USA > Michigan > Michigan official directory and legislative manual for the years 1911-1912 > Part 58
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 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93
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' Appeal, 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 per- 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, H. J. 1845, p. 390.
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.
571
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
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. ยท
After the calling of the roll has been begun by the secretary or 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 takc 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 thercon 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 sclect com- mittee. The decision is incorrect.
49. A motion having been made to refer a bill and a substitute to a committec, 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 substitutc, 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 truc 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- ponc indefinitely .- Chase's Appeal, II. J. 1857, p. 629.
The decision was correct under the rules of the house at the time it was made, but the motion to indefinitely postpone is debatable under the present rules, so that the previous question applics.
53. A motion for the previous question takes precedence of the motion for the call of the senate .- S. J. 1850, p. 431.
This ruling would not be correct under the present rules of the senate and house. Under rule forty-one of the senate and 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 sonate
572
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
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 president to receive for entry on the journal a protest, offered at the proper time, is undoubtedly a question of privilege.
55. The senate corrected the journal of the preceding day in relation to a report of a committee of conference. Mr. Conger, as chairman of said committee, entered a "protest against the action of the senate in altering the journal by amending the report of the committee of 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 of a bill, resolution or re- port to be printed does not change its legislative status. It amounts simply to securing copies which the body needs in the transaction of its business.
58. Held, that a substitute for a bill, which was in possession of the committee of the whole, could not be printed until the committee had been discharged from the further consideration of the bill .- H. J. 1861, p. 173.
See 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.
573
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
64. A notice that a motion will be made tomorrow to reconsider a vote was held not to cut off an immediate motion to reconsider .- H. J. 1861, p. 1370.
This ruling is correct. It is also true that a failure of the motion to carry would not prevent another motion of the same kind on the 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.
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 comment 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 recommenda- tion 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. If the matter contained in the resolution was subject to consideration without having been submitted by the governor, the point of order was not good, but if it contained matters of legislation, the point of order was well taken and good at any time, for the reason that it involved the validity of the resolution and not a method of procedure.
72. A member having offered for introduction a joint resolution under the order of "Motions and resolutions," after the expiration of the fifty days' limit for the 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.
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 .- Hawkins' Appeal, H. J. 1839, p. 175
This is a most unusual case. It is difficult to understand why the speaker presided. the lieutenant governor being present, or why the speaker, acting as the presiding officer, did not declare that the motion, upon which a tie vote resulted, was lost, instead of calling upon the 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 field.
574
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
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 pending substitute is never in order.
75. A majority of the committee on elections having recommended the adoption of a resolution to postpone indefinitely the further consideration of the eligibility of certain members to hold their seats, and the minority having submitted a contrary report, a motion was made to adopt the resolution reported by the majority. A motion to amend by adopting the resolution reported by the minority was held out of order "on the ground that the majority resolution was simply a motion to indefinitely post- pone 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 ques- tion 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 majority 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 .- Mercer's 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.
575
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
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. See also S. J. 1909, p. 762.
. 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 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 yet bills making direct appropriations without the intervention of the board of control have been held to require a two-thirds vote. There is no reason for the distinction.
83. A motion was made to discharge the committee of the whole from the further consideration 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. 1739-40.
This decision, under the present rules, would not be correct. The rules provide that 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. Meantime 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 reconsider- ation 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.
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.