USA > Wisconsin > The Wisconsin blue book 1893 > Part 11
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
Another exception to the rule of priority is when a motion has been made to strike out or agree to a paragraph. Motions to amend it are to be put to the question before a vote is taken on striking out or agreeing to the whole paragraph.
But there are several questions which, being incidental to every one, will take place of every one, privileged or not, to wit: a question of order arising out of any other question must be decided before that question. 2 Hats., 88.
A matter of privilege arising out of any question, or from a quarrel between two mem- bers or any other cause, supersedes the consideration of the original question, and must be first disposed of. 2 Hats., 88.
Reading papers relative to the question before the House. This question must be put before the principal one. 2 Hats., 88.
Leave asked to withdraw a motion. The rule of Parliament being that a motion made and seconded is in the possession of the House, and cannot be withdrawn without leave, the very terms of the rule imply that leave may be given, and, consequently, may be asked and put to the question.
SECTION : XXIV.
THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.
When any question is before the House, any member may move a previous question, " Whether that question (called the main question) shall now be put?" If it pass in the affirmative, then the main question is to be put immediately, and no man may speak any- thing further to it, either to add or alter. Memor. in Hakew., 28; 4 Grey, 27.
The previous question being moved and seconded, the question from the chair shall be, "Shall the main question be now put?" and if the nays prevail, the main question shall not then be put.
This kind of question is understood by Mr. Hatsell to have been introduced in 1604. 1 Hats., 80. Sir Henry Vane introduced it. 2 Grey, 113, 114; 3 Grey, 384. When the question was put in this form, "Shall the main question be put?" a determination in the negative sup- pressed the main question during the session; but since the words, " now put " are used they exclude it for the present only; formerly, indeed, only till the present debate was over (4 Grey, 43), but now for that day and no longer. 2 Grey, 113, 114.
Before the question " Whether the main question shall now be put?" any person might formerly have spoken to the main question, because otherwise he would be precluded from speaking to it at all. Mem. in Hakew., 28.
The proper occasion for the previous question, is when a question is brought forward of a delicate nature as to high personages, etc., or the discussion of which may call forth obser- vations which might be of injurious consequences. Then the previous question is proposed; and in the modern usage, the discussion of the main question is suspended, and the debate confined to the previous question. The use of it has been extended abusively to other cases; but in these it has been an embarrassing procedure; its uses would be as well answered by other more simple parliamentary forms, and therefore it should not be favored, but re- stricted within as narrow limits as possible.
Whether a main question may be amended after the previous question on it has been moved and seconded? 2 Hats., 88, says, if the previous question has been moved and sec- onded, and also proposed from the chair (by which he means stated by the Speaker for de- bate), it has been doubted whether an amendment can be admitted to the main question. He thinks it may, after the previous question is moved and seconded: but not after it has "een proposed from the chair. In this case he thinks the friends to the amendment mro+
58
WISCONSIN BLUE BOOK.
vote that the main question be not now put; and then move their amended question, which being made new by the amendment, is no longer the same which has just been suppressed, and therefore may be proposed as a new one. But this proceeding certainly endangers the main question, by dividing its friends, some of whom may choose it unamended. rather than lose it altogether; while others of them may vote, as Hatsell advises, that the main question be not now put with a view to move it again in an amended form. Thx ies of the main question, by this manœuvre to the previous question, get the enemies to tue amend- ment added to them on the first vote and throw the friends of the main question under the embarrassment of rallying again as they can. To support his opinion, too, he makes the deciding circumstances, whether an amendment may or may not be made, to be, that the previous question has been proposed from the Chair. But, as the rule is that the House is in possession of a question as soon as it is moved and seconded, it cannot be more than possessed of it by its being also proposed from the Chair. It may be said, indeed, that the object of the previous question being to get rid of a question, which it is not expedient should be discussed, this object may be defeated by moving to amend, and, in the discussion of that motion, involving the subject of the main question. But so may the object of the . previous question be defeated, by moving the amended question as Mr. Hatsell proposes after the decision against putting the original question. He acknowledges, too, that the practice has been to admit previous amendments, and only cites a few late instances to the contrary. On the whole, I should think it best to decide it ab inconvenienti, to wit: which is most inconvenient, to put it in the power of one side of the House to defeat a proposition by hastily moving the previous question, and thus forcing the main question to be put un- amended; or to put it in the power of the other side to force on, incidentally at least, a dis- cussion which would be better avoided? Perhaps the last is the least inconvenience; inasmuch as the Speaker, by confining the discussion rigorously to the amendment only, may prevent their going into the main question, and inasmuch also as so great a proportion of the cases in which the previous question is called for, are fair and proper subjects for public discussion, and ought not to be obstructed by a formality introduced for questions of a peculiar character.
