OF MOTIONS TO AMEND.
78. The last case, for the introduction of subsidiary motions, is when
the assembly is satisfied with the subject-matter of a proposition,
but not with the form of it, or with all its different parts, or
desires to make some addition to it. The course of proceeding then is,
to bring the proposition into the proper form, and make its details
satisfactory, by means of amendments, or of certain proceedings of a
similar character, and having the same general purpose in view. The
latter will be first considered.
Sect. I. Division of a Question.
79. When a proposition or motion is complicated, that is, composed of
two or more parts, which are so far independent of each other, as to
be susceptible of division into several questions, and it is supposed
that the assembly may approve of some but not of all these parts, it
is a compendious mode of amendment to divide the motion into separate
questions, to be separately voted upon and decided by the assembly.
This division may take place by the order of the assembly, on a motion
regularly made and seconded for the purpose.
80. When a motion is thus divided, it becomes a series of questions,
to be considered and treated each by itself, as an independent
proposition, in the order in which they stand; and when they have all
been gone through with and decided, the result will be the same, as if
motions to amend by striking out the several parts had been made and
put to the question. When a motion for a division is made, the mover
ought to specify in his motion the manner in which he proposes to make
the division; and this motion, like every other of the nature of an
amendment, is itself susceptible of amendment.
81. It is sometimes asserted, that it is the right of every individual
member to have a complicated question (provided it is susceptible of
division) divided into its several parts, and a question put
separately on each, on his mere demand, and without any motion or any
vote of the assembly for that purpose. But this is a mistake; there is
no such rule of parliamentary proceeding; a complicated question can
only be separated by moving amendments to it in the usual manner, or
by moving for a division of it in the manner above stated.
82. It is not unusual, however, for a deliberative assembly to have a
rule providing for the division of a complicated question (provided it
is susceptible of division) into its several parts, upon the demand of
a member. When this is the case, it is for the presiding officer
(subject of course to the revision of the assembly) to decide, when
the division of a motion is demanded, first, whether the proposition
is susceptible of division, and, secondly, into how many and what
parts it may be divided.
83. A proposition, in order to be divisible, must comprehend points so
distinct and entire, that, if one or more of them be taken away, the
others may stand entire and by themselves; but a qualifying paragraph,
as, for example, an exception or a proviso, if separated from the
general assertion or statement to which it belongs, does not contain
an entire point or proposition.
Sect. II. Filling Blanks.
84. It often happens, that a proposition is introduced with blanks
purposely left by the mover to be filled by the assembly, either with
times and numbers, or with provisions analogous to those of the
proposition itself. In the latter case, blanks are filled in the same
way, that other amendments by the insertion of words are made. In the
former, propositions to fill blanks are not considered as amendments
to the question, but as original motions, to be made and decided
before the principal question.
85. When a blank is left to be filled with a time or number, motions
may be made for that purpose, and the question taken on each by
itself, and before another is made; or several motions may be made and
pending before any of them are put to the question. This last mode of
proceeding, which is the most usual as well as convenient, requires
that the several propositions should be arranged, and the question
taken on them, in such order as will the soonest and with the most
certainty enable the assembly to come to an agreement.
86. In determining upon the order to be adopted, the object is not to
begin at that extreme, which and more being within every man’s wish,
no one can vote against it, and, yet, if it should be carried in the
affirmative, every question for more would be precluded; but, at that
extreme, which will be likely to unite the fewest, and then to advance
or recede, until a number or time is reached, which will unite a
majority.
87. Hence, when several different propositions are made for filling
blanks with a time or number, the rule is, that if the _larger_
comprehends the _lesser_, as in a question to what day a postponement
shall take place,—the number of which a committee shall consist,—the
amount of a fine to be imposed,—the term of an imprisonment,—the term
of irredeemability of a loan,—or the _terminus in quem_ in any other
case, the question must begin _a maximo_, and be first taken upon the
greatest or farthest, and so on to the least or nearest, until the
assembly comes to a vote: But, if the _lesser_ includes the _greater_,
as in questions on the limitation of the rate of interest,—on the
amount of a tax,—on what day the session of a legislative assembly
shall be closed, by adjournment,—on what day the next session shall
commence,—or the _terminus a quo_ in any other case, the question must
begin _a minimo_, and be first taken on the least or nearest, and so
on to the greatest or most remote, until the assembly comes to a
vote.[13]
Sect. III. Addition,—Separation, Transposition.
