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 Grey, 190, 192.

If it be proposed to amend by leaving out certain words, it may be moved, as an amendment 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 striking 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 manner 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.

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 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 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 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 caenot 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 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 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

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 tha the contrary is the practice in Parliament.

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 regalates 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 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 onc. 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 embarassments 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 questiou by itself; for the provisos 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 member 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 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 regulations as the President shall prescribe; and a division of the question into its simplest elements 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 quest:on, 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 House 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 priveleged

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 rejection without further question. 4 Grey, 149. And see Elsynge's Memor., 42, in what cases questions are to be taken for relection.

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 boing 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 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.

3d. To recede 4th. To insist. 5th. To adhere.

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 disagree, 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. 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.

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, withdrawing 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. d., 22; 2 Hats., 87; 5 Grey, 129; 9 Grey, 301.