USA > Michigan > Official directory and legislative manual of the State of Michigan for the years 1893-4 > Part 13
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
CASTING VOTE-27, 73. COMMITMENT-10, 29. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE-83. COMMITTEE REPORT-5, 8.
CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS -- 15, 21, 39, 50, 71, 94.
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE-22, 23, 28, 36. CONTESTANT-Right of, to vote-93.
CONTESTED ELECTIONS-24, 25. DILATORY MOTIONS-81.
DEBATABLE QUESTIONS-19, 76.
DIVISION-(of the House)-13; (of the question)-4, 7, 28, 29, 30.
ELECTION OF MEMBERS-24, 25, 75.
ENACTING CLAUSE-(striking out al] after)-2, 7, 30. EXECUTIVE SESSION-31. FIFTY DAYS' LIMIT -- 8, 38, 39, 72. GALLERIES-(clearing of)-31. IMMEDIATE PASSAGE-81.
INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT -- 32, 33, 52, 75.
INSTRUCTIONS-29, 44.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS-81. IRRELEVENCY-6.
JOINT CONVENTION-73.
JOINT RESOLUTIONS-21, 30, 34, 72, 74, 86. JOURNAL-37, 54, 55, 56, 69, 70, 92. MINORITY REPORT-35, 36, 37.
OATH OF OFFICE (of Secretary)-40. PASSAGE OF BILLS-14, 15, 77, 78, 79, 82, 97, 98.
PREVIOUS QUESTION-52, 53.
PRINTING-57, 58, 59, 76.
PROTESTS-54, 55, 61, 87, 92, 93. QUESTIONS OF ORDER-41-6, 51. QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE-26, 54, 70, 88. READING OF BILLS-16.
RECALLING-of concurrent resolution- 94; of bills-95.
RECONSIDERATION-60, 62-7, 69, 91. REQUEST-(for return of bill)-89.
RESOLUTIONS-42; (concurrent)-21, 39, 50, 71, 94; (joint)-8, 30, 34, 38, 72, 74. RIGHTS OF MEMBERS-12, 16.
SECRETARY -- 40.
SELECT COMMITTEE-5, 48.
STRIKE OUT-2, 30. (Strike out and insert)-4, 7.
SUBSTITUTE-3, 8, 14, 38, 49, 58, 74, 77. SUSPENSION OF RULES-51.
TABLE-32, 40, 47, 50, 57, 76, Two-THIRDS VOTE-78, 82, 85, 86, 96, 98. VETO-91.
VOTE-(casting)-27, 73; (change of)-26; (declaring of)-90; (duty to)-27, 60; (record of)-70; (two-thirds)-78, 82, 85, 86, 96, 98; (right to)-93. YEAS AND NAYS-13, 15.
* These decisions have been carefully collected from the Legislative Journals from 1835 to 1891, inclusive. The comments to the rulings were furnished by the Hon. D. L. Crossman, for many years clerk of the House, with the exception of No. 24. which was revised by the Speaker of the House of 1891. The references "S. J." and "H. J." stand for the " Senate Journal " and "House Journal," respectively. The comments on rulings Nos. 92-98, inclusive, were furnished by Hon. Lewis M. Miller, present clerk of the House.
(131)
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
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; and, if it prevailed, all proceedings under the call not saved by special previous action, would fall; 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. 1841, p. 257 .- Jones' Appeal, H. J. 1846, p. 57. See 4.
This is true because a motion to amend takes precedence of a motion to strike out. Therefore the 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 would have been better to call the second substitute an amend- ment. A substitute for a substitute is not in order anywhere whether to a motion or to a bill.
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.
One important point seems to have been overlooked in this decision, viz .: That a motion to strike out and insert is of a very dif- ferent character from a motion to strike out only. The former is in the nature of an amendment to perfect the section or bill, and is not divisible. Parliamentary law especially steps in and says such a motion cannot be divided, thus prohibiting the conversion of this motion into the latter one, of which, like all other amendments, it also takes precedence-the theory being that, the section or bill, hav- ing been perfected by the amendments of its friends, then comes the motion of its enemies to strike out. This, in any event, closes the controversy; as, if it prevails, there is nothing further to act upon, and, if the motion is lost, no further amendments are in order.