88. When the matters contained in two separate propositions might be
better put into one, the mode of proceeding is to reject one of them,
and then to incorporate the substance of it with the other by way of
amendment. A better mode, however, if the business of the assembly
will admit of its being adopted, is to refer both propositions to a
committee, with instructions to incorporate them together in one.
89. So, on the other hand, if the matter of one proposition would be
more properly distributed into two, any part of it may be struck out
by way of amendment, and put into the form of a new and distinct
proposition. But in this, as in the former case, a better mode would
generally be to refer the subject to a committee.
90. In like manner, if a paragraph or section requires to be
transposed, a question must be put on striking it out where it stands,
and another for inserting it in the place desired.
91. The numbers prefixed to the several sections, paragraphs, or
resolutions, which constitute a proposition, are merely marginal
indications, and no part of the text of the proposition itself; and,
if necessary, they may be altered or regulated by the clerk, without
any vote or order of the assembly.
Sect. IV. Modification or Amendment by the Mover.
92. The mover of a proposition is sometimes allowed to modify it,
after it has been stated as a question by the presiding officer; but,
as this is equivalent to a withdrawal of the motion, in order to
substitute another in its place; and, since, as has already been seen,
a motion regularly made, seconded, and proposed, cannot be withdrawn
without leave; it is clear, that the practice alluded to rests only
upon general consent; and, that, if objected to, the mover of a
proposition must obtain the permission of the assembly, by a motion
and question, for the purpose, in order to enable him to modify his
proposition.
93. So, too, when an amendment has been regularly moved and seconded,
it is sometimes the practice for the mover of the proposition to which
it relates to signify his consent to it, and for the amendment to be
thereupon made, without any question being taken upon it by the
assembly. As this proceeding, however, is essentially the same with
that described in the preceding paragraph, it, of course, rests upon
the same foundation, and is subject to the same rule.
Sect. V. General Rules relating to Amendments.
94. All amendments, of which a proposition is susceptible, so far as
form is concerned, may be effected in one of three ways, namely,
either by inserting or adding certain words; or by striking out
certain words; or by striking out certain words, and inserting or
adding others. These several forms of amendment are subject to certain
general rules, which, being equally applicable to them all, require to
be stated beforehand.
95. _First Rule._ When a proposition consists of several sections,
paragraphs, or resolutions, the natural order of considering and
amending it is to begin at the beginning, and to proceed through it in
course by paragraphs; and when a latter part has been amended, it is
not in order to recur back, and make any alteration or amendment of a
former part.
96. _Second Rule._ Every amendment, which can be proposed, whether by
striking out, or inserting, or striking out and inserting, is itself
susceptible of amendment; but, there can be no amendment of an
amendment to an amendment: this would be such a piling of questions
one upon another, as would lead to great embarrassment; and as the
line must be drawn somewhere, it has been fixed by usage after the
amendment to the amendment. The object, which is proposed to be
effected by such a proceeding, must be sought by rejecting the
amendment to the amendment, in the form in which it is proposed, and
then moving it again in the form in which it is wished to be amended,
in which it is only an amendment to an amendment; and in order to
accomplish this, he who desires to amend an amendment should give
notice, that, if rejected, in the form in which it is presented, he
shall move it again in the form in which he desires to have it
adopted.
97. Thus, if a proposition consists of A B, and it is proposed to
amend by inserting C D, it may be moved to amend the amendment by
inserting E F; but it cannot be moved to amend this amendment, as, for
example, by inserting G. The only mode, by which this can be reached,
is to reject the amendment in the form in which it is presented,
namely, to insert E F, and to move it in the form in which it is
desired to be amended, namely, to insert E G F.
98. _Third Rule._ Whatever is agreed to by the assembly, on a vote,
either adopting or rejecting a proposed amendment, cannot be
afterwards altered or amended.
99. Thus, if a proposition consists of A B, and it is moved to insert
C; if the amendment prevail, C cannot be afterwards amended, because
it has been agreed to in that form; and, so, if it is moved to strike
out B, and the amendment is rejected, B cannot afterwards be amended,
because a vote against striking it out is equivalent to a vote
agreeing to it as it stands.
100. _Fourth Rule._ Whatever is disagreed to by the assembly, on a
vote, cannot be afterwards moved again. This rule is the converse of
the preceding, and may be illustrated in the same manner.