SECTION XXXV.
AMENDMENTS.
On an amendment being moved, a member who has spoken to the main question may speak again to the amendment. Scob., 23.
If an amendment be proposed inconsistent with one already agreed to, it is a fit ground for its rejection by the House, but not within the competence of the Speaker to suppress as if it were against order; for were he permitted to draw questions of consistence within the vortex of order, he might usurp a negative on important modifications, and suppress, instead of subserving the legislative will.
Amendments may be made so as totally to alter the nature of the proposition ; and it is a way of getting rid of a proposition by making it bear a sense different from what it was intended by the movers, so that they vote against it themselves. 2 Hats., 79, 4, 82, 84. A new bill may be engrafted by way of amendment, on the words, "Be it enacted," etc. 1 Gray, 190, 192.
If it be proposed to amend by leaving out certain words, it may be moved, as an amend- ment to this amendment, to leave out a part of the words of the amendment, which is equivalent to leaving them in the bill. 2 Hats., 80, 9. The parliamentary question is, always, whether the words shall stand part of the bill.
When it is proposed to amend by inserting a paragraph, or part of one, the friends of the paragraph may make it as perfect as they can by amendments before the question is put for inserting it. If it be received, it cannot be amended afterwards, in the same stage, because the House has, on a vote, agreed to it in that form. In like manner, if it is proposed to amend by striking out a paragraph, the friends of the paragraph are first to make it as perfect as they can by amendments, before the question is put for striking it out. If on the question it be retained, it cannot be amended afterwards, because a vote against strik- ing out is equivalent to a vote agreeing to it in that form.
When it is moved to amend by striking out certain words and inserting others, the man- ner of stating the question is first to read the whole passage to be amended as it stands at present, then the words proposed to be struck out, next those to be inserted, and lastly the whole passage as it will be when amended. And the question, if desired, is then to be divided, and put first on striking out. If carried, it is next on inserting the words proposed. If that be lost, it may be moved to insert others. 2 Hats., 80, 7.
59
MANUAL OF PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE.
A motion is made to amend by striking out certain words and inserting others in their place, which is negatived. Then it is moved to strike out the same words, and to insert others of a tenor entirely different from those first proposed. It is negatived. Then it is moved to strike out the same words and insert nothing, which is agreed to. All this is ad- missible, because to strike out and insert A, is one proposition. To strike out and insert B, is a different proposition. And to strike out and insert nothing, is still different. And the rejection of one proposition does not preclude the offering a different one. Nor would it change the case were the first motion divided by putting the question first on striking out, and that negatived; for, as putting the whole motion to the question at once would not have. precluded, the putting the half of it cannot do it .*
But if it had been carried affirmatively to strike out the words and to insert A, it could not afterwards be permitted to strike out A and insert B. The mover of B should have notified, while the insertion of A was under debate, that he would move to insert B; in which case those who preferred it would join in rejecting A.
After A is inserted, however, it may be moved to strike out a portion of the original par- agraph, comprehending A, provided the coherence to be struck out be so substantial as to make this effectively a different proposition, for then it is resolved into the common case of striking out a paragraph after amending it. Nor does anything forbid a new insertion, in- stead of A and its coherents.
