[741.9] [741.10] [741.11] [741.12] that the bill shall pass are to answer in the affirmative; those of the contrary opinion in the negative." The Clerk then calls over the names alphabetically, notes the yea or nay of each, and gives the list to the President or Speaker, who declares the result. In the Senate, if there be an equal division, the Secretary calls on the Vice-President and notes his affirmative or negative, which becomes the decision of the House. NOTE.-See Senate Rule XII, clause 1. In the House of Commons, every member must give his vote the one way or the other (Scob., 24), as it is not permitted to any one to withdraw who is in the House when the question is put, nor is any one to be told in the division who was not in when the question was put (2 Hats., 140). NOTE.-See Senate Rule XII, clause 2. This last position is always true when the vote is by yeas and nays; where the negative as well as affirmative of the question is stated by the President at the same time, and the vote of both sides begins and proceeds pari passu. It is true also when the question is put in the usual way, if the negative has also been put; but if it has not, the member entering, or any other member may speak, and even propose amendments, by which the debate may be opened again, and the question be greatly deferred. And as some who have answered aye may have been changed by the new arguments, the affirmative must be put over again. If, then, the member entering may, by speaking a few words, occasion a repetition of a question, it would be useless to deny it on his simple call for it. While the House is telling, no member may speak or move out of his place; for if any mistake be suspected, it must be told again. Mem. in Hakew., 26; 2 Hats., 143. If any difficulty arises in point of order during the division, the Speaker is to decide peremptorily, subject to the future censure of the House if irregular. He sometimes permits old experienced members to assist him with their advice, which they do sitting in their seats, covered, to avoid the appearance of debate: but this can only be with the Speaker's leave, else the division might last several hours. 2 H., 1.3. The voice of the majority decides; for the ler majoris pu,13] partis is the law of all council's, elections, etc., where not otherwise expressly provided. Hiker, 3. But if the House be equally divided, semper presumitur pro megante; that is, the former law is not to be changed but by a majority. Towns, col. 134. But in the Senate of the United States the Vice-President (744) decides when the House is divided. Constitution United States, 1, 3. When from counting the House on a division it appears (715) that there is not a quorum, the matter continues exactly in the state in which it was before the division, and must be resumed at that point on any future day. 2 Hats., 125. 1606, May 1, on a question whether a member having said [716] yea may afterwards sit and change his opinion, a precedent was remembered by the Speaker, of Mr. Morris, attorney of the wards, in 39 Ez, who in like case changed his opinion. Mem. in Haker., 27. SEC. XLIL TITLES After the bill has passed, and not before, the title may be amended, and is to be fixed by a question; and the bill is then sent to the other House. SEC. XLIII RECONSIDERATION [742] [743] 1798, January-A bill on its second reading being amended. [7] and on the question whether it shall be read a third time negatived, was restored by a decision to reconsider that question. Here the votes of negative and reconsideration, like positive and negative quantities in equation, destroy one another, and are as if they were expunged from the journals. Consequently the bill is open for amendment just so far as was the moment preceding the question for the third reading; that is to say, all parts of the bill are open for amendment except those on which votes have been already taken in its present stage. So, also, it may be recommitted. NOTE.-See Senate Rule XIII. [743.2] The rule permitting a reconsideration of a question affixing to it no limitation of time or circumstance, it may be asked whether there is no limitation? If, after the vote, the paper on which it is passed has been parted with, there can be no reconsideration, as if a vote has been for the passage of a bill, and the bill has been sent to the other House. But where the paper remains, as on a bill rejected, when, or under what circumstances, does it cease to be susceptible of reconsideration? This remains to be settled; unless a sense that the right of reconsideration is a right to waste the time of the House in repeated agitations of the same question, so that it shall never know when a question is done with, should induce them to reform this anomalous proceeding. [743.3] NOTE.-See Senate Rule XIII. In Parliament a question once carried can not be questioned again at the same session, but must stand as the judgment of the House. Towns., col. 67; Mem. in Hakew., 33. And a bill once rejected, another of the same substance can not be brought in again the same session. Hakew., 158; 6 Grey, 392. But this does not extend to prevent putting the same question in different stages of a bill; because every stage of a bill submits the whole and every part of it to the opinion of the House, as open for amendment, either by insertion or omission, though the same amendment has been accepted or rejected in a former stage. So in reports of committees, e.g., report of an address, the same question is before the House, and open for free discussion. Towns., col. 26; 2 Hats., 98, 100, 101. So orders of the House, or instruc 1 The rule now fixes a limitation. Divers expedients are used in cærent the effects of this pa4] rule: as by passing an explanaIT K Í STiong has been omitted expressed & Exan set to enforce and make more efectual an art, etc., de to rectify mistakes in an set, etc, or a commune to toe bill may be mistraried to receive a clause to remify the mistakes of another. Thus, June 24, 1685, a clause was insered in a bill for rectifying s mistake excummed by a cerk i engrossing a bill of supply, 2 Hats, 191, 6. Or the session may be closed for one, two, three, or more days, and a new one commenced. But then all matters depending must be finished, or they fall, and are to begin de woo. 2 Hat., 34, 98. Or a part of the subject may be taken up by another bil, or taken up in a different way. 6 Grey, 904, 316. And in cases of the last magnitude, this rule has not been [705] so strictly and verbally observed as to stop indispensable proceedings altogether. 2 Hats., 92, 98. Thus when the address on the preliminaries of peace in 1782 had been lost by a majority of one, on account of the importance of the question, and smallness of the majority, the same question in substance, though with some words not in the first, and which might change the opinion of some Members, was brought on again and carried, as the motives for it were thought to outweigh the objection of form. 2 Hats., 99, 100. A second bill may be passed to continue an act of the same (743.6] session, or to enlarge the time limited for its execution. 2 Hats., 95, 98. This is not in contradiction to the first act. [744] [744.1] [744.2] [745] [745.1] SEC. XLIV. BILLS SENT TO THE OTHER HOUSE A bill from the other House is sometimes ordered to lie on the table. 2 Hats., 97. When bills, passed in one House and sent to the other, are grounded on special facts requiring proof, it is usual, either by message or at a conference, to ask the grounds and evidence; and this evidence, whether arising out of papers, or from the examination of witnesses, is immediately communicated. 3 Hats., 48. NOTE.-See Senate Rule XV. SEC. XLV. AMENDMENTS BETWEEN THE HOUSES When either House, e.g., the House of Commons, sends a bill to the other, the other may pass it with amendments. The regular progression in this case is, that the Commons disagree to the amendment; the Lords insist on it; the Commons insist on their disagreement; the Lords adhere to their amendment; the Commons adhere to their disagreement. The term of insisting may be repeated as often as they choose to keep the question open. But the first adherence by either renders it necessary for the other to recede to adhere also; when the matter is usually suffered to fall. 10 Grey, 148. Latterly, however, there are instances of their having gone to a second adherence. There must be an absolute conclusion of the subject somewhere, or otherwise transactions between the Houses would become endless. 3 Hats., 268, 270. The term of insisting, we are told by Sir John Trevor, was then (1679) newly introduced into parliamentary usage, by the Lords. 7 Grey, 94. It was certainly a happy innovation, as it multiplies the opportunities of trying modifications which may bring the Houses to a concurrence. Either House, however, is free to pass over the term of insisting, and to adhere in the first instance (10 |