USA > Michigan > Michigan official directory and legislative manual for the years 1911-1912 > Part 59
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
This bill was very unusual in its provisions, in that it was an effort to do something that could not be done even by a two-thirds vote, and the courts so held.
86. A joint resolution extending the time for the completion of a railroad, and thereby continuing a land grant, was declared passed on a vote of 62 yeas. The question was raised that this was a direct vote of public property to private use, and that the resolution therefore required 67 votes under the constitution, Art. IV. Sec 45 The speaker ruled a majority sufficient; an appeal was taken and the ruling sustained n. J. 1885, pp. 1377-8.
The decision was not correct. Sce comment on No. 75.
87. A protest was offered in due form for publication. motion was made that
576
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
the protest be received but not published in the journal of proceedings. The president of the senate ruled the motion out of order because of Sec. 14 of Art. IV of the con- stitution, which particularly gives any member of either house the right of protest and of liaving the same entered in the journal. An appeal was taken and the ruling sustained .- Edward's Appeal, S. J. 1887, p. 1422.
It was the member's constitutional right to have his protest spread upon the journal and a motion to deprive him of that right was very properly ruled out of order.
SS. A member of the senate arose to a "question of privilege," stating that he wished to introduce a resolution calling for the investigation of a certain state institution. The chair ruled that to introduce such a resolution was not a "question of privilege," and that consequently the resolution was not in order. An appeal was taken and the ruling sustained .- Babcock's Appeal, S. J. 1887, pp. 1432-3.
A resolution to investigate the conduct of a state institution is not a question of privilege, and the decision is correct.
89. The senate sent a request to the house for the return of a concurrent resolution passed some days before relative to the April adjournment. Motion was made to grant the request. The speaker ruled both the request and the motion out of order, as they related to a matter which had been concluded some days before, and all action relating thereto being fully completed, it was not competent for the house to accede to the request. An appeal was taken and the ruling sustained .- Oviatt's Appeal, H. J. 1887, p. 1110.
As the resolution was to fix the time to which the legislature should stand adjourned, when it did adjourn on a given day still in the future, there seems to be no reason why, in accordance with the ordinary courtesy between the two houses, the request and motion should not have been entertained.
90. The question was raised as to whether a bill affecting chartered rights acquired prior to the constitution of 1850, having passed the house by more than a two-thirds vote, should not have been declared by the speaker as having received the vote of two- thirds of all the members elect. Held, that notwithstanding the bill did receive the requisite two-thirds, it should have been so declared .- Lakey's Appeal, H. J. 1887, p. 862.
The fact that the bill received a two-thirds vote was sufficient, even though the speaker, in declaring the bill passed, did not state that it was by a vote of two-thirds of the members elect.
91. A bill having passed both houses in due form, was returned by the governor, without his signature, to the house in which it originated. The vote by which the bill was passed was then reconsidered in constitutional form and the question then re- curred: Shall the bill pass, the objection of the governor notwithstanding? The bill failed to pass, not receiving the necessary votes of two-thirds of all the members elect. A motion was then made to reconsider the vote by which the bill failed to pass, when the point of order was raised that a reconsideration was not in order at this stage of the bill's history-that the constitution, in providing for one reconsideration and no more, presented a bar to all further action. Held, that the point of order was well taken .- Rumsey's Appeal, H. J. 1887, pp. 2266-7.
This decision seems to be in accord with congressional practice and precedents.
92. A protest against the action of the senate, to be such a paper as must be entered upon the journal under the provisions of the constitution, shall be in language which does not impute improper motives to the senators in taking the action .- Taylor's Appeal, S. J. 1887, p. 222.
The constitutional provision relative to individual protests cannot be held to re- quire the senate to enter on its journal insulting and contemptuous matter, under color of a protest; and the senate may insist that the protest contain nothing but the mem- ber's "dissent" and a bare statement of his "reasons" therefor.
93. A motion was made to dispense with a further reading of a protest against the action of the senate in seating two contestants, on which motion the point of order was made that the contestants should not be allowed to vote on the question. Held, that the point of order was not well taken .- S. J. February 24, 1891.
The cases having been decided by the senate, and the contestants seated, they were technically entitled to vote on all questions.
94. A motion was made that the senate return a house concurrent resolution. The point of order was raised that, inasmuch as a resolution has nothing tangible in its character, it cannot be recalled; and further, that it is contrary to the practice of former legislatures. Held, that anything sufficiently tangible to be submitted to the senate should be sufficiently so for its return, and that as the constitution requires concurrent resolutions to be submitted to the executive, they must be considered tangible .- H. J. February 6, 1891.
--
NORTHERN MICHIGAN ASYLUM, TRAVERSE CITY.
UPPER PENINSULA HOSPITAL FOR THE INSANE, NEWBERRY.
STATE ASYLUM, IONIA.
PP3
STATE PRISON, JACKSON.