5. The report of a select committee may be amended .- Ethridge's Appeal, S. J. 1839, p. 208.
(132)
133
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
It is hard to see how any question could be raised on this point. The report of any committee is usually accepted without formality, and then becomes the property of the House, to amend, adopt, or reject as it may please.
6. A motion to amend may be ruled out of order on account of irrelevancy- Greenly's Appeal, S. J. 1840, p. 634.
If an amendment is clearly irrelevant it certainly cannot be in order as an amendment. But the mover usually, when ruled out of order on his amendment, offers the same thing as a substitute, which need not be relevant.
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 proposition 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 strike out and insert should not have been divided, and by parliamentary law could not be taken as two motions; but since it was divided it must be understood that the mover modified his motion or consented to the division, so that it became simply a motion to strike out, the result of which must be final, whether it prevail or not. See 2 and 4.
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 substitute. Held, that, as the Senate had discharged the committee, it was a virtual reception of the report, and that the bill and substitute were before the Senate .- Howell's Appeal, S. J. 1844, p. 92.
There is under this innocent looking question one phase of the effort which recurs every session, to introduce new business after the first fifty days of session in violation of the constitution. Both presiding officers and Governor have been troubled by it, and while they have not always been uniform in their holdings, they have gen- erally been of one opinion, i. e., that it is better to leave something to the courts than for a chairman arbitrarily to decide upon the constitutionality of a measure, against the action of the Senate and House.
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.
Amendments are in order just as long as they can be stated with sufficient distinctness to have the proposition understood, and no longer.
10. An amendment pending when the bill is committed, falls .- Shoemaker's Appeal, S. J. 1850, p. 238.
By Senate Rule 34 a motion to commit cuts off a motion to amend.
134
THE LEGISLATURE.
The question itself illustrates the more common way of avoiding an objectionable amendment.
11. When a bill has passed the Senate and House, and has been returned to the Senate, the Senate cannot amend those portions of the bill which have been fully considered and agreed to by both houses .- Mead's Appeal, S. J. 1851 ( Ex. Session), p. 87.
If the House reported back no amendments, the bill would be at once enrolled for the Governor's approval. But if the bill came back with certain House amendments, then it would be open to action, but only upon those points as to which the two houses had failed to agree.
12. A member has a right to quote and read authorities in support of his argu- ment of a question .- H. J. 1861, p. 1076.
He has such right either by himself or by the Clerk. The authori- ties must be without doubt relevant to the question at issue.
13. A demand for the ayes and noes is not in order after a division of the House is ordered .- Smith's Appeal, H. J. 1841, p. 682.
After a division of the House is ordered, nothing is in order but the division; but the congressional practice is to allow the requisite number of members to order the yeas and nays even after a division is had, it being the theory that a given number of members can make each individual vote a matter of record, and this has come to be regarded as good practice in all legislative bodies.
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 question of concurrence must be by yeas and nays; if carried, then every proposition contained in the bill as it stands, has received the sanction of both houses. A majority of the minds have met, and the bill is ready for the Governor's signature.
15. A concurrence in the report of a conference committee by a majority of all the members elect is the passage of the bill .- Conger's Appeal, S. J. 1858, p. 107.
A conference committee is in the nature of a third legislative body, created for a special purpose, viz .: to revise a bill, as to which the two Houses cannot agree. Its work is offered to the Senate and House for ratification. The vote on the agreement must be by yeas and nays, and it is not adopted unless a majority of all the members elect in each house, respectively, vote therefor, in which case the bill is ready for enrollment and the Governor's signature. The report of a conference committee cannot be amended or laid on the table.
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.
135
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
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 provision of the Constitution."-Griswold's Appeals, 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 dispensed 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 the reading of any bill or paper in full; but that it is within the province 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. 1665.
