The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-03-09
BOWEN MERRILL BOOK STORE

on, the position of the speaker is wholly
untenable because the vote on the motion
10 table was not negative but an affirma-
tive vote. The motion had been carried and
not defeated, hence his whole argument -
based upon a false assumption.
Again, he says the fallacy of my position
OF Representatives Is operating upon the
same rules as the House OF Congress.
While the special rules OF Congress are
quite different from the special rules OF
the Indiana House OF Representatives,
there is no special rule In either body rela-
tive to the question in controversy That
which the speaker cites as rule OF Con-
greSs Is only a decision upon the general
rules of parliamentary law: applicable 10
the proceedings OF all legislative bodies.
i am also cited 10 the rules OF practice
OF Congress. and ann informed that where
uponsthe table is made ana prevails it is .
finality, but where the latter part only pre-
walls IT does not carry With IL the pending
measure. What the speaker means by say
ing where the latter part only PREVAILS,
etc, / am unable TO comprehend. Does he
wish 10 be understood as contending that
the motion to reconsider and the motion TO
lay upon the table could be voted upon at
the same time Gould the House IN ono
vote lay the motion 10 reconsider on the
tabl. md at the same time pass upon tho
mo, to reconsider, or vice versa7 Could
the House defeat the motion TO table and
at the same time pass the motion TO recon-
slider? If the honorable gentleman will only
inform me how any part of what he terms
q OOuDl6 mOtlOn lWnlCn Is DOllinS TWO
motto made by the same person). except
the part, can be voted upop shall
con ny utter Ignorance OF all parlia-
me rules.
I. speaker also cites a paragraph from
Cushings Manual which has no bearing
whatever on the point in controversy. The
effect of a motion To lay some substantive
measure of legislation upon the table Is
quite different from one 10 lay a motion to
reconsider vote upon the table. The rea-
sons of the latter rule are in harmony with
the general principles OF parliamentary
law. chief among which is the one that
where the body has fully expressed its
sense upon a subject, so long as IL remains
in that situation no other expression can
be had. In other words parliamentary law
top OF another when the latter In effect Is
the same the former. For this reason
but one motion TO reconsider can be made.
A motion TO reconsider the vote on a
motion to reconsider. and so on ad In
finitum, would only result I'm obtaining the
expression OF tn House in the second,
third or fourth degrees, which i'm effect
would be the same as an expression upon
the first motion; hence IL such was the law
there would be no end TO legislative pro-
ceedings. Suppose motion TO reconsider
the motion TO table the motion TO reconsid-
er was in order. another motion TO table
the second motion 10 reconsider would be
in order, and likewise these latter subject
TO the same motions. and so on; motion
upon motion to reconsider and TO table
would be piled upon top OF each other until
the body would be so confused as to be un-
able To unravel the tangle. and yet an ex-
would be the same as IL the vote had been
taken on the first motion to reconsider or
to table the same. So. where subsequent
motion is in effect to take the sense OF the
House upon proposition upon which the
sense has already been taken there Is but
one way TO do il. and that is by motion
10 reconsider, and If the latter motion is
disposed OF adversely then the matter is at
an end.
AS TO the effect of a negative vote on a
motion To table. where motion is made TO
table substantive proposition and f. de-
feated then Il motion IL in order 10 recon-
slider, but If a motion should be made to
table the latter and the House should 80
vote. the question OF reconsideration would
be removed from before the House and
could not again be brought up.
My position was, and II, that motion
TO table a motion 10 reconsider cannot be
reconsidered for the reason that IL would
be but retaking of the sense OF the House
upon q question IL had already decided,
and that IL made no difference whether the
motion To table was made by the same
some other member than the one who
moved 10 reconsider. IL Is common prac-
tice i'm all legislative bodies for some menu
Der opposed 10 the ma ority 10 change his
sideration. and Immediately the motion TO
table is made by another member OF the
majority friendly 10 the expression OF the
House for the very purpose OF terminating.
and yet. according 20 the speaker In the In
diana House of Representatives. the mo-
ton when thus made 10y the second me M
Der does not have the desired effect.
| again assert that there is not single
valid reason IN support OF such PROPOSE
ton. nor can the speaker cite single au-
thority from the proceedings OF ans legis-
lative body making any such halrrsplitting
distinctions. WILLIAM ID. RYSUA
Indianapolis. March S.