USA > Michigan > Michigan official directory and legislative manual for the years 1913-1914 > 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 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95
-
634
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
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 sustain the chair will result in abrogating or changing the plain reading of the rules. (Since this comment was written, the rules of both the senate and house have been changed so as to make it the duty of the president and the speaker to refer bills, on introduction, to the proper committees).
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 whereby 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 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. Held, 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
1
635
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
fully indicated by its title and that further consideration was for that reason out of order was held not well taken .- H. 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.
191. A motion to adjourn is not in order under the operation of the previous ques- tion .- H. J. 1909, p. 400.
The ruling is not correct. The effect of the previous question is to bring the house to an immediate vote providing it remains in session. The house rule says "after order- ing the previous question nothing shall be in order prior to the decision of the pending question, except demands for the yeas and nays, points of order and appeals." The adjournment seems at first thought to defeat the very purpose of the rule, but it must be borne in mind that the house has a right to cease business at any time and that the main question which is suppressed for the time being by the adjournment must be put immediately when the matter is again before the house. (Cushing's Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, Secs. 1413, 1431.)
192. A notice of a motion under house rule 58 to discharge a committee from the further consideration of a bill must specify the day on which the motion will be made. -H. J. 1909, p. 636.
As stated in the opinion of the speaker, unless some definite time is stated in the notice, it is within the discretion of the member offering it to fix his own time for making the motion and the very object of the notice, which is to prevent surprise, is defeated.
193 .. A substitute for a senate bill and a house bill is not in order for the reason that in case of its adoption it is neither one nor the other and is consequently incapable of communication to the senate .- H. J. 1909, p. 770.
The ruling is correct. Such a substitute is an anomaly. It cannot be transmitted for concurrence as a substitute for a senate bill, or as an original house bill subject to its first and second readings, reference to a committee and such other action as the senate might wish to take.
194. Held, that laying on the table a motion to reconsider the vote by which a bill passed carries the bill to the table, at least until the time limited by rule 52 for the taking of a motion to reconsider from the table .- H. J. 1909, p. 791.
This ruling is somewhat doubtful and should not serve as a precedent. The chair stated that it was not the usual rule, but expressed the opinion that the house rule permitting taking from the table such a motion modified the general practice. There is some force to this contention, but inasmuch as the same result can be easily and directly brought about by a notice of reconsideration that course commends itself a the better practice.
195. A notice of a motion to discharge a committee from the further consideration of a bill was held out of order, a motion in the same form as the one contemplated in the notice having once been made and voted down .- H. J. 1909, pp. 897, 924, 974, 975, 1243.
The reason given for this ruling was that the judgment of the house had once been expressed and no further action could be had relative to the matter without a reconsider- ation, the notice being out of order because the motion itself could not be entertained. The ruling is not good. The motion to discharge is not a substantive proposition, but purely incidental for the purpose of getting the main proposition, the bill itself, before the house, and the rule in question should not have been applied. The motion was in order after due notice and the notice was properly given.
636
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
196. A motion to discharge a committee from the further consideration of a bill, which motion under the rules required a notice, is not in order, the notice thereof having been ruled out of order, and there being on that account no notice of record .- H. J. 1909, p. 921.
The ruling is, of course, technically correct, but as stated in the preceding comment, the notice itself was improperly ruled out.
197. A printed open letter from the warden of the Michigan Reformatory to the members of the legislature is not an official communication, but is personal in its nature and is not receivable under the order of "Communications from state officers."-H. J. 1909, p 950.
This letter was in printed form and had been sent to each member of the legislature. A note addressed to the clerk, transmitting one of the printed copies, referred to the letter as "an official communication." The speaker, however, very properly held that the letter was personal and ruled it out of order.
198. An appeal (made by Mr. Bryant) from the decision of the chair is not in order after business intervenes between the ruling and the appeal, and an appeal (made by Mr. Cramton) from a decision ruling an appeal out of order cannot be entertained, both appeals also being held to be dilatory .- H. J. 1909, p. 975. (On former question see also H. J. same session, p. 1729).
The reasons are well stated in the speaker's ruling. "Mr. Bryant's appeal cannot be entertained for two reasons; first, because there has been business transacted by the house after the ruling was made and before the appeal was taken. Second, because the appeal was dilatory, the same having been twice before passed upon by the house. Mr. Cramton's appeal could not be entertained because it was an appeal on an appeal in violation of the rule of parliamentary practice that one appeal may not be based on another, and because it also was evidently dilatory."
