|
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is made
that the Committee rise and request the
Convention to amend the debate schedule,
to allow an additional thirty minutes of
debate on Amendment No. 1. Is the motion
seconded?
(The motion was duly seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any discus-
sion?
(There was no response.)
All those in favor — I think perhaps we
had better have a roll call vote on this mo-
tion.
Will the clerk please sound the quorum
bell?
Delegate Chabot?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Would it not be
in order, even if this motion is adopted,
for the Convention itself to amend the de-
bate schedule to permit a shorter period
of time, notwithstanding that we had voted
on the thirty minutes?
THE CHAIRMAN: It may be.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question arises
on the motion that the committee rise and
request the Convention to amend the debate
schedule so as to allow an additional thirty
minutes of debate on Amendment No. 1.
As the Chair has indicated, the Conven-
tion could allow either a shorter or longer
period, or none at all. A vote Aye is a vote
in favor of the motion to rise.
For what purpose does Delegate White
rise?
DELEGATE WHITE: Is the motion to
rise for the purpose stated debatable?
THE CHAIRMAN: It is not.
THE CHAIRMAN: A vote Aye is a vote
in favor of the motion to rise. A vote No
is a vote against. Cast your vote.
Has every delegate cast his vote? Does
any delegate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 62 votes in the affirmative
and 68 in the negative, the motion is ?ost.
The question arises — the clerk will
please sound the quorum bell.
For what purpose does Delegate Storm
rise?
|
DELEGATE STORM: I wanted to ask
you, Mr. Chairman, if it is possible to di-
vide this question, and have two votes, one
on the use of the word "exclusively",
which I understand is clearly implied, and
whether or not we need add that word, and
then the remainder. It seems to me we have
two distinct questions in this amendment
and if it is in order I would like to suggest
that we vote on them separately.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Mr. Chair-
man, the only reason we deleted the word
"exclusively" was because we felt it would
be inconsistent to use the word, "exclu-
sively", and then go on to say, "in such
other courts as the legislature may pro-
vide."
THE CHAIRMAN: That is the question
troubling the Chair right now as to whether
the question can be divided.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I might say
whether or not you use the term "exclu-
sively" in this particular section, for all
intent and purposes, these courts would be
exclusive courts anyway, in my opinion.
We deleted the word, however, for no other
reason than the fact that it would be in-
consistent to use it and then provide for
other courts as the future may require.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the
Chair can divide the question unless we
divide it by voting first on the word "ex-
clusively". If the motion is lost, it seems
to me that we could not vote then on the
second part of the amendment.
I do not believe the question is suscep-
tible of division. The Chair rules that it
cannot be divided.
Delegate Chabot?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
Would it then be in order, if this motion
should fail, to make a separate motion to
strike the word "exclusively" only.
THE CHAIRMAN: A separate amend-
men to the amendment? It would be in
order.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for
the question?
(Call for the question.)
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment 1 to Committee Recommenda-
|
