284
AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
against said vote of reconsideration as well as aga.inst all the subse- quent votes on said bill and for the following reasons-It appears by the journals of the Legislative Counsel that said Bill was taken up on day Deeb· and on motion to postpone the further con- sideration of it to the l•L Monday of Deer· 1818 it was decided in affirmative ayes ·four nays three and the House of Representatives were acquainted therewith after which it could not regularly be brought up again unless moved for as prescribed by tlJe rules of the . Legislati,e Counsel which say that (insert the rule about reconsider- ing) therein recognising the principle that no vote can be recon- sidered unless moved for by one of the majority-it is also layed down in Jefferson manuel as a principle that no vote can be recon-_ sidered unless moved for by one of the majority-and that no vote can be reconsidered after the Bill or papers on which such vote was taken had been sent to the other House, and that a question once carried can not be questioned again the same session but must remain as the decission of the House See Jefferson Man 1 • page 140-the undersigned therefore lay it down as an undeniable proposition that said Bill could not be revived again by a vote of reconsideration unless such vote was moved for by one of the Majority, it however appears by the Journal of the Legislative Counsel that the motion for reconsidering the vote was made on the day of Deer· by a member who was not in the House when the question for the post- ponement was decided and as he did not vote on that question was not of the majority and therefore could not legally make such a motion- it appears evident to the undersigned that the nature and meaning of a reconsideration implies the fact 'that something must have been previously done before there could be a reconsideration and consequently that it would be absurd to reconsider on a question which had never been decided-and it appears equally absurd for a. member to move for a reconsideration of a question on which he had never decided or acted at all-it therefore appears evident to the undersigned that the motion to reconsider said vote was out of order and improper being in violation of one of the Rules of the Houso and in contradiction to the established principles of parliamentary proceedings and therefore that the decision of the majority to revive and take up said Bill a.ga.in was erronious and unpa,rJiamentary and consequently illegal- The undersigned also protest against said vote of reconsideration and against all the subsequent votes on said Bill on the ground that the member from Howard County without whose vote the ques- tion to reconsider would have been lost (there being five ayes and four na.ys) was not and is not legally entitled .to a scat in the Legislative Counsel-the organic Law declares that the members
Powered by FlippingBook