In Senate, January 25, 1798, a motion to postpone until the second Tuesday in February some amendments proposed to the Constitution; the words, "until the second Tuesday in February " were struck out by way of amendment. Then it was moved to add, "until the first day of June." Objected that it was not in order, as the question should be first put on the longest time; therefore, after a shorter time decided against a longer, cannot be put to question. It was answered that this rule takes place only in filling blanks for time. But when a specific time stands part of motion, that may be struck out as well as any other part of a motion; and when struck out a motion may be received to insert any other. In fact, it is not until they are struck out, and a blank for the time thereby produced, that the rule can begin to operate, by receiving all the propositions for different times, and putting the question successively on the longest. Otherwise it would be in the power of the mover, by inserting originally a short time, to preclude the possibility of a longer, for till the short time is struck out, you cannot insert a longer; and if, after it is struck out, you cannot do it, then it cannot be done at all. Suppose the first motion had been made to amend by striking out " the second Tuesday in February," and inserting instead thereof "the first of June," it would have been regular, then, to divide the question, by proposing the first ques- tion to strike out and then that to insert. Now this is precisely the effect of the present pro- ceeding; only, instead of one motion and two questions, there are two motions and two - questions to effect it- the motion being divided as well as the question.
When the matter contained in two bills might better be put into one, the manner is to reject the one, and incorporate its matter into another bill by way of amendment. So if the matter of one bill would be better distributed into two, any part may be struck out by way of amendment, and put into a new bill. If a section is to be transposed, a question must be put on striking it out where it stands, and another for inserting it in the place desired.
A bill passed by the one House with blanks. These may be filled up by the other by way of amendments, returned to the first as such, and passed. 3 Hats., 83.
The number prefixed to the section of a bill, being merely a marginal indication, and no part of the text of the bill, the clerk regulates that-the House or committee is only to amend the text.
SECTION XXXVI. DIVISION OF THE QUESTION.
If a question contain more parts than one, it may be divided into two or more questions. Mem. in Hakew., 39. But not as the right of an individual member, but with the consent of the House. For who is to decide whether a question is complicated or not ? - where it is complicated ?- into how many propositions it may be divided ? The fact is, that the only mode of separating a complicated question is by moving amendments to it; and these
* In the case of a division of the question, and a decision against striking out, I advance doubtingly the opinion here expressed. I find no authority either way, and I know it may be viewed under a different aspect. It may be thought that having decided separately not to strike out the passage, the same question for striking out cannot be put over again, though with a view to a different insertion. Still I think it more reasonable and convenient to consider the striking out and insertion as forming one proposition; but should readily yield to any evidence that the contrary is the practice in Parliament.
60
WISCONSIN BLUE BOOK.
must be decided by the House, on a question, unless the House orders it to be divided; as, on a question, December 2, 1640, making void the election of the knights for Worcester, on a motion it was resolved to make two questions of it, to wit: one on each knight. 2 Hats., 85, 86. So, wherever there are several names in question, they may be divided and put one by one. 9 Grey, 444. So, 1729, April 17, on an objection that a question was complicated, it was separated by amendment. 2 Hats., 79.
The soundness of these observations will be evident from the embarrassments produced by the 12th rule of the Senate, which says, "if the question in debate contain several points, any member may have the same divided."
1798, May 30, the alien bill in quasi-committee. To a section and proviso in the original had been added two new provisos by way of amendment. On a motion to strike out the section as amended, the question was desired to be divided. To do this it must be put first on striking out either the former proviso or some distinct member of the section. But when nothing remains but the last member or the section and the proviso, they cannot be divided so as to put the last member to question by itself; for the proviso might then be left standing alone as exceptions to a rule when the rule is taken away; or the new provisos might be left to a second question, after having been decided on once before at the same reading, which is contrary to rule. But the question must be on striking out the last mem- ber of the section as amended. This sweeps away the exceptions with the rule, and relieves from inconsistence. A question to be divisible, must comprehend points so distinct and entire that one of them being taken away the other may stand entire. But a proviso or an exception, without an enacting clause does not contain an entire point or proposition.
