USA > Michigan > Michigan official directory and legislative manual for the years 1915-1916 > Part 66
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
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 the 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. Suspension of rules is now governed by senate rule 51 and house rule 71. See comment on No. 125.
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
657
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 reconsider 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.
According to the practice in American legislative assemblies, which conforms to the ancient practice of the House of Commons, a member has the right to change his vote before the announcement of the result. In this case the right was mos't improperly denied. The house could not order the vote announced. The vote was being taken by roll call. As long as any member desired in good faith to change his vote the roll call was not completed, and, as nothing was then in order but the completion of the roll call, the motion that the vote be announced was clearly out of order. Further- more, the right of a member to demand the vote of another cannot be cut off by any such motion.
127. A demand for the yeas and nays cannot be entertained after a division is had and the result announced .- H. J. 1899, p. 1582.
See comment on No. 13.
128. Several motions to adjourn and to take a recess having been made and lost, questions of order, motions to table the pending question and demands for the yeas and nays intervening, a motion to take a recess was held to be dilatory and ruled out of order .- S. J. 1899, p. 1585.
The congressional practice requires the chair to rule out motions obviously intended purely for delay. The practice is designed to prevent a minority from stopping the business of the house by repeated motions, which it knows cannot be carried, and which its members make for the sole purpose of taking up time. The decision is a very proper one, and, while it is the only time the question has been raised, the ruling has doubtless established the Michigan practice.
129. Upon a question of personal privilege that the chair had refused to recognize a member, who arose for the purpose of presenting a matter of privilege, held, that when a member has the floor another member cannot properly be recognized even to present a matter of privilege .- II. J. 1899, p. 1865.
The reason for the ruling was that it had been the uniform practice during the session not to recognize a member while another had the floor. While this may have been the practice during the particular session, it was contrary to accepted parliamentary procedure. It is and has been from the early sessions of the House of Commons the accepted manner of procedure for a member, if he so desires, to rise in his place and address the chair while another is speaking, and for the presiding officer to inquire the purpose for which the member desires recognition. If it is a point of order, it may then be stated. If it is a question of privilege, it is for the chair to decide whether the question is one requiring immediate consideration. In either event, the member is entitled to recognition to make known his purpose. The chair, however, was not called upon to decide any question, in fact, the so-called decision was rather in the nature of an explanation.
130. The speaker announced a message from the governor, which was read. The speaker then ruled that the subject matter, not being within the purview of the con- stitution, and the manner of discussion of said subject matter being in the form of a plea, the message could not be received by the house, and would therefore be returned to the governor .- H. J. 1899, p. 1984. See also S. J. Ex. Session 1907, p. 88.
Evidently the message was not considered proper to be spread upon the journal.
131. Upon a motion to take from the table a bill tabled pending passage, the pre- vious question was ordered. The motion prevailed, and the question being on the passage of the bill, a call of the house was moved. Held, that the motion for a call was out of order, the force of the previous question not being exhausted until the vote was taken upon the passage of the bill .- H. J. 1899, p. 2279.
The decision is incorrect, being made, doubtless, under the impression that the ques- tion of the passage of the bill was the main question. It is very clear that the main
83
658
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
question was upon the motion to take from the table, for the reason that each is inde- pendent of the other. The question of the passage of the bill could not possibly arise until the question of taking the bill from the table had been determined, and deter- mined affirmatively. The bill being upon the table the next stage through which it must pass in case of further action is the taking of it from the table. Then, the ques- tion being on its passage, the next stage is the taking of the vote upon it. It is estab- lished parliamentary law that the previous question has no operation beyond the main question, hence, the motion for a call of the house was in order.
132. The question being upon a motion to suspend the rules and the vote upon the question having been ordered and partly taken, a motion to commit was held out of order .- S. J. 1901, p. 417.
The motion to commit would take precedence if made at the proper time. It is not parliamentary to interrupt the taking of the vote on one question to allow a second proposition to receive consideration.
133. Either house may amend an amendment made by the other .- S. J. 1901, p. 643.
This is not only permissible under general parliamentary practice, but is expressly provided by rule four of the joint rules.