199. A motion was made to take a bill from the general order and make it a special order for the next day. Upon inquiry by a member whether the action involved a sus- pension of the rules, the speaker submitted the question to the house. The house decided "that no suspension of a rule was involved and that only a majority vote was necessary."-H. J. 1909, p. 1019.
House rule No. 5 provides that the speaker "shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the house." The speaker's action was clearly in violation of this rule. Furthermore, the decision itself is wrong. A suspension of the rules is involved. While there is an order of business known as "special orders of the day," bills may not be placed upon it without suspending rule No. 58, which prescribes the regular order.
200. A proposed amendment to the constitution must be in the form of a concurrent resolution and not in the form of a bill .- H. J. 1909, p. 1005.
The proposed amendment was offered in the form of a bill on the theory that it was legislation, the constitution requiring "that all legislation shall be by bill" (Sec. 19, Art. V). As a matter of fact, proposing amendments to the constitution is not legis- lating, but rather giving the people an opportunity to legislate by amending the funda- mental law. The decision is in accordance with an opinion of the attorney general (S. J. 1909, p. 68) and is correct.
201. Held, that a motion to take a bill from the general order and make it a special order cannot be substituted by a motion to discharge a committee from the consideration of another bill .- H. J. 1909, p. 1020.
See comment on No. 155.
202. An amendment to that part of a bill previously amended by the house is not in order .- H. J. 1909, p. 1052.
Cushing says "Whatever is agreed to by the assembly, on a vote, either adopting or rejecting a proposed amendment cannot be afterwards altered or amended." (Cush- ing's Manual, Secs. 98, 99).
203. Held, that a motion to amend the report of the committee of the whole by amending a section of the bill not reported amended by the committee of the whole is not in order .- H. J. 1909, p. 1167.
There seems to be no reason why the report of the committee of the whole should not be amended in any particular, just the same as the report of any other committee. If no amendment is reported to the particular section, a motion to amend the report by making it include an amendment and by setting the amendment forth would cer- tainly be in order.
204. A senate bill embracing the same subject matter as, but containing provisions
637
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
different from, a house bill, from which all but the enacting clause had been stricken out, may be received .- H. J. 1909, p. 1467.
A point of order was raised against the senate bill that the house had already expressed its judgment on the subject matter thereof. The speaker compared the two bills and ruled that the senate bill contained provisions not found in the house bill and was there- fore in order. The rule is that, if the bills are alike in providing for the same thing, they do not conflict if they differ in provisions for carrying the thing into effect. The decision is in accord with the rule.
205. The senate having concurred collectively in the adoption of a number of amend ments recommended by the committee of the whole, a motion to reconsider the vote by which one of the amendments was concurred in was ruled out of order .- S. J. 1909, p. 645.
The proper motion would have been to reconsider the vote on all of the amendments and then, if the motion prevailed, to request a division of the question.
206. Nominations to office submitted to the senate by the governor must be referred to the committee on executive business before being acted upon by the senate .- S. J. 1909, pp. 650, 691.
This is in accordance with rule 17 of the senate rules. Any other action involves a suspension of the rule.
207. Where the previous question had been ordered on an amendment the preceding day and not limited, the main question being on the passage of the bill, a motion to table the bill is not in order .- S. J. 1909, p. 771.
The ruling is correct. See No. 191.
208. A substitute in its proper form is but an amendment, and just so long as the substitute, even though it be offered for an entire bill, does not violate the provisions of section 22 of article V of the constitution by altering or amending the bill so as to change its original purpose, it need not be reprinted any more than an amended bill on its regular passage through the senate, the amendments to which are often written into the original bill, passed by the senate and thus transmitted to the house .- S. J. 1909, p. 841.
Under the constitution of 1909, a bill must be printed and in the possession of each house at least five days before passage. The question of whether an unprinted substi- tute for, or a bill different in any particular from, the printed copy may be passed be- comes important. The purposes of the constitutional provision are to give notice and to prevent "railroading." As long as the object of the bill is not changed and, of course, it cannot be constitutionally changed under the section above cited, these pur- poses are subserved by one printing. The ruling is. correct.
209. A concurrent resolution providing for the cancellation of taxes contains matters of legislation, and is not in order .- S. J. 1909, p. 1379.