May 31. The same bill being before the Senate. There was a proviso that the bill should not extend, 1, To any foreign minister; nor, 2, To any person to whom the President should give a passport; nor, 3, To any alien merchant conforming himself to such regula- tions as the President shall prescribe, and a division of the question into its simplest ele- ments was called for. It was divided into four parts, the fourth taking in the words, " conforming himself," etc. It was objected that the words, " any alien merchant " could not be separated from their modifying words, " conforming," etc., because these words if left by themselves contain no substantive idea - will make no sense. But admitting that the divisions of a paragraph into separate questions must be so made that each part may stand by itself, yet the House having on the question, retained the two first divisions, the words "any alien merchant " may be struck out, and their modifying words will then attach themselves to the preceding description of persons, and become a modification of that description.
When a question is divided, after the question on the first member, the second is open to debate and amendment, because it is a known rule that a person may rise and speak at any time before the question has been completely decided, by putting the negative as well as the affirmative side. But the question is not completely put when the vote has been taken on the first member only. One-half of the question, both affirmative and negative remains still to be put. See Execut. Jour., June 25, 1795. The same decision by President Adams.
SECTION XXXVII.
CO-EXISTING QUESTIONS.
It may be asked whether the House can be in possession of two motions or propositions at the same time, so that one of them being decided, the other goes to question without being moved anew? The answer must be special. When a question is interrupted by a vote of adjournment, it is thereby removed from before the House, and does not stand ipso facto before them at their next meeting, but must come forward in the usual way. So, when it is interrupted by the order of the day. Such other privileged questions also as dispose of the main question (e. g. the previous question, postponement, or commitment), remove it from before the House. But it is only suspended by a motion to amend, to withdraw, to read papers, or by a question of order or privilege, and stands again before the IIouse when these are decided. None but the class of privileged questions can be brought forward while there is another question before the House, the rule being that when a motion has been made and seconded, no other can be received, except it be a privileged one.
SECTION XXXVIII. EQUIVALENT.
If, on a question for rejection, a bill be retained, it passes of course to its next reading. Hakew., 141; Scob., 42. And a question for a second reading determined negatively, is a re jection without further question. 4 Grey, 145. And see Elsynge's Memor., 42, in what cases questions are to be taken for rejection.
61
MANUAL OF PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE.
Where questions are perfectly equivalent, so that the negative of the one amounts to the affirmative of the other, and leaves no other alternative, the decision of the one concludes necessarily the other. 4 Grey, 157. Thus the negative of striking out amounts to the affirm- ative of agreeing; and therefore to put a question on agreeing after that on striking out, would be to put the same question in effect twice over. Not so in questions of amendments between the two Houses. A motion to recede being negatived, does not amount to a posi- tive vote to insist, because there is another alternative, to wit: to adhere:
A bill originating in one House is passed by the other with an amendment. A motion in the originating House to agree to the amendment is negatived. Does there result from this a vote of disagreement, or must the question on disagreement be expressly voted? The questions respecting amendments from another House are-1st, to agree; 2d to disagree; 3d, recede; 4th, insist; 5th, adhere.
1st. To agree.
2d. To disagree.
Either of these concludes the other necessarily, for the positive of either is exactly the equivalent of the negative of the other, and no other alternative remains. On either motion amendments to the amendments may be proposed; e. g., if it be moved to dis- agree, those who are for the amendment have a right to propose amendments, and to make it as perfect as they can, before the question of disagreeing is put.
3d. To recede.
You may then either insist or adhere.
4th. To insist.
You may then either recede or adhere.
5th. To adhere.
You may then either recede or insist.