The question whether a member could be compelled to vote on a bill which he had never heard read at length, has troubled more than one Legislature; and also whether reading by the title only satisfies the constitutional requirement of three several readings. The practice, however, has of late years been in accordance with the ruling in Williams' Appeal in 1865; which was in effect that the question of how much reading the Senate or House would hear and how much dispense with, was entirely within the control of those bodies. In fact to rule otherwise is to put the time of the Legisla- ture in the control of two or three obstructionists who would do nothing but listen to reading from the clerk's desk.
17. Under the operation of a call and after the Sergeant-at-Arms had been dis- patched after the absentees generally, a resolution to send the Sergeant-at-Arms after certain members (naming them) who have remained absent since the begin- ning of the ( extra ] session, was held not in order, as its adoption would be resolv- ing a second time to do a thing which the House had already ordered .- H. J. 1870, p. 151.
There is no reason for differing from this opinion, although the first order contemplates arrests without written warrants within the limits of the capitol building, while the resolution seems to refer to members at their homes in other parts of the State, for whose arrest the Sergeant-at-Arms would need written authority.
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.
Then, if the Senate refuse to order the arrest of an absentee, under a call, it would be thereby barred from mildly asking his attendance. Strictly speaking, there is but one way of securing the attendance of absentees-arrest.
19. A motion for a call of the Senate is a debatable question .- S. J. 1850, p. 432.
Except when had under the operation of the previous question. See Senate Rule 44.
20. Under a call of the House and after the bar had 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 the call is occasioned by lack of a quorum it is the practice, upon the finding of a quorum, to suspend all action under the call,
136
THE LEGISLATURE.
except the bringing in of absentees, and to proceed with business; but many calls are for the purpose of securing a full vote on some pending question and the fact of a quorum well understood when the call is ordered.
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 resolution, i. e., "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the St ite 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 concur- ring)" would have been the better form, but a concurrent resolution has no prescribed form, and, therefore, could not be out of order on the ground of form only.
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.
Wrong. It is only questions of disagreement that are referred to a conference committee. All that part of the bill which has passed both houses needs no committee.
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 com- mittee was in order .- Isbell's Appeal, S. J. 1850, p. 425.
New amendments to parts of the bill which are in dispute, are in order. This field of action is limited to those questions upon which the two houses have not agreed. The disagreements were referred to the committee.
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 vs. Hoyt, H. J. 1853, pp. 26, 62; Morrow vs. Horton, S. J. Feb. 24, 1891. The two houses in the practical construction given to this section of the Constitution, seem to have recognized a distinction between those holding State and county offices, and State contractors, on the one hand, and persons holding appointments under the United States, Graves vs. Hussey, S. J. 1855, p. 154; Id. p. 69; Vide Minority Report p. 76, H. J. 1859, p. 420. Though in the case of two members who held the positions of Assistant Assessor, and Assistant Marshal under the United States, the House refused to recognize it as constituting ineligibility. H. J. 1870, pp. 84, 89, 92.
The question of ineligibility under this clause of the constitution, while often raised and discussed, has never been definitely settled by the practice of the legislature. The provision of the constitution which declares that each house shall "judge of the qualifications elections and returns of its members," makes the question one of little practical importance.
JA.ZESSE &Go.Com.
NORTHERN MICHIGAN ASYLUM FOR THE INSANE, TRAVERSE CITY, MICH.
137
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
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. 1865, 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 reso- lutions 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.
By the Constitution each house is the only judge of its own membership. There is no court of appeal from its decisions.
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 misapprehension .- S. J. 1873, p. 941.
As well might his constituents change their votes, so as to elect his opponent of the campaign. To vote is to decide. He may place himself right on the record by an entry under "Ques- tion of privilege."
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 of the Senate is authorized to vote in case of a tie only. Every member of the Senate must vote when required to do so. The President pro tem. (as such) is nowhere required to vote.
28. A division on the question on concurring in certain amendments recom- mended by a committee of conference was held not in order .- Britain's Appeal, H. J. 1850, p. 449.
The report of such a committee cannot be amended. A division might result in an amendment, therefore it is not in order.
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. (Extra Session), pp. 44, 46.
There can be no doubt of it. The only wonder is that any such question was ever raised.
30. A motion to strike out all after the word " Resolved" in a joint resolution is not divisible .- Fuller's Appeal, S. J. 1842, p. 92.
