The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-08-17


 without one days .notice? Now, the rules under which an article can be ordered engrossed and to a third read ing. and after that is done, there shall be no amendment, Is a general pariia- mentary rule.
 MT. White-If you are not resembling or suspending this rule. why do you of- fer the other?
 MT. O'Neal-Because I say this body has a right to change any general par. liamentary rule by a majority vote or this Convention.
 MT. Pettus-without notice?
 MT. O'Neal-Without notice, because no notice is required in these rules.
 The President-The Chair has indulg- ed considerable discussion on this point because the Chair is not free from diff fculty on the subject. The Chair in- quired of the gentleman from Mont Gomery as to the practice in Congress and he says they have a similar rule, which requires a days notice to change the rules, and yet in the work which have. The Constitutional Manual ana Digest of Rules and Practice Of the House of Representatives" 1t has been construed that unless the proposition originates with the Rules Committed, days notice is not required. This au- thority lays it down that under the practice, proposition reported by the Committee on Rules, changing the rules, nnless originating with the com mittee, Is not required to lie over for one day. Now, we had up for discus sion the other day the question of whether, after this matter has been ordered to a third reading, it was open to amendment and whether 1t was open to a motion to refer it to com mittee for the purpose of amendment. We considered that, not specially with reference to any special rules but un- der the general practice in such cases, and all the authorities, some of which were presented by the gentleman from Montgomery himself (Mr. Oates), went to show that such reference to com mittee could not be made except where there was a special rule authorizing it, and in Congress he referred us to special rule which did authorize it and which modified the general rule on this question. So, if there be any rule or regulation that is changed, 1t is not so much a rule of this Convention that has been adopted, as 1t Is the general parliamentary practice on this subject Now, Rule 57 says that none of the foregoing rules shall be rescinded, etc The rule which is reported by the Com- nittee on Rules is not an amendment of any rule which we have, and does not purport on its face to be an amend ment. It is not a rescision of any rule that we have, and it does not purport to be rescision of any rule that we have, but it is a new rule, which IS brought in to meet some special exl- gency, or emergency. in the proceed ings of the Convention. For instance, suppose that the Convention has un- der consideration a matter of debate This Convention remembers that when the report of the Committee on Suf- frase was taken up, the rules limited debate to ten minutes, yet during the session of the Convention, the Commit tee on Rules, to meet a particular emergency, retired and brought in and reported a new rule, regulating the debate upon that question. This. the Chair understands, is the practice in all dellberative bodies, the Committee on Rules being authorized to report at any time and to bring in new rules, to meet new situations. that did not con front the Convention when the rules were framed, and this Is a special rule @ new rule, brought in to meet an emergency, and it does not seem to the Chair that it is an amendment or rescission of any of our standing rules It is not so intended, and 1t does not so appear on it's face. Of course, if the Convention does not care to adopt the rule, that Is matter for the Conven- ton. It may be rejected by major
 
 a majority vote. The Chair will over rule the point of order.
 MT. Smith (Mobile)-If I understand, the question is upon the adoption of the rule.
 The President-The question will be upon the adoption of the rule.
 MT. Williams (Elmore)-I desire to have the resolution read
 The Secretary again read the reso- lution.
 MT Smith (Mobile)-I desire to op- pose the adoption of the rule because, in the first place, I do not think, upon it's merits, it should be adopted. But in the second place. I desire, on ac- count of my connection with the Rules Committee, to go upon record in this matter. The rules that we have, exist ed for the enactment of ordinances, have now been in force for nearly three months. The most important measures have passed and been acted upon un- der those rules. Amendments which certain gentlemen thought of vital in, terest to the people, have been ruled out and debarred. the Chair holding that after an Article had once been adopted by the Convention 1t could not. by a new ordinance or otherwise, be re- placed by contrary proposition. that merely being an indirect way of amend ing the Articles. So that we have
 
 est interests of the people and of the State, under rules made for the con sideration of these questions. and there has been no thought by the Rules Com mittee or anybody else of making a new rule to meet any special individual emergency. Tn this particular in stance. the committee has not brought in substitute. providing as the gen~ tleman from Montgomery has said, for the cassus omissus in the rules It is not provided that when the Con- vention finds itself in this dilemma 1t may take the Article from the table and amend it. The Committee has not trusted itself to set aside wisely ad- Justed rules for the benefit of the peo- pie and the State in general, but 1t has carefully confined itself to this propos- ed rule, upon this one controverted question, on the Article on Judiciary, and If tomorrow another Article were laid on the table. this house under the wisdom of this Rules Committee, would be as helpless to bring it from the ta- ble a it was before this Rules Com rnittee sat, passed and recommended this special ordinance to apply this special case.
 Now it seems to me that this is put ting us in a false position. Here Is a Rules Committee with fifteen ordi- nances before it, some one day old and some a week old. It has not thought