The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-06-26

should the party platform De violateds
 And. whereas, if 1t is expedient orr right to violate one section of the party platform, it is equally right or just to violate another;
 Therefore. be 1t ordained. by the peo- pie of Alabama in Convention assem- bled. that the State Capital be and is hereby removed from Montgomery co Birmingham, Alabama.
 Mir. Long (Walker)--I ask that that ordinance be referred to the Commit tee on Consistency.
 The President-The gentleman asks that the ordinance will be referred to the Committee on Consistency, Order and Harmony and 1t Is so referred.
 The question recurred upon the orig inal article as amended.
 Mir. Heflin (Chambers)--I move in- definite postponement of Section 31.
 MT. williams (Marengol--I rise to point of order. the previous question has been ordered.
 MT. Hefiin--I move to lay 1t upon the table.
 MT. sollie-I want to offer an amend ment.
 The President-The previous question has been ordered.
 Mir Sollie--But when amended, isn't 1t not a new proposition?
 The President-The previous aues- ton has been ordered and the motion to lie on the table is not debatable.
 Mir. Harrison--I rise to q point or order. desire to call the attention of the President to the precedelt as laid down in rule 8 to lay on the table.
 The Presidenr-Yes. and the Chair would call the gentleman's attention to rule 26. motion to adjourn nas piece- dence even of motion to table. but the rules declare that even motion to adjourn shall not be in order after the previous question shall have been orr dered. It Is in order at any time ex- cept after the previous question has been ordered. In this case the pre-. vious question has been ordered and the question now Is on the adoption of Section 31 as amended.
 Mir. Heflin-I understood the gentle man from Marengo to call the previous question on the section and amend- ment to the section that has just been voted on.
 The President--He calls for the pre- vious question on the question now submitted. and the-
 Mir Heflin--Does the Chair hold that If some member moves the adoption of the Section as amended it would not be in order to lay the whole thing on the table?
 The President--The previous question has been ordered on the section as proposed by the gentleman from Dal- las. and on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Macon. The ques- tion is on the adoption of the section proposed by the gentleman from Dallas as amended.
 MT. Coleman (Greene)--A yea. vote adopts it, and nay vote defeats the sectionY
 The President-Yes.
 A vote being taken. the section as amended was defeated by a vote of G3 nays to 62 ayes, on a division.
 Mr. Smith (Mobile)-I desire to re- port on behalf of the Committee on Rules, 8 substitute for Resolution Nc. f66.
 The report was read as follows:
 Resolution No 16e. by Mir. Harrison. reported with a substitute fayorably from the Committee on Rules:
 Amend Resolution No. 166 by Mir. Harrison of Lee, SO as to read as fol- lows: Resolved. That ali speeches on amendments to ordinances reported by standing committees be limited to i've minutes each, whether made before or after the order for the previous ques- tion."
 The original resolution reads; Re q, ments to ordinances reported by stand ing committees be limited to five min- utes each.'
 Mir. Smith (Mobile)--I move the adop- tion ot tue substitute.
 Mir. OateeS-I think that the rule is wise in some respects, and that discus sicn ought to be limited. but restric- tion to five minutes for all speeches. in consideration of the measures to be adopted, is too limited. Now, for in- stance, any one having charge of a measure the cha. man or any member of a committee, has right under par liamentary procedure always to great CT length of time to explain the pro- positions to be considered. That 1 do not think is to restrict the onsidera- ton of tlie sections; If 1t be, why then it Is substantially the five-minute rule which prevails in committees of the whole in Congress; but even there, they are not absolutely restrictel to i've minute speeches. exc ept in this way: Five minutes Is the limit which any member may speak upon an amend ment he proposes, but if he has not fin- ished his delivery within that time 1t Is always in order for him to move a prc-forma amendment, as for instance striking out the last word of the eec- ton which gives Eim five minutes more. That is the live-minute rule proper. This seems to propose to con- fine all speeches to five minutes. Now, am In favor of limiting speeches, am in favor of shortening them. but there ought to be some exceptions. This seems to be too restrictive.
 MT Jones (Montgomery)-I desire to offer an anne ndment to the resolution.
 The amendment was read as follows:
 Amendment to the rspo,t of the Com mittee on Rules on Resolution No. 1e6:o Provided the time expended in answer Ing questions shall not be deducted from the members time.
 MT. Jones (Montgomery)-Mr Presi- dent. l heartily concur in the remarks of the gentleman from Montgomery. I believe we ought to have short speeches. but we have got some great questions here. and certainly the chairman of a committee ought to be permitted to speak more than five min utes on an amendment. For instance. the amendment may go to the whole question of suffrage. l do not think 1t wise to tie ourselves up in that way. and do not think any man can make a speech at all if he Is to be c)ntinu- ally interrupted and his time taken up in answering questions.
 MT Sanford-Of all the assemblies that have met in Alabama in twenty five years, or 1t may be will meet in the next twenty-five. this is the one in which the largest discussion ought to be allowed upon every important ques- | tion that comes before it. or all things, we do not wish to have the peo- pIe gagged upon the questions that are