New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-03-13
APARLIAMEHfARY CROCHET.

! Inc Ftcdyune apd Bulletin have raised
a point of order against the city charte,
bill, which the Shinutes Of the House
show passed that body on the evening Of
March 8. The Bulletin processes to find
in the official record sufficient evidence to
prove that the bill failed, while the Plea.
yune seeks to prove by indirection that
the record is wrong.
We might dismiss this matter in a briei
] paragraph, by showing that all the re.
quirements were complied with, but as
our Democratic friends appear to take the
matter in dead earnest, we shall attempt
to elaborate all the points bearing upon
the question.
l. The constitutional objection
MIR. Guichard moved to suspend the
constitutional rule, to put the bill on its
third reading. This motion received
forty-four affirmative against twelve ne
gative votes. As the journal correctly
says:
Four-ifths of a quorum of the House
being present and not voting in the atfirma-
tive. the con stitutional rules were not eus-
pended.
Subsequently, Mr.. Souer, who had voted
in the affirmative, moved a reconsidera-
ton Of the vote whereby the House re-
fused to suspend the rules to place the
bill on the third reading. The Pica,nlne
denies the right of Mr.. Souer he having
voted with the unsuccessful side in the
first attempt, to make this motion. Upon
this point our contemporary hangs all its
objections. Let us examine into it q
little. The only law on the subject is
found in House rule, as follows:
20. When a motion has once been made
it shall be in ordel Dr. any member of the
majority to move for q reconsideration
thereof, provided it is made on the same
Day, or the next sitting day, before the or
Conceding that Mr.. Souer was not a
member Of the majority on this occasion,
we find there was nothing to prevent his
making the motion excep: the prohibi-
ton implied in the rule quoted. We say
implied" because the right of member
Of the minority to move for a reconsider
alton is lot positively denied. 1t is only
not given. Doubtless 1T was perfectly
competent for any member of the House
to object to Mr.. Souers motion, but as
no such point swas raised, the Speaker
very properly entertained it as of unani-
nous consent. 1t is very certain that no
one but member could raise an OBJ
lection, and he only at the time, before
the House began to vote on the question.
MIR. Lowell made the objection that it
required q four-ffths vote to reconsider,
which was overruled by the Speaker and
the House. No one questioned the COM
potency Of General Souer to make the
motion. Everything was done by consent
of the House or by its order, and Mr..
Vigers made faithful record of what oc-
cured. and nothing more. The facetious
abuse Of that gentleman by the P;cayuue
is not only uncalled for, but is calculated
to mislead the public in regard to faith |
full, conscientious and very able officer.
There being no law or regulation outside
Of the rules Of the House to restrict the |
right Of members to make motions, and |
General Souer having been allowed by |
unanimous consent to make his motion,
we can see no defect in the perfect regu-
larity CT the whole proceedings.
The following is the constitutional pro-
vision on this subject:
No bill shall have the force of a law
until on three several days it be read in |
each house Of the General Assembly and |
free discussion allowed thereon, unless four
fifths Of the house where the bill is pending
may deem it expedient to dispense with
this rule.
The House fully satisfied this article
when it deemed it expedient to dispense
With the rule therein imposed by four
ifths vote. So far as the constitution is
concerned, the House might have made
hundred unsuccessful attempts to suspend
he rule, and yet have as efectually sus-
pended it on the next as it could on the
irst. There is no limit except as to the
lumber Of votes required to dispense with
he rule.
As soon as the point raised by Mr.. Low
il had been settled, the opponents of the
ill, seeing there was no chance to defeat
t, ceased their opposition, and it finally
'assed without division.
The Bulletin declares in further support
t its position, that the bill did not pass
properly, that it was after twelve o'clock
aidnight before Mr.. Souer's motion was
AIKEN up. That is, it was taken up the
at day from that on which the bill had
cen read the second time. If this were
eally the case, and the session had ex-
ended over to another day, there was no
ecessity for dispensing with the consti-
ational rule, and the bill could have been
ut upon its third reading and passed by
simple majority vote. Thus the bill ,
anne from the Senate on the third, was .
cad the first time. The constitutional ,
1le was then dispensed with by vote of ,
to 10, which showed more than four
fths in its favor. The session then ex-
ended over until next day, when it re- !
sived the finishing touches. II
The fourth of March was as good day ,
law as any other. The act repeating ,
10 act making it legal holiday was
gned on the third, and the fact officially
gifted to the House by Speaker Hahn. &