened in this case that there was but one bill on the general order, and the bill not being printed, there would have been nothing for the committee to consider.
188. A point of order that a bill was unconstitutional in that its object was not fully indicated by its title and that further consideration was for that reason out of . order was held not well taken .-- II. J. Ex. session 1907, p. 40.
See No. 154.
189. A resolution requesting the secretary of the constitutional convention to mail printed copies of the proceedings of the convention was ruled out of order for the reason that under a decision of the supreme court no duty or obligation could be imposed by the legislature upon any officer or public body not connected with the legislature itself, except by bill or joint resolution .- S. J. Ex. session 1907, p. 72.
This decision seems a little farfetched. It will be noticed that the resolution did not impose any duty or create an obligation. It was merely a request.
190. Held, that no employe of the senate can be despatched upon business other than that for which he is employed, except by order of the senate, a quorum being present .- S. J. Ex: session 1907, p. 87.
This question arose during a call of the senate on a motion to deputize one of the assistant secretaries as an assistant sergeant-at-arms. The senate had provided by a rule that the assistant secretaries "shall be subject to the orders of the secretary" and until that rule had been changed by the senate, they could look to no one else for instructions.
654
MICHIGAN LEGISLATURE-FORTY-FIFTH.
SENATE, 1909-1910.
President-PATRICK H. KELLEY, Lansing, Ingham County. Nativity, Michigan; lawyer; age, 41; Married; R. President pro tempore-FREDERICK R. MING, Cheboygan.
Republicans, 32. .
Name.
County.
Postoffice.
Nativity.
Occupation.
District.
Age.
Marital
Politics.
20
Aitkin, William H.
Sanilac.
Croswell.
Michigan ..
Lawyer.
48
4
Barnaby, Horace T., Jr.
Kent ..
Grand Rapids ..
Michigan.
Lawyer.
38
M
17
Bates, Erastus N.
Allegan
Moline.
Ohio. .
Farmer.
64
M
8
Bolt, Tom J. G ..
Muskegon
Ravenna.
England.
Farmer.
61
M
R
18
Bradley, William H.
Montcalm.
Greenville
Michigan.
Lawyer.
30
M
24
Collins, William A.
Eaton
Charlotte.
New York.
Farmer.
50
M
R
15
Dickinson, Luren D.
Lake.
Luther.
Michigan ..
Physician ..
48
M
R
26 28
Foster, Eugene ...
Banker ..
57
M
R
30
Fowle, Otto ..
Tuscola.
Mayville ..
Canada.
Merchant.
60
M
R
9
Kingman, Albert C.
Calhoun. .
Battle Creek.
New York.
Lawyer ..
50
M
R
19
Kline, Fred B ....
Lenawee.
Addison. ..
Michigan.
Merchant. .
44
M
2
Krueger, Gustav A ..
Lawyer.
37
M
3
MacKay, John D. M.
Wayne. .
Detroit ..
Iowa .. .
Lawyer
34
M
16
Mapes, Carl E
Kent ..
Grand Rapids.
Michigan.
New York.
Liveryman.
43
M
Cheboygan ..
Cheboygan ...
29 31
Moriarty, Michael H.
Iron. . ..
ยท
Ypsilanti ..
Michigan ..
12
Newton, Frank T. Scott, George G ..
Wayne ...
Detroit ..
Michigan ..
Lawyer ..
34
5
13
Shields, Francis J.
Livingston .
Howell
Michigan ..
Lawyer.
35
M S
R
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
23
Michigan ..
Merchant.
50
M
R R
Bay. . .
Bay City.
Michigan ..
Lawyer.
25
Wayne. .
Detroit ..
Anhut, John N .....
Fairbanks, Earl.
Gladwin.
Gladwin.
New York.
Publisher.
48
S
R
Sault Ste. Marie
Michigan ..
21
Fox, Edwin G.
M
Wayne ..
Detroit.
Germany
Cigarmaker.
40
R R R
Ming, Frederick R ..
Crystal Falls ..
Michigan ..
Lawyer ..
49
S
Manufacturer ... . 41
M
R R
Washtenaw.
Chippewa.
condition.
655
-
FORTY-FIFTH LEGISLATURE.
69
W
32 1
Smith, Charles. . .. Snell, Lawrence W Taylor, Walter R. Tuttle, Arthur J.
Houghton Wayne ..
Hubbell. Highland Park.
Michigan Michigan.
Dairyman.
38
M
6
14
25
Ward, Newton O
10
Watkins, L. Whitney .. Weter, James E .. .
Macomb.
Richmond.
Michigan ..
11 27
Wetmore, Fred C. White, Charles E ...
Wexford.
Cadillac ...
Illinois.
Niles ..
Michigan ..
Lawyer.
36
7
22
Whitney, Joseph H.
Saginaw.
Merrill.
Maine.
Merchant.
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.