134. Of two bills introduced into the legislature of 1901, one included all of the pro- visions of the other. When the former came up for consideration it was amended so as to be an exact counterpart of the other which had previously failed of passage. Held, that under the rules of the senate providing that when a bill shall have been lost neither the same bill nor any other on the same subject nor containing similar provisions shall be subsequently considered, the further consideration of the bill was out of order .- S. J. 1901, p. 817.
Cushing says that it is a rule of parliamentary practice that no question or motion can regularly be offered upon which the judgment of the house has been expressed during the current session. The action of the senate, one of the ways of indirectly suppressing the matter recognized by authorities on parliamentary law, was evidently taken for the purpose of defeating the bill without coming to a vote upon the question of its passage.
See No. 181.
135. A point of order, that a motion to request a committee to report a bill is out of order because the committee may or may not comply with the request, is not good. -S. J. 1901, p. 982.
The mere fact that the committee might or might not comply with the request is certainly no ground for a point of order.
136. A joint resolution for the relief of a certain person was held to appropriate public property for private use and to require for its passage a vote of two-thirds of the senators elect .- S. J. 1901, p. 1000.
If the joint resolution in reality was for the relief of an individual, there being no valid claim against the state, it certainly required a two-thirds vote for its passage.
137. The discussion of the merits of a bill is not in order pending a motion to sus- pend the rules and place the bill on its immediate passage .- S. J. 1901, p. 1039. H. J. Ex. Session, 1907, pp. 40, 68, 82.
While arguments on the bill might tend to influence the vote upon the suspension of the rules, the bill was not before the house, and could not properly have been dis- cussed.
138. A motion to reconsider the vote whereby a motion to lay on the table a motion to reconsider had prevailed was held out of order .- S. J. 1901, p. 1049.
It is well settled practice in the senate to regard as conclusive the tabling of a motion to reconsider, and the motion is frequently made for the sole purpose of finally de- termining a matter. The procedure is supported by several congressional decisions. House rule 52, however, permits a motion to take from the table a motion to reconsider.
139. A bill appropriating money for an exhibit at the Pan-American Exposition was held not to appropriate public property to a private use .- S. J. 1901, p. 1118.
See comment on No. 98.
140. A minority report cannot be spread on the journal until it has been received by the senate, but the minority may protest and have the reasons for such protest entered on the journal .- S. J. 1901, p. 1123.
See comment on No. 35.
659
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
141. When a house bill amended by the senate is retransmitted to the senate, with a message that the amendments have not been concurred in by the house, the question is upon insisting upon or receding from the amendments and a motion for a committee of conference is not then in order .- S. J. 1901, p. 1184.
As soon as the house refused to concur in the senate amendments, a difference had arisen between the two houses and a motion in either house for a conference was in order. The ruling is not correct. The practice is now regulated by rule five of the joint rules.
142. Under rule five of the joint rules, the initiative in the appointment of a com- mittee of conference, need not necessarily be taken by the house refusing to concur. -S. J. 1901, p. 1185.
See comment on No. 141.
143. A motion to take from the table a bill just laid upon the table is out of order, there being no intervening business .- S. J. 1901, p. 1194.
To hold the motion good would permit the taking of a vote upon a question already determined. This can only be done by a motion to reconsider, which is the proper motion in such a case.
144. A bill having been lost, a motion was made to reconsider the vote whereby it failed to pass, and the second motion having been made that the further consideration of the bill be indefinitely postponed, a point of order was raised that inasmuch as the bill had not passed, nothing was in order but its reconsideration. Held, that the point of order was well taken .- S. J. 1901, p. 1532.
The bill, having failed of passage, was no longer before the senate for consideration; consequently, a motion to indefinitely postpone its further consideration was out of order.
145. A motion to adjourn having been lost, the motion is not again in order, there having been no intervening business .- S. J. 1901, p. 1573.
The ruling is correct. According to the usual practice, intervening debate is such business as will permit the renewal of the motion.
146. A bill having just been taken from the table, a motion was made to place it on the order of third reading of bills. The chair declared that the motion had pre- vailed by a majority vote. Objection was raised that the motion involved a suspen- sion of the rules and required a two-thirds vote. Objection overruled .- S. J. 1901, p. 1655. S. J. 1909, p. 454.
