USA > Michigan > Michigan official directory and legislative manual for the years 1913-1914 > Part 60
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 | Part 94 | Part 95
Skeleton Bills-
introduction of 160
Speaker- submitted question of order to house. 199
not called on to decide constitutional questions 221
Reconsideration-Continued.
of indefinite postponement .
123
Sergeant-at-arms-
612
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
Dec. No.
Special Committee- may not report beyond matter referred to it 217
Special Orders-
consideration of, conflicting. 113
postponement of . . 172
putting question of fixing, when debate has been prolonged beyond time specified.
179
whether making bill special order involves suspension of rules. Special Session-See Extra Session.
199
State Officers-
whether printed open letter is communication from 197
Substitute-
for substitute. .3, 74, 148
relevancy of. .8, 38, 176
adoption of amendments to, between houses 14
motion to commit bill and, pending motion to table. 49
printing of, in possession of the committee of the whole 58 concurrence in, of other house . 77
motion for recess as substitute for motion to fix time to which to adjourn. . 174 substitution of original bill for original as substituted . 178
substitution of bill for concurrent resolution 185
for senate bill and house bill not good .. .
193
substitution of motion to discharge committee of whole by motion to dis- charge standing committee . 201
substitution of bill does not necessitate reprinting. 208
motion to take from table not a proper, for motion to suspend rules for another purpose .. 213
identical with certain sections of bill for which proposed, not in order. Suspension of Rules-See Rules.
222
Table-
indefinite postponement of motion to lay on . 32
administration of oath to secretary, motion to reconsider election being on. . 40
motion to lay on table a motion to take from .. 47
motion to lay on, before formal discharge of committee. 48
49
printing of report on .. 57
reconsideration of vote on motion to lay appeal on .
66
discussion of motion to lay on, and print
laying on, of motion to reconsider . .
108, 194
reconsideration of motion to lay on, motion to reconsider.
138
laying of bills on, after passage .. 163
right of president of senate to vote on question of tabling appeal 183
motion to commit cannot be laid on . 218
Third Reading-See Bill.
Tie Vote-See Vote.
Two-thirds Vote-See Vote.
Unconstitutionality ---
of bill, no ground for point of order.
154, 188
Veto- reconsideration of vote, on failure to pass bill over.
Vote --
validity of, g ven for postmasters as candidates for legislature.
right of meml.er to cast, pending decision in contested election case 25
change of . .
right of president pro tem. to cast, in case of tie. 27,73
requiring of member to cast, upon question of reconsideration. 60
reconsideration of, tabling appeal .. 66
majority, required to concur in substitute of other house 77
required to discharge committee of the whole. 83
right of seated contestants to cast 93
Indication of number present by. 109, 122
on resolution declaring sense of legislature.
119
required for suspension of rules .. 124, 125
changing and announcing of . 126
demand for yeas and nay after announcement of .
127
motion to commit during taking of . 132
required on resolution for relief
136
two-thirds-
announcement of 90
not required on appropriations for world's fairs. 98
not required on any action on bill already out of its regular course. 146
required to appropriate public property to private use. .. . 78, 82, 85, 86, 96, 97, 98, 136, 139, 159
member casting, must be in seat
165
casting of, by member in custody of sergeant-at-arms. 177
right of president of senate to give casting. 183, 186
50
motion to commit bill and substitute pending motion to lay substitute on. . motion to lay on table motion to lay on.
76
motion to take from table bill just laid on. 143
91
24
26,70,126
613
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
Dec. No.
Yeas and Nays-
demand for, after division ordered. 13
after announcement of vote .. 127
after ordering previous question. 168
on amendments not part of report of committee of whole. 180
1. A motion to adjourn is in order during proceedings under call of the house .- Church's Appeal, H. J. 1851, p. 272.
Undoubtedly so; in fact, when a call has failed to bring in a quorum, the only way to dispose of it is to adjourn, as no other motion is in order.
2. It is not in order to amend a bill after a motion to strike out all after the enacting clause has been put and lost .- Barry's Appeal, S J. 1846, p. 257. Jones' Appeal, H. J. 1846, p. 57 (See 4).
A motion to amend takes precedence of a motion to strike out all after the enacting clause, and a motion to strike out is held in abeyance until all motions to amend are disposed of.
3. A substitute for a senate substitute for a house bill was held not in order .- H. J. 1851 (Ex. Session, p. 62).
It has been an uniform rule that a substitute for a substitute is never in order. This rule was designed to prevent confusion in offering amendments, and arbitrarily fixes a point beyond which they will not be permitted, the questions in their order being the main question, amendments, amendments to the amendment, and a substitute. In this case, there is no multiplicity of pending questions. The senate substitute came to the house as a new and entire proposition and should have been subject to amend- ment or substitution. The decision is not correct.
4. A proposition to strike out a section and insert a new one in lieu thereof having been lost, a motion to amend said section by striking out a portion thereof was held out of order .- H. J. 1870, p. 78.