101. Thus, if it is moved to amend A B by inserting C, and the
amendment is rejected, C cannot be moved again; or, if it is moved to
amend A B by striking out B, and the amendment prevails, B cannot be
restored; because, in the first case, C, and, in the other, B, have
been disagreed to by a vote.
102. _Fifth Rule._ The inconsistency or incompatibility of a proposed
amendment with one which has already been adopted, is a fit ground for
its rejection by the assembly, but not for the suppression of it by
the presiding officer, as against order; for, if questions of this
nature were allowed to be brought within the jurisdiction of the
presiding officer, as matters of order, he might usurp a negative on
important modifications, and suppress or embarrass instead of
subserving the will of the assembly.
Sect. VI. Amendments by striking out.
103. If an amendment is proposed by striking out a particular
paragraph or certain words, and the amendment is rejected, it cannot
be again moved to strike out the same words or a part of them; but it
may be moved to strike out the same words with others, or to strike
out a part of the same words with others, provided the coherence to be
struck out be so substantial, as to make these, in fact, different
propositions from the former.
104. Thus, if a proposition consist of A B C D, and it is moved to
strike out B C; if this amendment is rejected, it cannot be moved
again; but it may be moved to strike out A B, or A B C, or B C D or
C D.
105. If an amendment by striking out is agreed to, it cannot be
afterwards moved to insert the same words struck out or a part of
them; but it may be moved to insert the same words with others, or a
part of the same words with others, provided the coherence to be
inserted make these propositions substantially different from the
first.
106. Thus, if the proposition A B C D is amended by striking out B C,
it cannot be moved to insert B C again; but it may be moved to insert
B C with other words, or B with others or C with others.
107. When it is proposed to amend by striking out a particular
paragraph, it may be moved to amend this amendment, in three different
ways, namely, either by striking out a part only of the paragraph, or
by inserting or adding words, or by striking out and inserting.
108. Thus, if it is moved to amend the proposition A B C D, by
striking out B C, it may be moved to amend this amendment by striking
out B only or C only, or by inserting E, or by striking out B or C,
and inserting E.
109. In the case of a proposed amendment by striking out, the effect
of voting upon it, whether it be decided in the affirmative or
negative according to the third and fourth rules above mentioned,
renders it necessary for those who desire to retain the paragraph to
amend it, if any amendment is necessary, before the vote is taken on
striking out; as, if struck out, it cannot be restored, and, if
retained, it cannot be amended.
110. As an amendment must necessarily be put to the question before
the principal motion; so the question must be put on an amendment to
an amendment before it is put on the amendment; but, as this is the
extreme limit to which motions may be put upon one another, there can
be no precedence of one over another among amendments to amendments;
and, consequently, they can only be moved, one at a time, or, at all
events, must be put to the question in the order in which they are
moved.
111. When a motion for striking out words is put to the question, the
parliamentary form always is, whether the words shall _stand as part_
of the principal motion, and not whether they _shall be struck out_.
The reason for this form of stating the question probably is, that the
question may be taken in the same manner on a part as on the whole of
the principal motion; which would not be the case, if the question was
stated on striking out; inasmuch as the question on the principal
motion, when it comes to be stated, will be on agreeing to it, and not
on striking out or rejecting it. Besides, as an equal division of the
assembly would produce a different decision of the question, according
to the manner of stating it, it might happen, if the question on the
amendment was stated on striking out, that the same question would be
decided both affirmatively and negatively by the same vote.[14]
112. On a motion to amend by striking out certain words, the manner of
stating the question is, first to read the passage proposed to be
amended, as it stands; then the words proposed to be struck out; and,
lastly, the whole passage as it will stand if the amendment is
adopted.
Sect. VII. Amendments by inserting.
113. If an amendment is proposed by inserting or adding a paragraph or
words, and the amendment is rejected, it cannot be moved again to
insert the same words or a part of them; but it may be moved to insert
the same words with others, or a part of the same words with others,
provided the coherence really make them different propositions.
114. Thus, if it is moved to amend the proposition A B by inserting
C D, and the amendment is rejected, C D cannot be again moved; but it
may be moved to insert C E, or D E, or C D E.
115. If it is proposed to amend by inserting a paragraph, and the
amendment prevails, it cannot be afterwards moved to strike out the
same words or a part of them; but it may be moved to strike out the
same words with others,[15] or a part of the same words with others,
provided the coherence be such as to make these propositions really
different from the first.