The point would have been well taken if the bill had been in its regular course. In this case, the committee of the whole had been discharged, and there was no regular course for the bill to follow after being taken from the table.
147. During the discussion at length by a member of the question of the reconsid- eration of the vote whereby a bill was passed another member secured the floor and made the point of order that the member speaking was pursuing dilatory tactics. Held, that the point of order was well taken .- H. J. 1901, p. 1234.
It may seem somewhat arbitrary to deprive a member of the floor. The question is, however, one which involves the time of the house, and when it is apparent to every one that that time is not being used in good faith, but is being used simply to obstruct the business of the house, it is the duty of the speaker to see that the transaction of business is proceeded with, even if it becomes necessary to rule off the floor a member, who is talking against time.
See comment on No. 128.
148. A substitute for a substitute is not in order .- S. J. 1903, p. 708.
See comment on No. 3.
149. A bill reported by a committee without recommendation need not be referred to the committee of the whole under the rules .- S. J. 1903, p. 708.
The senate rule requires that all bills when reported shall be referred to the com- mittee of the whole, and would seem to apply to this case. In the absence of express provision, the bill would not be placed on the general order without being ordered there, but would be subject to any action that might be taken.
See house rules 34 and 58, and senate rule 18.
150. A point of order that an amendment proposed in committee of the whole and rejected cannot be proposed on the final passage of the bill is not well taken .--- S. J. 1903, p. 777.
660
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
The amendment is before the senate for the first time, the proceedings in committee of the whole not being the proceedings of the senate, and is consequently not out of order.
151. A bill appropriating money for the purpose of making an exhibit at the Louisi- ana Purchase Exposition does not appropriate public property for a private purpose, and does not require a two-thirds vote for its passage. (Opinion of Attorney General.) --- S. J. 1903, p. 795.
See comment on No. 98.
152. Pairs are not recognized by the rules and therefore cannot be made .- S. J. 1903, p. 955.
Pairs in congress are permitted and regulated by the rules, but neither the Michigan house nor senate rules make any provision for them.
153. A second motion to reconsider may be made, one having been made and lost. -H. J. 1903, p. 1035; H. J. 1905, p. 1322.
See house rule No. 52.
154. The fact that a bill, if it became a law, would be unconstitutional is no ground for a point of order .- H. J. 1903, p. 1885. See also H. J. 1909, p. 1729.
While, strictly speaking, the question is not one of procedure, and, consequently not one upon which to base a point of order, the speaker is doubtless justifiable in ruling out a bill which is clearly unconstitutional.
155. The question being on the passage of a bill, a motion relative to another bill was held out of order .- H. J. 1903, p. 1912.
A question under consideration should be disposed of before another is taken up.
156. The report of a committee recommending that a bill be printed is such a re- port as places the bill before the senate for other consideration .- S. J. 1905, p. 100.
The ruling is not good. The recommendation that a bill be printed is not in reality a report, although called such. If the senate does not concur in the recommendation, the bill still maintains its status and remains in the hands of the committee for further consideration.
157. The report of a minority of a committee is not in order .- S. J. 1905, p. 967. See comment on No. 35.
158. A bill which affects the charter of a city, without directly amending or re- pealing it, requires a notice for its introduction .- S. J. 1905, p. 1403.
The ruling is right in principle, but is not without its practical difficulties. It would be hard many times to determine whether a bill impliedly amends a charter. The rule itself literally construed would not seem to require a notice in such a case.
159. Held, that a bill appropriating money for the state agricultural society is not one appropriating public money for private purposes, and requires but a majority vote for its passage .- S. J. 1905, p. 1609.
This question here is similar to those raised in Nos. 98, 139 and 151, and was decided according to precedent. After the adjournment of the legislature, however, an in- junction issued from the Saginaw circuit court, restraining the auditor general and state treasurer from paying out any money under the provisions of the act, for the reason that the bill was not passed by the two-thirds vote required by the constitution.
160. A title and an enacting clause is not a bill, and cannot be introduced as such. -H. J. 1905, p. 172.
The ruling is a very proper one. Under the operation of the fifty day limit the custom had grown up of introducing "skeleton" bills, and afterwards completing them, but this ruling put an end to the practice.
