|
The time having arrived for considera-
tion of the special orders, we will now pro-
ceed to a consideration of the special or-
ders, being Item 9 on the Calendar.
The first special order is the further con-
sideration on second reading of Committee
Report S&D-9 with respect to Committee
Recommendation R&P-1 and 2, and particu-
larly that portion dealing with section 1.17.
At the time of the recess on Friday, I
think it was, before this item was made the
special order, we had under consideration
Amendment No. 5 to section 1.01. By a tie
vote the Convention had just rejected the
motion to reconsider.
Delegate Hostetter had indicated a de-
sire to move again to reconsider. We had
the dinner recess, and during the dinner
recess had worked out the arrangement
under which this was made a special order.
The Parliamentarian calls my attention
to the fact that inadvertently I erred in
stating what had happened, because, as all
of you know, the reconsideration of the
vote by which Amendment No. 5 was
adopted was carried, so that it was recon-
sidered, and it was after reconsideration
that the amendment was rejected by the
tie vote. In any event, before the recess for
dinner you had that situation with respect
to Amendment No. 5. Delegate Hostetter
had the floor to make his motion to recon-
sider the vote by which Amendment No. 5
was rejected.
During the dinner recess, it had been
agreed that the matter would be made a
special order. The Chair had indicated at
that time that there were, I think, three
other amendments to section 1.17 which the
sponsors had indicated they wished to offer
in the event Amendment No. 5 was re-
jected, and the Chair had indicated that if
it was rejected, the sponsors of those
amendments would be recognized in the
order indicated.
Since the action on Friday, a number of
delegates have asked me to advise them
as to the parliamentary situation with re-
spect to the consideration of this matter
and any amendments that may be desired
to be offered.
I have expressed the opinion of the Chair
as to the parliamentary situation, and I
think since this has been made known to a
number of delegates on both sides of this
issue, it would be well if I were to state
it now to the entire Convention, so that all
of you will be fully advised as to what the
Chair conceives the parliamentary situa-
tion to be.
|
As we begin consideration of this matter,
section 1.17, the Chair proposes to recog-
nize Delegate Hostetter for the purpose of
moving to reconsider the vote by which
Amendment No. 5 was rejected, that is, the
tie vote.
The matter on consideration at that
time, therefore, will be the motion to recon-
sider. If the motion to reconsider is car-
ried, then Amendment No. 5, which is the
amendment to delete the entire section, will
be before the Convention.
At that time — and it is important that
you understand this thoroughly — the per-
sons who have amendments to the main
question, that is, to section 1.17, have avail-
able to them two alternate courses of action ;
they can refrain from offering these
amendments until after the vote on
Amendment No. 5 is taken, and if on that
vote Amendment No. 5 is adopted, the en-
tire section would be deleted, and there
would be no necessity to offer the addi-
tional amendments.
If Amendment No. 5 is rejected, then
section 1.17 would be before you open to
amendment, and the sponsors of these
amendments could at that time offer the
amendments. That is one course of action
that is open, and that is the course of ac-
tion that was indicated last week the spon-
sors chose to follow.
They have available to them, however,
an alternate action. If the motion to recon-
sider is adopted, Amendment No. 5 is be-
fore you. That is a motion to delete the
entire section. While that amendment is
pending, any perfecting amendments to
the main question — that is, to section 1.17
— are in order, may be offered, may be
considered, and may be voted upon before
there is a vote on Amendment No. 5.
Therefore, the sponsors of any of these
other amendments or all of them can, while
the question is pending on the adoption of
Amendment No. 5 and before it is voted
upon, offer and get action on any of their
amendments.
I would like to be certain that that pro-
cedure is clearly understood, and I will
take a moment to repeat the net effect.
The Chair has, I suppose, a half dozen
amendments to section 1.17. Each of the
sponsors, acting separately — none can
bind the other — has available to him or
her two choices: either withholding the
amendment until after there has been a
vote on Amendment No. 5 and offering
their perfecting amendment to section 1.17
only if Amendment No. 5 fails; or while
|