STATE HOUSE OF CORRECTION AND BRANCH PRISON, U. P., MARQUETTE.
جديد
-
MICHIGAN REFORMATORY, IONIA.
MICHIGAN SOLDIERS' HOME, GRAND RAPIDS.
STATE SANATORIUM, HOWELL.
577
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
The practice as to the return of concurrent resolutions had not becn definitely scttled prior to this decision, for such action is seldom taken. The holding is correct.
95. Against a resolution that the committee on engrossment and enrollment be discharged from further consideration of a house bill, the point of order was raised that "the resolution was not in order," which point of order the speaker ruled not well taken .- H. J. March 26, 1891.
The speaker was correct in his ruling, for the house had an undoubted right to recall the bill from the committee.
96. The speaker declared passed on a majority vote a bill authorizing and directing the auditor general of the state to credit to the county of Muskegon certain delinquent taxes. A point of order was raised that the bill, under the provisions of section 45 of article IV of the constitution, required the assent of two-thirds of the members elect. The speaker ruled the point not well taken .- H. J. April 23, 1891.
The only question involved is whether or not the bill appropriated money for a private or local purpose.
97. The house having under consideration a bill to provide for the improvement of the highway on the town line between two townships, and to appropriate state swamp land for that purpose, the speaker announced the bill passed on a majority vote. Â point of order was raised that the bill came under the provision of the constitution relative to the appropriation of public property for a private or local purpose ._ The speaker held the point well taken .- H. J. May 8, 1891.
See comment on No. 96.
98. The house having under consideration a bill to make an appropriation for an exhibit of the manufactures and products of the state at the World's Exposition, in Chicago, the speaker announced that the bill had passed, a majority of all the mem- bers elect having voted therefor. The point of order was raised that this appropriation was within the meaning of the constitutional provision which requires a two-thirds vote. The speaker ruled the point of order not well taken .- H. J. June 3, 1891.
This appropriation was clearly not one for a private or local purpose, hence the ruling of the speaker was correct.
99. During the special session of 1891, there was offered a resolution, providing for the adoption of rules. A point of order was raised that the rules of the regular session were still in force. Held, that the point was not well taken, inasmuch as the senate had adopted no rules for the special session and was acting under accepted parliamentary law .- S. J. Aug. 5, 1892.
The decision is wrong. At the beginning of the session of 1891, rulcs werc adopted for "this senate." Those rules were in force during the existence of that senatc, whether convened in regular or special session.
100. Under the head of motions and resolutions, it is in order to move to discharge the committee of the whole from the further consideration of a bill. Decision sustained on appeal .- S. J. 1893, p. 967.
The point of order was doubtless based on the idca that, inasmuch as the rules pro- vide that bills shall be referred to the committee of the whole and therc considered in their order, a motion to take a bill from the committee is a violation of the rules and consequently not in order. While it is true that the motion amounted to a suspension of the rules, it was not out of order.
101. A protest must be consistent with the facts as shown by the journal .- S. J. 1893, p. 988.
The journal is conclusive evidence of the proceedings of the house. A protest, there- fore, to any action taken by the house must be an objection to or remonstrance against the proceeding as it is shown in the record.
102. A senator, in debate, must avoid the use of language reflecting on the senate. The word "villainy" is objectionable .- S. J. 1893, p. 1318.
This ruling needs no comment, as it is so clearly in accordance with all parliamentary practice.
103. While debating a motion to make a bill a special order, a senator attempted to read from a newspaper an article concerning the action of the senate relative to an- other bill. A point of order was raised and held well taken. Decision sustained upon appeal .- S. J. 1893, p. 1353.
It is certainly true that remarks or articles read must be germane. It will be notlord however, that the bill itself was not under discussion, but simply a motion to make it
73
578
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
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 contemplate 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 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.
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 motion, having once been made and tabled, nothing could have been done with the bill if re- called. 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 having been taken, a point of no quorum was raised, whereupon the speaker announced. as 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 refusing 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 previous question was pending, but later entertained [and overruled it .- H. J. 1893, p. 1915.
The object of the motion for the previous question is to bring the house to an im- mediate vote. This is true whether or not there has been any debate on the question,
579
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
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 overruled the point and was sustained 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 having proceeded with remarks at some length, the speaker recog- nized another member, whereupon, 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 it.
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 before taking up the second. The objection was overruled, it being held that the house can change as well as make a special order. Decision sustained on appeal .- 11. 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 presumed 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, bceause 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 eneroach upon a second order whieli 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 .- HI. 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 sceure 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 overruled. (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 overruled .- 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 service in assisting in the organization of the senate was declared carried on a fin vore vole 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 held not well taken .- S J. 198 (Ex. Scasion), p. 11
580
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
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.
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 majority of the senators elect, was decided by the president not to be well taken, which decision 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.
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 un- doubtedly 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 motion to indefinitely postpone is to suppress or reject the matter under consideration. In- definite 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
581
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
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.
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.