161. A recess cannot be taken while proceeding under a call of the house .- H. J. 1905, p. 609.
Members would not be permitted to leave the house, if a recess were taken under a call of the house, so that if it is desired to effect more than a temporary cessation of business, it is necessary to raise the call.
162. A bill having been originated in and passed by the senate, then passed by the house and returned, and subsequently retransmitted to the house without its request, is not properly before the house for consideration .- H. J. 1905, p. 711.
The ruling is correct. In this case the senate reconsidered and amended the bill after it had been agreed to by both houses and was ready for printing and presenta-
661
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
tion to the governor. The proper procedure was for the house to request the retrans- mission of the bill, amend and re-return it for concurrence.
163. A bill may not be tabled after passage, there being no pending motion .- H. J. 1905, p. 789.
The ruling is correct. Under the present practice it is proper to table a bill after its passage, if further action, such as a motion to give it immediate effect, is pending.
164. The indefinite postponement of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution permitting municipal ownership and operation of street railways by incorporated cities was held to preclude the introduction of a joint resolution pro- posing an amendment permitting municipal ownership of public utilities in Detroit. -- H. J. 1905, p. 902.
See comment on No. 134.
165. The votes of members not in their seats cannot be counted .- H. J. 1905, p. 1239; H. J. 1909, p. 1005.
This is in accordance with house rule No. 27, which applies to votes on divisions as well as by roll call.
166. On reconvening after a recess a point of no quorum was raised .. The speaker directed a call of the roll which disclosed a quorum present .- H. J. 1905, p. 1305.
While a call of the house has been the usual means of determining by roll call whether or not a quorum is present, there seems to be no reason why the speaker should not take that means as well as another to determine the question.
167. An amendment to a bill is not in order after the previous question has been ordered .- H. J. 1905, p. 1403.
Ordering the previous question is for the purpose of terminating debate, cutting off further amendments, and bringing the house to an immediate vote.
168. A demand for the yeas and nays was held not in order after ordering the pre- vious question .- H. J. 1905, p. 1593.
The decision is in accordance with the rule which provides that "after seconding the previous question and prior to ordering the same * *
* * a demand for the yeas and nays may be made." There may be some question whether this rule does not limit the constitutional right of one-fifth of the members to the yeas and nays "on any question."
169. Members may, by motion. be admitted within the bar of the house, under a call, and allowed to take their seats although a quorum is not present .- H. J. 1905, p. 1599.
The house is not permitted to transact any business in the absence of a quorum. The admission and seating of members was properly held not to be the transaction of business.
170. A notice of a motion to reconsider the passage of a bill was ruled out of order for the reason that the house would adjourn sine die before the expiration of the time limited by the rule .- H. J. 1905, p. 1765.
The house rules require the clerk to hold the bill until the time for its reconsideration has expired. In this case such action would prevent the sending of the bill to the senate before its adjournment. The notice was therefore ruled out of order, as being dilatory. House rule No. 53 adopted since the decision was made, now governs this matter.
171. A resolution prohibiting lobbying on the floor of the house was ruled out of order for the reason that its subject matter was covered by a rule of the house .- H. J. 1907, p. 88.
The rule in question regulates admission to the floor and, strictly speaking, does not prohibit lobbying. It would have been better to have offered the resolution in the form of an amendment to the rules.
172. The time having arrived for the consideration of a special order and a motion that the house resolve itself into a committee of the whole thereon having been made, a motion to postpone the consideration of the special order until a time certain was held out of order .- H. J. 1907, p. 482.
The ruling is not correct. The motion to postpone to a day certain should have been held to take precedence, and, instead of being ruled out of order, ought to have been put immediately.
662
MICHIGAN MANUAL.
173. A motion to proceed with the regular order of business under a call of the house does not preclude the temporary postponement of the consideration of a particular question .- H. J. 1907, p. 662.
The motion to proceed with business obviously did not refer to any particular matter but to such business as might be on the regular order for the day. In case, however, that the motion had contemplated some particular question, it could not prevent the disposition of that question by commitment, laying on the table, postponing or by any other proper means.
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.