voting against the previous question, com- | includes the greater, as in questions on the mitment, or amendment. limitation of the rate of interest, on what Suppose a commitment moved of a mo- day the session shall be closed by adjourntion for the previous question, or to post-ment, on what day the next shall compone or amend. The first, second, and mence, when an act shall commence, or third reasons, before stated, all hold good against this. Suppose an amendment moved to a motion for the previous question. Answer: The previous question cannot be amended. Parliamentary usage, as well as the ninth rule of the Senate, has fixed its form to be, Shall the main question be now put?"i. e., at this instant; and as the present instant is but one, it can admit of no modification. To change it to to-morrow, or any other moment, is without example and without utility. But suppose a motion to amend a motion for postponement, as to one day instead of another, or to a special instead of an indefinite time. The useful character of amendment gives it a privilege of attaching itself to a secondary and privileged motion: that is, we may amend a postponement of a main question. So, we may amend a commitment of a main question, as by adding, for example, "with instructions to inquire," &c. In like manner, if an amendment be moved to an amendment, it is admitted; but it would not be admitted in another degree, to wit, to amend an amendment to an amendment of a main question. This would lead to too much embarrassment. The line must be drawn somewhere, and usage has drawn it after the amendment to the amendment. The same result must be sought by deciding against the amendment to the amendment, and then moving it again as it was wished to be amended. In this form it becomes only an amendment to an amend ment. [When motions are made for reference of the same subject to a select committee and to a standing committee, the question on reference to the standing committee shall be first put. Rule 48.] [In filling a blank with a sum, the largest sum shall be first put to the question, by the thirteenth rule of the Senate,*] contrary to the rule of Parliament, which privileges the smallest sum and longest time. 5 Grey, 179; 2 Hats., 8, 83; 3 Hats., 132, 133.] And this is considered to be not in the form of an amendment to the question, but as alternative or successive originals. In all cases of time or number, we must consider whether the larger comprehends the lesser, as in a question to what day a postponement shall be, the number of a committee, amount of a fine, term of an imprisonment, term of irredeemability of a loan, or the terminus in quem in any other case; then the question must begin a maximo. Or whether the lesser the terminus a quo in any other case where the question must begin a minimo; the object being not to begin at that extreme which, and more, being within every man's wish, no one could negative it, and yet, if he should vote in the affirmative, every question for more would be precluded; but at that extreme which would unite few, and then to advance or recede till you get to a number which will unite a bare majority. 3 Grey, 376, 384, 385. "The fair question in this case is not that to which, and more, all will agree, but whether there shall be addition to the question." 1 Grey, 365. 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 members, 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. SEC. XXXIV.-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 anything 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 *In filling up blanks, the largest sum and longest 1604. 2 Hats., 80. Sir Henry Vane in time shall be first put. Rule 32. troduced it. 2 Grey, 113, 114; 3 Grey, 384. | or may not be made, to be, that the preWhen the question was put in this form, vious question has been proposed from the "Shall the main question be put?" a de- Chair. But, as the rule is that the House termination in the negative suppressed 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 subject is brought forward of a delicate nature as to high personages, &c., or the discussion of which may call forth observations 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 restricted 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 seconded, and also proposed from the Chair, (by which he means stated by the Speaker for debate,) it has been doubted whether an amendment can be admitted to the main question. He thinks it may, after the previous question moved and seconded; but not after it has been proposed from the Chair. In this case, he thinks the friends to the amendment must 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 been just 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 chose 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. The enemies of the main question, by this maneuver to the previous question, get the enemies to the amendment 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 this opinion, too, he makes the deciding circumstance, whether an amendment may 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 unamended; or to put it in the power of the other side to force on, incidentally at least, a discussion 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 of public discussion, and ought not to be obstructed by a formality introduced for questions of a peculiar character. SEC. 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 ingrafted, by way of amendment, on the words "Be it enacted," &c. 1 Grey, 190. 192. If it be proposed to amend by leaving | not prevent a motion to strike out and inout certain words, it may be moved, as an sert à different proposition, nor prevent a amendment to this amendment, to leave subsequent motion simply to strike out; 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 afterward, 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 afterward, because a vote against striking out is equivalent to a vote agreeing to it in that form. nor shall the rejection of a motion simply to strike out prevent a subsequent motion to strike out and insert.] But if it had been carried affirmatively to strike out the words and to insert A, it could not afterward 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 paragraph, 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, instead of A and its coherence. In Senate, January 25, 1798 a motion to When it is moved to amend by striking postpone until the second Tuesday in Febout certain words and inserting others, the ruary some amendments proposed to the manner of stating the question is first to Constitution; the words "until the second read the whole passage to be amended as Tuesday in February," were struck out by it stands at present, then the words pro- way of amendment. Then it was moved posed to be struck out, next those to be to add, "until the first day of June." Obinserted, and lastly the whole passage as it|jected that it was not in order, as the 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. 