DIVISION OF THE QUESTION.
If a question contain more parts than one, it may be divided into two
or more questions.--_Mem. in Hakew._ 29. But not as the right of an
individual member, but with the consent of the House. For who is to
decide whether a question is complicated or not? where it is complicated?
into how many propositions it may be divided? The fact is, that the only
mode of separating a complicated question is by moving amendments to it;
and these must be decided by the House on a question, unless the House
orders it to be divided: as on the question, Dec. 2, 1640, making void
the election of the Knights of Worcester, on a motion it was resolved
to make two questions of it, to wit, one on each Knight.--2 _Hats._
85, 86. So, wherever there are several names in a question, they may
be divided, and put one by one.--9 _Grey_, 444. So, 1729, April 17,
on an objection that a question was complicated, it was separated by
amendment.--2 _Hats._ 79. 5.
$The soundness of these observations will be evident from the
embarrassments produced by the 10th rule of the Senate, which says, "If
the question in debate contain several points, any member may have the
same divided."$
1798, May 30, the alien bill in quasi-committee. To a section and proviso
in the original, had been added two new provisos by way of amendment. On
a motion to strike out the section as amended, the question was desired
to be divided. To do this, it must be put first on striking out either
the former proviso, or some distinct member of the section. But when
nothing remains but the last member of the section, and the provisos, they
cannot be divided so as to put the last member to question by itself;
for the provisos might thus be left standing alone as exceptions to a
rule when the rule is taken away: or the new provisos might be left to
a second question, after having been decided on once before at the same
reading; which is contrary to rule. But the question must be on striking
out the last member of the section as amended. This sweeps away the
exceptions with the rule, and relieves from inconsistence. A question to
be divisible, must comprehend points so distinct and entire, that one
of them being taken away, the other may stand entire. But a proviso or
exception, with an enacting clause, does not contain an entire point or
proposition.
May 31. The same bill being before the Senate. There was a proviso, that
the bill should not extend, 1. To any foreign minister; nor, 2. To any
person to whom the President should give a passport; nor, 3. To any alien
merchant, conforming himself to such regulations as the President shall
prescribe; and division of the question into its simplest elements was
called for. It was divided into four parts, the 4th taking in the words
"conforming himself," &c. It was objected, that the words "any alien
merchant" could not be separated from their modifying words "conforming,"
&c., because these words, if left by themselves, contain no substantive
idea, will make no sense. But admitting that the divisions of a paragraph
into separate questions must be so made as that each part may stand by
itself, yet the House having, on the question, retained the first two
divisions, the words "any alien merchant" may be struck out, and their
modifying words will then attach themselves to the preceding description
of persons, and become a modification of that description.
When a question is divided, after the question on the 1st member, the
2d is open to debate and amendment: because it is a known rule, that
a person may rise and speak at any time before the question has been
completely decided by putting the negative, as well as the affirmative
side. But the question is not completely put when the vote has been taken
on the first member only. One half of the question, both affirmative
and negative, still remains to be put.--See _Executive Journ._, June
25, 1795. The same decision by President Adams.