116. Thus, if in the example above supposed the amendment prevails,
and C D is inserted it cannot be afterwards moved to strike out C D,
but it may be moved to strike out A C or A C D, or D B, or C D B.
117. When it is proposed to amend by inserting a paragraph, this
amendment may be amended in three different ways, namely, either by
striking out a part of the paragraph; or by inserting something into
it; or by striking out and inserting.
118. Thus, if it is proposed to amend A B by inserting C D, this
amendment may be amended either by striking out C or D, or inserting
E, or by striking out C or D and inserting E.
119. When it is proposed to amend by inserting a paragraph, those who
are in favor of the amendment should amend it, if necessary, before
the question is taken; because if it is rejected, it cannot be moved
again, and, if received, it cannot be amended.
120. There is no precedence of one over another in amendments to
amendments by inserting, any more than in amendments to amendments by
striking out.
121. On a motion to amend by inserting a paragraph, the manner of
stating the question is, first, to read the passage to be amended, as
it stands; then the words proposed to be inserted; and lastly, the
whole passage as it will stand if the amendment prevails.
Sect. VIII. Amendments by striking out and inserting.
122. The third form of amending a proposition, namely, by striking out
certain words and inserting others in their place, is, in fact, a
combination of the other two forms; and may accordingly be divided
into those two forms, either by a vote of the assembly, or on the
demand of a member, under a special rule to that effect.[16]
123. If the motion is divided, the question is first to be taken on
striking out; and if that is decided in the affirmative, then, on
inserting; but if the former is decided in the negative, the latter
falls, of course. On a division, the proceedings are the same, in
reference to each branch of the question, beginning with the striking
out, as if each branch had been moved by itself.
124. If the motion to strike out and insert is put to the question
undivided, and is decided in the negative, the same motion cannot be
made again; but, it may be moved to strike out the same words, and,
1, insert nothing; 2, insert other words; 3, insert the same words
with others; 4, insert a part of the same words with others; 5, strike
out the same words with others, and insert the same; 6, strike out a
part of the same words with others, and insert the same; 7, strike out
other words and insert the same; and, 8, insert the same words,
without striking out anything.
125. If the motion to strike out and insert is decided in the
affirmative, it cannot be then moved to insert the words struck out or
a part of them, or to strike out the words inserted, or a part of
them; but, it may be moved, 1, to insert the same words with others;
2, to insert a part of the same words with others; 3, to strike out
the same words with others; or, 4, to strike out a part of the same
words with others.
126. When it is proposed to amend by striking out and inserting, this
amendment may be amended in three different ways in the paragraph
proposed to be struck out, and also in the paragraph proposed to be
inserted, namely, by, striking out, or inserting, or striking out and
inserting. And those who are in favor of either paragraph must amend
it, before the question is taken, for the reasons already stated,
namely, that, if decided in the affirmative, the part struck out
cannot be restored, nor can the part inserted be amended; and, if
decided in the negative, the part proposed to be struck out cannot be
amended, nor can the paragraph proposed to be inserted be moved again.
127. On a motion to amend, by striking out certain words and inserting
others, the manner of stating the question is first to read the whole
passage to be amended, as it stands; then the words proposed to be
struck out; next those to be inserted; and, lastly, the whole passage
as it will stand when amended.
Sect. IX. Amendments changing the Nature of a Question.
128. The term amendment is in strictness applicable only to those
changes of a proposition, by which it is improved, that is, rendered
more effectual for the purpose which it has in view, or made to
express more clearly and definitely the sense which it is intended to
express. Hence it seems proper, that those only should undertake to
amend a proposition, who are friendly to it; but this is by no means the
rule; when a proposition is regularly moved and seconded, it is in the
possession of the assembly, and cannot be withdrawn but by its leave;
it has then become the basis of the future proceedings of the
assembly, and may be put into any shape, and turned to any purpose,
that the assembly may think proper.
129. It is consequently allowable to amend a proposition in such a
manner as entirely to alter its nature, and to make it bear a sense
different from what it was originally intended to bear; so that the
friends of it, as it was first introduced, may themselves be forced to
vote against it, in its amended form.
