The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-19

amendment. ITO add. or strike out certain words, and insert certain oth- CTS, and if lost 1t does not preclude a motion to strike out the same words and insert different words" NOW. the other objection which l make to the ruling of the Chair, on the point of order. is that 1t is . matter for the Convention and not for the Chair. The rule as laid down in Cushfngs Manual is that "the inconsistency or incompat- ibility of a proposed amedment with one which has already been adopted is a fit ground for its rejection by the Assembly, but not for the suppression of 1t by the presiding officer. as against order." That proposition is also laid down in Jefferson's Manual, and I submit that when this question was before the Convention when the Article submitted by the Committee on Executive Department was considered, many members said that they favored the proposition but It Is a question that properly should be considered when the report of the Committee on Legislative Department is under con- sideration, and they therefore voted against 1t at that time.
 On yesterday when the question with regard to passes was under consider ation, a number of gentleman said they would vote against 1t because that matter ought to be acted upon when the Committee on Corporations reports. Now if the Chair is sus- tained. the ruling of the Chair be the law, then the question of railroad passes is taken entirely out of this Convention. because when offered again the objection can be made that it is out of order because acted upon once before by the House. I care nothing about the amendment partic- ularly, but I think the precedent ts wrong.
 The President-The policy of issuing railroad passes?
 MT. O'Neal-No, sir. say the ef- feet of the ruling of the President would be to take from the House the power to consider any amendment to any Article which in the opinion of the Chair had already been acted upon. and therefore respectfully urge that the Chair reconsider its ruling on that question because 1t is too far-reaching.
 The President-With reference to the man. and the argument sub-
 
 glad to be assisted by delegates. and will always appreciate any argu- ment or suggestion from delegates on the floor to aid the Chair in reaching correct conclusion on questions of parliamentary law. Now, with refer ence to whether the amendment offered when the report of the Committee on Executive Department was con- sidered was germane or not, the Chair will say that that question is decided when 1t arises. If a point of order is made against 1t. 1t is ruled to be ger- mane or nOt-and when 1t is decided it is germane 1t is res adjudicata. that it 10 germane when 1t is considered. So far as this particular proposition is concerned, the report was brought in by the Committee on Executive De- partment, and the distinguished Chair man of the Committee on Legislative Department called attention to the fact that similar clause was in the report to be brought in by the Committee of which he was the Chairman, but that he saw no objection to its being con- sidered at that time, and 1t was con- sidered and fully discussed. Possibly a day or two days of the time of this Convention was consumed in a full and elaborate discussion and consideration OA SAh0S AuCotiOhs INOW, tnC pTOpOSl- ton Is to bring that identical question again before the Convention. The del egate from Lauderdale seeks to dis tinguish it by saying that the original proposition covered all offices, and his covers offices of profit Well, all offices certainly include of fees of profit, and If he | desired to present 1t in more restricted form, he should have offered an amendment to the proposition while | it was being considered by the Conven- tor but his proposition was considered and is concluded by the action of the Convention at that time. Mir Cush- l ing does say with reference tJ consistency or inconsistency of amend ments, that this ought to be deter mined by the Convention and not by the Chair. But this Is not a question of consistency, between two amend ments. or whether the amendment now offered Is in conflict with the amend ment formerly considered by the Con- | vention. The question is whether this l Convention shall be called upon to take up and consider the identical proposi- tion, in terms or in substance. that l was formerly considered. The incon- sistency or incompatibility of a pro- posed amendment which has already been adopted is fit ground for rejec- ton by the Assembly. but not for SUD- precision by the presiding officer. Now the same authority that lays this prop | osition dcwn. and I say this Is not such | a case, lays down this other rule, that | whatever Is agreed to by the Assembly 1 on a vote either adopting or rejecting
 a proposed amendment cannot after wards be altered or amended" And again: That whatever Is disagreed to
 by the Assembly on & vote cannot be afterwards moved again." This rule Is l Chair will overrule the point of order The fact that this is brought in by a separate committee would be the same
 as if brought in by any delegate-i;
 would stsnd on the same ground. l MT. Howze-f have an amendment
 that l desire to offer.
 | Mir. Jones--I would like to make Q | parliamentary inquiry.
 | The President-The gentleman from
 Jefferson has the floor
 The Clerk read the amendment ak
 follows:
 Amend by inserting in Section IS af-
 ter the word State" in the second line
 the words filled by appointment or"
 The Secretary here read Section 1t
 as follows:
 Sec. 16. No Senator or Represents
 tive shall during the term for which he
 shall have been elected. be appointed
 to any office of profit under this State
 which shall have been created. or the | emoluments of which shall have been l Ina