The subject matter of the resolution, as stated in the point of order, should have been presented in the form of a bill. The constitution provides that all legislation shall be by bill. (Sec. 19, Art. V).
210. A concurrent resolution containing matters of legislation is not in order .- H. J. 1911, p. 150.
This decision is based on the constitutional provision that all legislation must be by bill.
211. Conference committee may not make recommendations except as to matters of difference between the two houses .- H. J. 1911, p. 888.
Nothing but the matters of difference between the two houses are referred to the conference committees, and consequently a report which included other matters was properly held out of order.
+ 212. Matters upon which the house has already expressed judgment cannot be again considered without reconsideration .- H. J. 1911, pp. 150, 178, 187, 231, 232, 287, 288. 408, 460, 1024, 1278.
These decisions conform to the uniform practice of both houses for many years.
213. A motion to take a resolution from the table is not a proper substitute for a motion to suspend the rules for another purpose .- H. J. 1911, p. 1443.
These motions had no relation to each other and, of course, one could not be sub- stituted for the other.
214. A point of order being made that no quorum was present, the speaker directed the roll to be called .- H. J. 1911, pp. 783, 1360.
It is undoubtedly within the province of the speaker to ascertain whether or not a -
638
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
quorum is present, the point being raised, and the calling of the roll was a proper means to the desired end.
215. Previous question ordered on motion to indefinitely postpone while bill was being read a third time, held to apply to vote on passage of the bill .- H. J. 1911, p. 1420.
The speaker's contention in this case was that the order for the previous question - must operate on the next stage of the bill, which was the question on its passage. The demand, however, was for the previous question on the motion to indefinitely postpone, and being ordered did not extend farther than to bring the house to an immediate vote on that question. The question on the passage of a bill does not arise until the third reading is completed. The decision was wrong.
216. Report of committee of the whole may be amended .- H. J. 1911, p. 428.
This decision is in line with many other precedents and in accordance with uniform practice.
217. A special committee may not report recommendations beyond scope of subject matter referred to it .- H. J. 1911, p. 409.
The resolution authorizing a special committee defines its powers, beyond which it cannot go.
218. A motion to commit cannot be laid on the table .- H. J. 1911, p. 231.
Subsidiary motions, (except that motions to postpone to a day certain, motions to commit and motions to amend, may be amended), cannot be applied to one another. The motion to lay on the table has precedence of the motion to commit and would be first put.
219. A motion having been made to suspend the house rule which precludes the demand for the yeas and nays in committee of the whole, the speaker declared the motion out of order and the house_acquiesced in the_decision .- H. J. 1912, 1st Ex. Sess. p. 47.
The reason is stated in the speaker's ruling to be that "the motion to suspend the rule sought to destroy the established procedure of the house; that no record was made or preserved of proceedings in committee of the whole and that if the rule was suspended there would be no means of showing the relationship of the call of the roll to matter under consideration."
220. A communication signed by senators is not a message from the senate nor a communication from state officers and is not entitled to be spread on the house journal as such .- H. J. 1912, 1st Ex. Sess. p. 74.
The communication in question appears to have been offered, not as a message or communication to the house, but as a part of an explanation of a member's vote. As such, the member was entitled to have it spread on the journal.
221. The speaker is not called on to decide constitutional questions unless the matter involved is obviously in violation of the constitution .- H. J. 1912, 1st Ex. Sess. p. 137.
The question involved was whether a proposed amendment was covered by the governor's message authorizing legislation at the extra session. There being doubt, the speaker properly held that the house might consider the amendment.
222. A substitute identical in every particular with certain sections of a bill for which it was proposed to be substituted, was held not in order .- H. J. 1912. 2nd Ex. Sess. p. 78.
The object sought could be attained by striking out of the original bill the sections not desired, thus leaving all that the substitute contained.
MICHIGAN LEGISLATURE-FORTY-SEVENTH. SENATE, 1913-1914.
President-JOHN Q. Ross, Muskegon, Muskegon County. Birthplace, Ohio; lawyer; age, 40; Married; R. President pro tempore-FRANKID. SCOTT, Alpena.
Republicans, 21; Democrats, 5; National Progressives, 6.
District.
Name
County.
Postoffice.
Birthplace.
Occupation.
Age.
Marital
Politics.
24 19 7 21
Allswede, William H ..
Midland.
Sanford
Michigan .