Consequently the negative of these is not equivalent to a positive vote the other way. It does not raise so necessary an implica- cation as may authorize the Secretary by inference to enter another vote; for two alternatives still remain, either of which may be adopted by the House.
SECTION XXXIX.
THE QUESTION.
The question is to be put first on the affirmative and then on the negative side.
After the Speaker has put the affirmative part of the question, any member who has not spoken before to the question may rise and speak before the negative be put; because it is no full question till the negative part be put. Scob., 23; 2 Hats., 73.
But in small matters, and which are, of course, such as receiving petitions, reports, with- drawing motions, reading papers, etc., the Speaker most commonly supposes the consent of the House where no objection is expressed, and does not give them the trouble of putting the question formally. Scob., 22; 2 Hats., 87; 5 Grey, 129; 9 Grey, 301.
SECTION XL.
BILLS, THIRD READING.
To prevent bills from being passed by surprise, the House, by a standing order, directs that they shall not be put on their passage before a fixed hour, naming one at which the House is commonly full. Hakew., 153.
[The usage of the Senate is, not to put bills on their passage till noon.]
A bill reported and passed to the third reading cannot on that day be read the third time and passed; because this would be to pass on two readings in the same day.
At the third reading the Clerk reads the bill and delivers it to the Speaker, who states the title, that it is the third time of reading the bill, and that the question will be whether it shall pass? Formerly the Speaker or those who prepared a bill, prepared also a breviate or summary statement of its contents, which the Speaker read when he declared the state of the bill, at the several readings. Sometimes, however, he read the bill itself, especially on its passage. Hakew., 136, 137, 153; Coke, 22, 115. Latterly, instead of this, he, at the third reading, states the whole contents of the bill, verbatim, only, instead of reading the formal parts "Be it enacted, etc.," he states that " preamble recites so and so - the first section enacts that, etc., the 2d section enacts," etc.
[But in the Senate of the United States both of these formalities are dispensed with; the breviate presenting but an imperfect view of the bill, and being capable of being made to present a false one; and the full statement being a useless waste of time, immediately after a full reading by the Clerk, and especially as every member has a printed copy in his hand.]
A bill on the third reading is not to be committed for the matter or body thereof; but to
62
WISCONSIN BLUE BOOK.
receive some particular clause or proviso, it has been sometimes suffered, but as a thing very unusual. Hakew., 126. Thus, 27 El., 1584, a bill was committed on the third reading, having been formerly committed on the second, but it is declared not usual. D'Ewes, 337, col., 2; 414, col., 2.
When an essential provision has been omitted, rather than erase the bill and render it suspicious, they add a clause on a separate paper, engrossed and called a rider, which is read and put to the question three times. Elsynge's Memorials, 59; 6 Grey, 335; 1 Blackst., 183. For example of riders, see 3 Hats., 121, 122, 124, 126. Every one is at liberty to bring in a rider without asking leave. 10 Grey, 52.
It is laid down as a general rule, that amendments proposed at the second reading, shall be twice read, and those proposed at the third reading thrice read; as also all amendments from the other House. Town, col., 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28.
It is with great and almost invincible reluctance that amendments are admitted at this reading, which occasion erasures or interlineations. Sometimes a proviso has been cut off from a bill; sometimes erased. 9 Grey, 513.
This is the proper stage for filling up blanks; for if filled up before, and now altered by erasure, it would be peculiarly unsafe.
At this reading the bill is debated afresh, and for the most part is more spoken to at this time than on any of the former readings. Hakew., 153.
The debate on the question whether it should be read a third time, has discovered to its friends and opponents the arguments on which each side relies, and which of these appear to have influence with the House; they have had time to meet them with new arguments, and to put their old ones into new shapes. The former vote has tried the strength of the former opinion, and furnished grounds to estimate the issue; and the question now offered for its passage is the last occasion which is ever to be offered for carrying or rejecting it.
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.