Wrong. If there was more than one distinct proposition in the part to be struck out it was divisible; but the division could be as well secured by a motion to strike out any part less than the whole, which motion would take precedence of the motion to strike out the whole.
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.
All but those who are officially held.
18
138
THE LEGISLATURE.
82. 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 .- Summers' Appeal, S. J. 1840, p. 298.
A motion to table takes precedence of a motion to indefinitely postpone. If it is claimed that the latter motion did not relate to the bill, but to the former motion only, then it is clearly out of 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.
Why? It would be hard to suggest a better place for such a motion.
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 concerned.
35. Held, that it is necessary for a minority to have leave of the Senate before making a report .- Greeley's Appeal, S. J. 1840, p. 479.
A 'minority is not a committee, and has no rights beyond those that pertain individually to members. Courtesy gives minorities a hearing.
36. A report having been accepted and adopted from a committee of conference, a subsequent report, purporting to be a minority report, was held to be out of order .- S. J. 1847, p. 478.
It could be received only by courtesy; and if action had been had on the majority report, it was too late even for that. The Constitu- tion gives the greater latitude for the entry of protests upon the journals so that minorities and individuals can put themselves upon record without question.
37. A motion to exclude the report of a minority from the journal was held in order .- Summer's Appeal, S. J. 1850, p. 27.
It should hardly require a motion to exclude, as it could not be printed in the journal, if objection was made, without affirmative action by the Senate.
38. The point was raised that it is not competent for a committee, after the expiration of the fifty days' time for introduction of bills, to report to the House a substitute 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 themn; that it is competent for a committee to amend a bill as they see fit, and that it is competent for the House to concur or non-concur in their action when reported to the House .- H. J. 1869, p. 1329.
The constitutional prohibition of new business after 50 days would make the standing in the courts of a law passed under such circum- stances very questionable; but the holding has usually been as indi-
139
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
cated in No. 8 above-that it was a matter for the Legislature, rather than the presiding officer, to decide.
39. Matters of general legislation cannot be introduced in the Senate after the expiration of the fifty days, in the guise of a concurrent resolution .- Phillips' Appeul, S. J. 1869, p. 1481.
See comments on the preceding ruling of Nos. 8 and 38.
40. Held, that the oath of office could not be administered to the Secretary elect while a motion to reconsider the vote by which he was elected was lying on the table .- Loomis' Appeal, S. J. 1848, p. 11.
Which ruling would be equivalent to saying that, unless they took from the table that reconsideration and disposed of it, the Senate could have no Secretary to the end of the session, or that no busi- ness would be in order until that question was disposed of.
41. The Speaker called a member to order and directed him to take his seat, for alluding disrespectfully to another branch of the Government .- Huys' Appeal, H. J. 1845, 413.
Technically correct, but extreme in practice.
42. Held, that it is not in order for the House to entertain a resolution similar in import to one already passed by the House aud transmitted to the Senate .- Cartter's Appeal, H. J. 1845, p. 390.
Doubtful. I think for a speaker to rule a resolution out of order for that reason would be arbitrary. The House itself would be a better judge of the propriety of waiting indefinitely for Senate action.
43. A member in the course of his second speech on the same question was called to order. Held, that the point of order should have been raised when the member first rose to speak. Asit was not, the member was entitled to the floor .- Cutcheon's Appeal, H. J. 1561, p. 1076.
If the member was out of order when he began, I fail to see how he got in order by continuing.
44. A proposition to commit with instructions being before the House, a motion to commit without instructions is not in order, as the object sought could be more directly reached by dividing the question before the House .- H. J. 1870, D. 79.
Much the easier method. See No. 29 above.
45. Held, that it is not in order for a member on the floor to speak, of the "acts of a committee when in committee."-Greenly's Appeal, S. J. 1840, p. 479.
Must the Senate thereby be deprived of all the facts that influenced the committee? Or rather does not this ruling relate to the fact. that certain matters might come before the committee of which it would be improper to speak in the Senate?
46. The secretary having commenced to call the roll, all debate is out of order .- Etheridge's Appeal, S. J. 1840, p. 469.
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.