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 a motion, that may be struck out as well as any other part of the 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 questions 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 insert 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 admissible, 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 pre-ing instead thereof "the first of June," it cluded, the putting the half of it cannot do it. [The practice in the United States Senate in this respect is now fixed by the 31st rule, as follows: If the question in debate contains several points, any Senator may have the same divided; but on a motion to strike out and insert, it shall not be in order to move for a division of the question; but the rejection of a motion to strike out and insert one proposition shall would have been regular, then, to divide the question, by proposing first the question to strike out and then that to insert. Now this is precisely the effect of the present proceeding; only, instead of one motion and two questions, there are two motions and two questions to effect it—the motions being divided as well as the question. When the matter contained in two bills might be better put into one, the manner | after having been decided on once before is to reject the one, and incorporate its mat- at the same reading, which is contrary to ter into another bill by way of amendment. rule. But the question must be on strikSo if the matter of one bill would be bet-ing out the last member of the section as ter distributed into two, any part may be amended. This sweeps away the excepstruck 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. SEC. XXXVI.-DIVISION OF THE QUES TION. tions 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 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-i. 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 regulations as the President shall prescribe; and a division of the question into its simplest elements was called If a question contains more parts than for. It was divided into four parts, the 4th one, it may be divided into two or more taking in the words" conforming himself," questions. Mem. in Hakew., 29. But not &c. It was objected that the words "any as the right of an individual member, but alien merchant," could not be separated with the consent of the House. For who from their modifying words, "conforming," is to decide whether a question is compli- &c., because these words, if left by themcated or not-where it is complicated-selves, contain no substantive idea, will into how many propositions it may be di- make no sense. But admitting that the vided? The fact is that the only mode of divisions of a paragraph into separate separating a complicated question is by moving amendments to it; and these must be decided by the House, on a question, unless the House orders it to be divided; as, on the 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 night. 2 Hats., 85, 86. So, whereever there are several names in a question, they may be divided and put one by one. 9 Grey, 414. 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 twelfth rule of the Senate, which says, "if the question in debate contains several points, any member may have the same divided." questions must be so made as 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 1st member, the 2d 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. SEC. XXXVII.—COEXISTING QUESTIONS. 1798, May 30, the alien bill in quasicommittee. To a section and proviso in the original, had been added two new provisos by way of amendment. On a motion It may be asked whether the House can to strike out the section as amended, the be in possession of two motions or proposiquestion was desired to be divided. To do tions at the same time? so that, one of this it must be put first on striking out them being decided, the other goes to either the former proviso, or some distinct question without being moved anew? The member of the section. But when nothing answer must be special. When a question remains but the last member of the section is interrupted by a vote of adjournment, it and the provisos, they cannot be divided is thereby removed from before the House, so as to put the last member to question by and does not stand ipso facto before them itself; for the provisos might thus be left at their next meeting, but must come forstanding alone as exceptions to a rule when ward in the usual way. So, when it is inthe rule is taken away; or the new provi-terrupted by the order of the day. Such sos might be left to a second question, other privileged questions also as dispose of the main question, (e. g., the previous | 3d. To recede. SEC. XXXVIII.-EQUIVALENT QUESTIONS. 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 affirmative 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 positive 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 vote of disagreement, or must the question on disagreement be expressly voted? The question respecting amendments from another House are-1st, to agree; 2d, disagree; 3d, recede; 4th, insist; 5th, adhere, 1st. To agree. 2d. To disagree. } You may then either insist or adhere. You may then either recede or 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 implication 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. SEC. 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, withdrawing motions, reading papers, &c., 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. SEC. 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.] Either of these concludes the other neces-reading, cannot on that day be read the A bill reported and passed to the third sarily, for the positive third time and passed; because this would of either is exactly the be to pass on two readings in the same equivalent of the nega- day. tive of the other, and At the third reading the Clerk reads the no other alternative re- bill and delivers it to the Speaker, who mains. On either mo- states the title, that it is the third time of tion amendments to the reading the bill, and that the question will amendment may be pro- be whether it shall pass. Formerly the posed; e. g., if it be Speaker, or those who prepared a bill, premoved to disagree, those pared also a breviate or summary statewho are for the amendment of its contents, which the Speaker ment have a right to read when he declared the state of the propose amendments, bill, at the several readings. Sometimes, and to make it as per- however, he read the bill itself, especially fect as they can, before on its passage. Hakew., 136, 137, 153; the question of disagree- Coke, 22, 115. Latterly, instead of this, he, ing is put. at the third reading, states the whole con |