USA > Michigan > Michigan official directory and legislative manual for the years 1915-1916 > Part 65
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 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101
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.
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. 1715-16.
652
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
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 puplic 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 .- H. J. 1885, pp. 1377-8.
The decision was not correct. See comment on No. 78.
87. A protest was offered in due form for publication. A motion was made that 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 having the same entered in the journal. An appeal was taken and the ruling sustained .- Edwards' 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.
88. A member of the senate rose 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 .- Oriatt'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 en- tered 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 the further reading of a protest against the action of the senate in seating two contestants, on which motion the point of order
653
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
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.
The practice as to the return of concurrent resolutions had not been definitely settled 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. A 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 manufacturers 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, 1391.
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 parlia- mentary law .- S. J. Aug. 5, 1892.
The decision is wrong. At the beginning of the session of 1891, rules were adopted for "this senate." Those rules were in force during the existence of that senate, 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 idea that, inasmuch as the rules pro- vide that bills shall be referred to the committee of the whole and there 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.
654
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
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 noticed however, that the bill itself was not under discussion, but simply a motion to make it 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 con- template 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 is wrong. The house has a right to recall a bill from the governor, and a motion for that purpose is a proper one. When the bill has been returned is the time to decide what motions may or may not be made concerning it.
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.
655
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 .- H. 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, because 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 encroach upon a second order which 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 .- H. 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 secure 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 viva voce vote. 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. 1898 (Ex. Session), p. 11.
656
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.
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.