debate. All incidental questions of order
arising after a motion is made for the previous
question and pending such motion, shall be
decided, whether an appeal or otherwise,
without debate."
In a note on page 81, it will befound
that—
" The original intent of the previous ques-
tion was, to ascertain the sense of the House,
in the early stages of a subject, as to the pro-
priety of entertaining the matter; and, if
decided affirmatively, the debate went on; if
decided negatively, the debate ceased, and
the subject passed from before the House with-
out motion or further question."
I think the chairman of the committee
bad at first, embodied simply the previous
question, an it existed under the rules of par-
liamentary practice, on all subjects which
should come before the Convention; and that
would have been the rule reported, but for
the difficulty which existed in the last Con-
vention, in regard to the indefinite prolonga-
tion of debates upon amendments offered on
various propositions. We perceived that it
was necessary that the Convention should
change the ordinary rules of parliamentary
practice in reference to the effect of the pre-
vious question, so as to stop debate upon
amendments. And I suggested the propriety
—for 1 must say, for one, although it has
been intimated that the minority will prefer
to prolong the time of the Convention, that I
have no desire to waste the public money in
any useless calls of the House on propositions
simply to take up time; all that 1 desire is
that when a subject is fairly before the House,
we may have the opportunity plainly to ex-
press our views upon that question and offer
what amendments legitimately embody our
views, that they may go on record, and that
every member of the House may be prepared
to vote upon the question ;—1 suggested, with
that view, to cut off upon the second reading"
of a report interminable discussions, the first
two sections of this rule.
What would be the result were you to
adopt either the proposition offered by the
gentleman from Allegany or the ordinary
rules of parliamentary practice? It will be
found in the Legislative Guide, that it is
stated that the first reading of a bill shall be
for information, and the second for amend-
ment; and that while upon its second read-
ing the main question cannot be called be-
cause the rules of the House of Representa-
tives, and our rules also, provide that the
bills shall have their several readings; and if
the main question were ordered you could not
have the three readings on different days, as
required excepting under suspension of the
rules. Unless therefore we adopt some spe-
cial provision by which the previous question
may be called upon amendments, you cannot
call the previous question at all on the sec-
ond reading of a bill, As I said yesterday, |
in legislation upon bills on their second read-
ing, no such thing is known as a call of the
previous question.
Mr. HEBB. Does the gentleman state that
the rules of the House of Delegates prohibit
calls of the previous question upon the second
reading?
Mr. CLARKE. No, sir; the rules of the
House of Delegates require a bill to be read
to the House on three several days; and when
a pending amendment is before the House,
unless the House suspends the rule and passes
it to a third reading, you cannot find in the
rules of the House any main question before
the House, as I understand it. I do not pro-
pose longer to consume the time inexplain-
ing this rule, excepting to say that this is the
object, to avoid interminable debates which
might otherwise come up on the second read-
ing of a report. It was to check such dis-
cussions that the committee made this dis-
tinction, between the main question and the
previous question. It was only to distinguish
them, the previous and the main question be-
ing the same, the one being called upon the
second reading and the other upon the third
reading; the first, the previous question, to
be called upon the second reading and to
bring the House to a vote upon all the propo-
sitions then before the House for a vote; but
inasmuch as upon the second reading no sec-
tion or article, unless some gentleman moves
to amend it, is before the house for adoption,
it does not bring the House to a vote upon
the adoption of the article rr section. Gen-
tlemen are well aware that the only way to
get rid of a section is to move to amend by
striking it out, and this brings up the ques-
tion whether it shall be retained. But under
the amendment offered, the question is not
put whether such a section shall be adopted
as a section of the bill, and therefore you can
never upon the second reading vote upon the
main question. I have given this explana-
tion in justice to the committee. I have no
objection to the clause offered by the gentle-
man, if it can only be defined so as to say
clause, section, or article.
Mr. DANIEL. As I understand the opera-
tion of the amendment now—it was not so
evident yesterday—1 am inclined to vote for
it. I find upon looking at the Legislative
Guide, it is pretty nearly a copy of the rule
there, its well as a copy of that adopted by
the last Convention. So far as I have been
able to look into parliamentary rules, I have
never seen in any book where these rules are
laid down, this question divided into the
main question and the previous question. I
look upon them as the same thing; the effect
of the previous question being, "Shall the
debate stop?" That brings the question first
upon the amendments and their upon the
main question.
I disagree with my friend from Prince
George's, (Mr, Clarke,) as to the effect of |