130. This mode of proceeding is sometimes adopted for the purpose of
defeating a proposition, by compelling its original friends to unite
with those who are opposed to it, in voting for its rejection. Thus,
in the British Houses of Commons, Jan. 29, 1765, a resolution being
moved, “That a general warrant for apprehending the authors, printers,
or publishers of a libel, together with their papers, is not warranted
by law, and is an high violation of the liberty of the subject:”—it
was moved to amend this motion by prefixing the following paragraph,
namely: “That in the particular case of libels, it is proper and
necessary to fix, by a vote of this house only, what ought to be
deemed the law in respect of general warrants; and, for that purpose,
at the time when the determination of the legality of such warrants,
in the instance of a most seditious and treasonable libel, is actually
depending before the courts of law, for this house to declare”—_that a
general warrant for apprehending the authors, printers, or publishers
of a libel together with their papers, is not warranted by law, and is
an high violation of the liberty of the subject._ The amendment was
adopted, after a long debate, and then the resolution as amended was
immediately rejected without a division.[17]
131. But sometimes the nature of a proposition is changed by means of
amendments, with a view to its adoption in a sense the very opposite
of what it was originally intended to bear. The following is a
striking example of this mode of proceeding. In the house of commons,
April 10, 1744, a resolution was moved, declaring, “That the issuing
and paying to the Duke of Aremberg the sum of forty thousand pounds,
sterling, to put the Austrian troops in motion in the year 1742, was a
dangerous misapplication of public money, and destructive of the
rights of parliament.” The object of this resolution was to censure
the conduct of the ministers; and the friends of the ministry, being
in a majority, might have voted directly, upon the motion and rejected
it. But they preferred to turn it into a resolution approving of the
conduct of ministers on the occasion referred to; and it was
accordingly moved to amend, by leaving out the words “a dangerous
misapplication,” etc., to the end of the motion, and inserting instead
thereof the words, “necessary for putting the said troops in motion,
and of great consequence to the common cause.” The amendment being
adopted, it was resolved (reversing the original proposition) “That
the issuing and paying to the Duke of Aremberg the sum of forty
thousand pounds, to put the Austrian troops in motion, in the year
1742, was necessary for putting the said troops in motion, and of
great consequence to the common cause.”
132. It is a mode of defeating a proposition, somewhat similar to that
above mentioned, to carry out or extend the principle of it, by means
of amendments, so as to show the inconvenience, absurdity, or danger
of its adoption, with such evident clearness, that it becomes
impossible for the assembly to agree to it. Thus, a motion having been
made in the house of commons, “for copies of all the letters written
by the lords of the admiralty to a certain officer in the navy,” it
was moved to amend the motion by adding these words:—“which letters
may contain orders, or be relative to orders, not executed, and still
subsisting.” This amendment being adopted, the motion as amended was
unanimously rejected.
133. It will be seen, from the foregoing examples, that as the mover
of a proposition is under no restriction as to embracing incongruous
matters under the same motion; so, on the other hand, the assembly may
engraft upon a motion, by way of amendment, matter which is not only
incongruous with, but entirely opposed to, the motion as originally
introduced; and, in legislative assemblies, it is not unusual to amend
a bill by striking out all after the enacting clause, and inserting an
entirely new bill; or to amend a resolution by striking out all after
the words “Resolved that,” and inserting a proposition of a wholly
different tenor.
13. The above is the rule as laid down by Mr. Jefferson (§ 33), and
holds where it is not superseded by a special rule, which is
generally the case in our legislative assemblies; as, for example,
in the senate of the United States, the rule is, that in filling
blanks, the LARGEST sum and LONGEST time shall be first put. In
the house of commons, in England, the rule established by usage
is, that the SMALLEST sum and the LONGEST time shall be first put.
14. The common, if not the only, mode of stating the question, in the
legislative assemblies of this country, is on “striking out.”
15. This is the common case of striking out a paragraph, after it has
been amended by inserting words.
16. Mr. Jefferson (§ xxxv.) says, “the question, if desired, is then
to be divided,” etc.; but, as he makes no exception of a motion to
strike out and insert, when treating of the subject of division,
and does not here state it as an exception, he undoubtedly
supposes the division in this case to be made in the regular and
usual manner.
17. This mode of defeating a measure, however, is not always
successful. In 1780, Mr. Dunning having made a motion, in the
house of commons “that, in the opinion of this house, the
influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to
be diminished,” Dundas, lord-advocate of Scotland, in order to
defeat the motion, proposed to amend, by inserting, after the
words, IN THE OPINION OF THIS HOUSE, the words IT IS NOW NECESSARY
TO DECLARE THAT, ETC. But this amendment, instead of intimidating
the friends of the original motion was at once adopted by them,
and the resolution passed as amended.