Grain dealer.
39
N
Amberson, Verne C ..
Lenawee .
Blissfield .
Michigan . .
Lawyer.
29
Case, Leon D.
Berrien.
.
Tuscola .
Mayville.
Michigan .
Publisher ..
46
13
Curts, Edwin J
Genesee .
Flint ..
Michigan
Merchant ..
.
11
Fitzgibbon, David A.
St. Clair ..
Highland Park
Michigan .
Lawyer.
28
1
Gittins, Clarence E ..
Wayne.
Kalamazoo .
Michigan .
Lawyer ..
32
6
Grace, William C ..
Ottawa ..
Holland.
Michigan .
Manufacturer.
47
23
Hadden, Joseph B.
Wayne.
Detroit ..
Michigan .
Contractor.
27
3
Hanley, James W
10
Hutchins, J. Weston
Jackson
Hanover.
Michigan
Farmer ..
58
M
N
32
James, W. Frank ..
Houghton
.Hancock
New Jersey
Ins., real estate .. 39
28
Kelley, Louis L ...
Clare.
Farwell.
Vermont .
Physician ..
Banker, Mfr
50
M
25
King, Francis. . .
Gratiot ..
Alma .
Illinois. .
Merchant ..
54
M
D
12
McGregor, James E.
Washtenaw.
Ypsilanti.
Canada ..
Michigan
Farmer.
51
M
17
McNaughton, Thomas H.
Kent ..
Ada .
2
Murtha, James A.
Wayne. .
Detroit ..
New York.
Lawyer .
42
S
26
Odell, Samuel .. .
Oceana.
Shelby .
Michigan ..
Farmer.
31
S
4
Ogg, Robert Y ..
Wayne.
Detroit ..
Canada ..
Journalist .
52
M
18
Powell, Herbert E.
Ionia .
Ionia .
Michigan .
Farmer.
47
M
FORTY-SEVENTH LEGISLATURE.
Watervliet.
Wisconsin .
Publisher ..
36
Corliss, Terry.
42
N
Port Huron.
Canada ..
Lawyer.
40
Kalamazoo
N
.
M
64
M
condition.
639
MICHIGAN LEGISLATURE-FORTY-SEVENTH .- Concluded. SENATE, 1913-1914.
President-JOHN Q. Ross, Muskegon, Muskegon County. Birthplace, Ohio; lawyer; age, 40; Married; R. President pro tempore-FRANK D. SCOTT, Alpena.
Republicans, 21; Democrats, 5; National Progressives, 6.
District.
Name.
County.
Postoffice.
Birthplace.
Occupation.
Age.
Marital
condition.
Politics.
14 29
Scott, Frank D ..
Alpena ..
Alpena.
Michigan .
Lawyer ..
35
5
Scott, George G.
Wayne.
Detroit.
Michigan
Lawyer ..
39
M
15
Smith, William M.
Clinton.
Branch.
Coldwater
Michigan .
Merchant.
48
M
R
16
Verdier, Leonard D
Kent ..
Grand Rapids
Michigan .
Lawyer.
35
M
R
27
Walter, Robert E.
Grand Traverse
Traverse City .
Michigan .
Real estate
36
M
22
Weadock, G. Leo.
Saginaw ..
Saginaw ..
Michigan
Lawyer .. .
8
Wiggins, Milan D
Van Buren .
Bloomingdale .
Ohio
Merchant ..
67
M
31
Winegar, Charles T ..
Dickinson .
·
Manistique
Michigan.
Lawyer.
41
30
Wood, James C.
20
Woodworth, Fred L.
Huron .
·
Caseville .
Michigan .
Farmer .
36
.
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
Corunna ..
Michigan,
Cashier ..
49
Rosenkrans, William A.
Shiawassee .
St. Johns.
Michigan .
Lawyer ..
43
S
9
Straight, Henry E.
.Iron Mountain
Michigan .
Lawyer ...
34
M
Z
Schoolcraft
640
.
32
M
641
FORTY-SEVENTH LEGISLATURE.
LIST OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYES OF THE SENATE.
Officers and employes.
Name.
Home postoffice.
President
John Q. Ross
Frank D. Scott .
Dennis E. Alward.
Clare.
Arch S. Merrifield .
Assistant secretaries
Proof reader ..
Grace McArron.
Calumet.
Ina C. Becraft.
St. Joseph.
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.