The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-08-14

majority of the Convention on . mo- tion to engross. 1t appears therefore that none but a majority of the Con- vention can pass upon the engross- ment and when the majority orders It engrossed 1t is proof tha tthe Conven- ton is satisfied with its work. Now we sometimes change our mindes. and therefore our rules wisely provide for reconsideration. A motion was made to reconslder the section about which there is iconte ention here, and that was defeated. A motion was then made to order the article engrossed and read third time. and the motion was made to reconsider the vote by which the | article was engrossed and read third | time, and that also was defeated. and | therefore, there was nothing for the | Convention to do under our rules | which prohibit motion to reconsider | twice after it has been defeated once. than to go ahead and read the article and pass upon 1t. and when the Chair held this morning that motion to re- | consider the vote by which the ordi- nance was passed was in order he was | eminently correct but 1t simply opens | the outer door, but the inner door is ] locked by the special rule of this Con- yention after you move to reconsider | the order by which it was read the third time. The gentleman from | Greene has raised the question that the majority ought to do what it | pleases. 4 majority cannot suspend the rules. else 1t would not require two-fhirds of those voting 10 suspend the rules. The presumption is that there is no ordinance passed by this l Convention that is not an expression of | the majority and that subsequent to | the time when such action has been taken the matter has been adjudicat ted | I agree with the gentleman from Greene that there should be a remedy. He can introduce an ordinance on the W hole Judiciary article amending It, | substituting it; he can introduce an | ordinance amending any particular section by striking out or inserting-- MT. Ccleman-You say it would be | in order HOW to offa- substitute? MT. Cunningham-No. sir. not at all, | that would have to take the regular l course. 1t would be In the form of substitute, which would be an amend l n ent but in effect 1t would repeal cer- | tain sections or ordinances. under take to say that a motion 10 recom- l mit-a question that the Chair asked | the gentleman from Pike-was a cor rect question. and the opinion of the | Chair upon that question is correct, that, if this Convention cannot amend under its rules 1t would be impossible to delegate that authority to com mittee Now we have remedy, We can pas sthis ordinance and it can be amended. and I understand there is an ordinance somewhere that has been introduced for the purpose of amend l ing this article. It can be defeated straight out. That Is question upon which gentlemen who are opposing this particular section can take the re- | sponsibility.
 MT. Hefiin (Chambers)-May I ask the gentleman question? Does the gentleman remember an ordinance on this same line was introduced and re- ferred to the Judiciary Committee? MT. Cunningbam-Yes. l remember that
 | MT. Hefiin-Does the gentleman know that they indefinitely postponed that l ordinance.
 Mir. Cunningham-I have no personal knowledge of that, but I presume 1t Is true.
 MT. Hehin-Then does the gentleman hold if the Judiciary Committee re- fuses to refer back ar ordinance that tne Convention hes reached the posi- tion where it ig bound
 MT. Cunningham-That proposition I l ton provide that any gentleman upon the floor can move that committee be discharged from any further oonsidera- tion nf an ordinance. which brings it
 before the Convention. and therefore there is a remedy with regard to that ordinance or any other ordinance, but we cannot go on forever and forever,
 reconsiderirg an article which has heen settled. because they might have two or three each day and We would not know when the work was done: I simply rose to say that the position taken by the Chair in my judgment is impregnsble, eminently fair, just and proper, and that the opponents of this question under discussion have rem edy. but it seems that they will not move to suspend the rules by which this could be amended. or that they are afraid of a committee or afraid that the Convention will not discharge the committee from further consldera- tion. If they will not adopt the par lianentary rules that we are all gov erned by. cannot see why we should at this time undertake to set aside the consistent. fair and just parliamentary
 rulings of this body that have governed this body ever since we met. in regard
 to the status of a measure that has heen ordered by the Convention en- grossed and read third time. MT. Hinsor-I understood the gen.
 tleman to say that the Convention refused to reconsider the vote whereby It ordered this article to third read
 lng ard engrossmentH
 Mr. Cunningham-Yes, sir.
 Mir. Hinson--I want to inquire If It would not be in ofd s- to- rescind the action or this :-onvention? Move to resclnd the action of the Convention
 whereby 1t refused to reconsider the
 vote whereby it ordered this article to a third reading-
 The President-That would be merely a second motion to reconsider, which the rules seem to prohibit.
 Mir. Harrison--I desire to address my self briefly to the parliamentary ques- ton ".-:..-
 The Presdent-The Chair will be un- able to hear unlimited discussion on this point. The Chair will hear from the gentleman from Lee, and Will then announce his ruling.
 MT. Harrison-I would ask the Chair to send to me by the page the author ity sent up by the gentleman from Montgomery, as l desire to compare the ruling of Congress therein referred to with cur own rules. Admitting, MT. President, for the sake of argument. that the general parliamentary law is, as has been insisted by gentlemen on the other side, submit to the Chair that the very authority submitted by the delegate from Montgomery with
 TN,ws