Debates? of the last Convention, that the
question of the previous question came up,
and Mr. Randall moved to change the ordi-
nary rule reported by the committee similar
to the 23d Rule of the House of Delegates.
He says, on page 57 of the Debates:
" I rise to give notice that I shall propose
a change of the 17th Rule, which declares
that the previous question shall be always in
order, if seconded by a majority, &c, &c.,
and that the main question shall be on the
adoption of the proposition under consider-
ation; and that in cases where there shall be
pending amendments, the question shall be
first taken on such amendments, in their or-
der, and without further debate on amend-
ment.
"Now I understand by the construction
given to this rule. and under the Parliament-
ary law, that the effect of the previous ques-
tion, if sustained, is not only to cut off all
debate and amendments on the question then
before the Convention, but to cut Off all de-
bate and amendments on the whole subject
matter. That is to say, we have to vote
upon the whole bill and amendments, at one
time."
That is, if a motion is under consideration
and the previous question is moved, it oper-
ates upon the whole bill or the whole report.
He proceeds:
" I suggest to the consideration of gentle-
men that every desirable object will be
effected by confining the operation of previ-
ous questions to the actual question under
consideration, and to nothing else, Many
friends more experienced than myself in such
matters, have intimated their opinion that
such a change would have a happy effect;
and I propose so to amend the motion as to
give it that operation."
The 54th Rule was framed by the commit-
tee to carry out the idea here suggested.
The PRESIDENT, Then the main question
will be the amendment ?
Mr. CLARKE. The rule provides that there
shall be union the second reading, no main
question, but that there shall be a previous
question; and the rule defines what the pre-
vious question is; that it shall apply to
pending amendments before the Convention,
and shall prevent further debate or amend-
ment until the pending amendments are dis-
posed of, and then other amendments may 1^
offered. The main question, as explained by
Mr. Randall, always applies to the whole bill,
so that when a bill is under consideration the
vote must be taken on the entire bill; and if
we adopt the same rule, the vote must be
taken on the whole report of a committee,
It was to make that distinction that the rule
was drawn in the form in which the com-
mittee have reported it.
Mr. HEBB. The gentleman misunderstands
the meaning of the rule as I offer it. it re-
quires a vote upon the section of the report
8 |
under consideration, and not upon the whole
report.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. It appears to me that
this amounts to nothing else than merely pro-
viding two forms of the previous question.
Ordinarily the previous question is called at
any s age of the proceeding, whenever gen-
tlemen see fit. Under the apprehension that
it may be called belore the article under con-
sideration is matured, this provides for a pre-
vious question upon the second reading un-
der the title of the previous question. And
when it gets to the third reading, when the
article has been passed upon, there is a previ-
ous question under the name of the main
question; and it amounts to nothing else as I
understand it.
Mr. CLARKE. Then here is the third sec-
tion :
"The rules of parliamentary practice on
the call of the previous question on all other
subjects, shall govern the Convention."
It is simply on the consideration of reports
on their second and third readings that a
distinction is drawn between the previous
question and the main question, in order to
apply to this particular case, which had to be
done to make those rules apply to a report
which would otherwise have applied to bills.
The PRESIDENT. In parliamentary practice
can there be a distinction drawn between the
previous question and the main question? Is
not the previous question in parliamentary
practice the main question.
Mr. CLARKE. Then upon the second read-
ing there can be no previous question at all
under the usual parliamentary rules.
Mr, DANIEL. I rose to suggest the same
thing which has just been suggest d by the
Chair. It seems to me that the previous
question is nothing else but the main ques-
tion; and the question merely is, Shall the
debate stop, and shall the vote upon the
question be now taken? Then we shall vote
upon the question, whether it is an amend-
ment or some other question.
The CHAIR. The main question applies to
the voting upon the original proposition
rather than to the disposition of the amend-
ments pending.
Mr. DANIEL. I do not see any difficulty in
the rule asl understand it to be suggested by
the amendment, and as it is usually framed
in parliamentary rules. It cuts off all de-
bate and brings the vote upon the several
amendments as they are offered, and then
upon the main question, if the previous
question is ordered upon the second reading
you would be obliged to stop there alter hav-
ing disposed of the amendments. This I
think meets the difficulty, if there is any
difficulty. You would go on until obliged
to stop by another rule, which requires no
provision to be inserted in the Constitution
except upon the third reading, and then the
main question would go over to the third |