The motion to strike out and insert a new section should have been held in abeyance for motions to amend the section. But if no such amendments are offered, and the motion to strike out is voted upon, it shuts off the consideration of any further amend- ments to the section.
5. The report of a select committee may be amended .- Etheridge's Appeal, S. J. 1839, p. 208.
The report of any committee is usually accepted without question, and then be- comes the property of the house, to amend, adopt. or reject, as it may please. An exception to this rule is that the report of a conference committee cannot be amended. 6. A motion to amend may be ruled out of order on account of irrelevancy -Greenly's Appeal, S. J. 1840, p. 634.
If a proposed amendment is clearly irrelevant it certainly cannot be in order as an amendment. The house rules provide that "no motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of an amendment." While the senate has no such rule, it is a general rule of practice that, although amend- ments may be inconsistent and incompatible with themselves or with the subject matter, they must at least relate to the subject under consideration.
7 A motion was made to strike out all after the enacting clause of a house bill and insert in lieu thereof a certain senate bill. The question was divided and the prop- osition to strike out was lost. A motion to amend the bill farther was then held out of order, as the senate had refused to strike out all after the enacting clause .- Summer's Appeal, S. J. 1840, p. 440.
The motion to substitute one pending bill for another is absolutely unnecessary, leads to confusion and should not be permitted. The question should not have been divided as the motion to strike out and insert is not divisible.
8. The committee of the whole having reported a substitute which did not relate to the subject matter of the bill and having been discharged, a point of order was raised while the report was under consideration as to the propriety of entertaining the sub- stitute. ^Held, that, as the senate had discharged the committee, it was a virtual re- ception of the report, [and that the bill_and_substitute_were before the senate .- Howell's Appeal, S. J. 1844, p. 92.
The substitute was not properly before the senate for consideration for the reason that it was not germane to the original bill. The ruling was incorrect when made. Now the constitution provides that no bill shall be altered on its passage through the egislature, so as to change its original purpose.
614
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
9. An amendment in the senate to an amendment of a house amendment was held out of order -Finley's Appeal, S. J. 1850, p. 329.
This decision is clearly wrong, for the reason that the house amendment came to the senate as an original proposition, and could be amended in the same way as could any other subject matter before the senate.
10. An amendment pending when the bill is committed falls -Shoemaker's Appeal, S. J 1850, p. 238.
The intent of the motion is to have the committee perfect the bill, instead of having amendments, which might be objectionable, adopted without due consideration.
11. When a bill has passed the senate and the house, and has been returned to the senate, the senate cannot amend those portions of the bill which have been agreed to by both houses .- Mead's Appeal, S. J. 1851 (Ex. Session), p. 87.
If a bill is returned with house amendments, no action can be taken by the senate on those parts which have been agreed to by both houses.
12. A member has a right to quote and read authorities in support of his argument on any pending question .- H. J. 1861, p. 1076.
The parliamentary practice in this regard is so well established that it is difficult to understand how the question could have been raised.
13. A demand for the ayes and nays is not in order after a division of the house is ordered .- Smith's Appeal, H. J. 1841, p. 682.
The congressional practice is to allow the requisite number of members to order the yeas and nays even after a division is had. It has also become the practice in this state to allow a demand for the yeas and nays at any time before the vote on the division is announced.
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.
Previous to the adoption of the Joint Rules of 1909, the vote on a report was required to be by yeas and nays, and was not adopted unless a majority of all the members elect in each house, respectively, voted therefor. Under rule 5 of the present joint rules two votes are necessary-one on the adoption of the report, and one on the repassage of the bill. A yea and nay vote may be had on the former and is required on the latter.
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 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 given 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
615
LEGISLATIVE ' DECISIONS.
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.
The resolution was clearly out of order, as the sergeant-at-arms had already been dispatched after all absentees.
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 practice, 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 was required to take the course of a bill depended, not upon its form, but upon its subject matter. Under the present constitution, all proposed legislation must be in the form of bills. "
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.
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). Although the constitution seems to be very clear, 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
616
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
section six, article four of the constitution (section six of article five of constitution of 1909).
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 qualification of its own members. There is no appeal from its decisions. In case of a contested election, the member certified by the Secretary of State is a member of the body until action is taken unseating him, and is entitled to vote on all questions In the house his vote may not be demanded if he be directly interested.
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 .- Drake's Appeal, S. J. 1840, p. 370.
The president pro tem. as such is nowhere authorized to vote. Having already voted as a senator he had no right to vote the second time, as presiding officer, in order to break the tie.
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 a conference 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 falls .- H. J. 1851 (Ex. Session), pp. 44, 46.
This ruling is contrary to parliamentary practice and is therefore incorrect.
30. A motion to strike out all after the 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 .- Hawkins' Appeal, S. J. 1840, p. 206.
This is a matter which is now governed by a senate rule.
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.
617
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
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. See decision No. 35, and the comment thereon.
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 matter 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 have been per- mitted, and is now prohibited by the constitution. The decision so far as it applies to the fifty day limit no longer has any force.
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.