The PRESIDENT. Certainly.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. With regard to the second proposition, I may have something to say upon that when it comes before us.

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. Mr. President, I have an amendment which bears on both the questions, and which should be considered in connection with both, and with the permission of the House I will read it. It is to be added to the twelfth rule:

"In order to secure due freedom of debate with proper despatch of business of the House, any member may move to reject, amend, or otherwise modify any resolution or measure reported for adoption by any committee of the House. In debating such a motion the members shall not speak more than ten minutes each, unless leave be granted by the House."

Two

I have been in this body many years, and I have never yet seen the time when, if a gentleman had spoken ten minutes, he could not secure an extension of his time if he had been talking sense. objects are to be kept in view. We are to secure and preserve freedom of debate, and, at the same time, we are to act so as to facilitate the despatch of business. I think the proposition which I submit reasonably secures both purposes, and is a fair compromise.

Several DEPUTIES. Is that proposition in order?

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. The motion is that, instead of inserting the previous question in this rule, we put the provision just read in the next rule when we come to it, which is a fair proposition; because, instead of the previous question, it gives us a substitute.

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. That is it.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. But I rise to suggest that I do not believe all the Convention are aware of the fact that the right of a minority to protest and debate a question introduced here by a majority is secured, and that the power of a majority to move a measure, and pass it without a word being said, is absolutely prohibited by the first article of our Constitution. It stands in the fore-front of the organic law under which we live. I will read the brief words:

"In all business of the Convention, freedom of debate shall be allowed."

Now, Mr. President, if you insert here these two little words "previous question," the controlling majority of this House can preconcert a measure; a man may rise on the floor here and move that measure; a gentleman by his side may second it; the same party may move the previous question; the party by his side may second it. There is nothing for the Convention to do. The mover may even make a long speech in favor of his measure (which is one of the unjust ways of carrying out the previous question), and at the close of his speech move the previous question, and not a man in the House has a right to say a word if a majority of the House adopt the previous question; and, no matter what the objection may be, if there be a numerical majority to carry it, it will be carried through the House, without the privilege of a word being said by any one opposed to it. Is that living up to the Constitution which guarantees to us freedom of debate? This is a matter, Mr. President, which the minority, upon all questions, are mainly interested in. Hence it is guarded by the Constitution, and therefore it is that I appeal to this House, and to the majority of this House, that they do not impose any such unjust rule upon any minority on any question. I have seen a motion made in a deliberative body, a long speech made in favor of the proposition, and at the close of that long speech in favor of it, a motion to adopt the previous question,

the previous question seconded, no one allowed even to correct statements of fact which were misstatements, no one allowed to make an argument against it, and a vote forced upon that body adopting the proposition, without allowing a syllable to be said on either side. Now, the gentleman from Louisiana says that the same thing is allowed by the motion to lay a proposition on the table. On the contrary, you can never compel a body to accept or reject any proposition without debate by moving to lay it upon the table. They have neither adopted it nor rejected it when they have laid it upon the table. Under this rule it may be so with an amendment; but when a motion is laid on the table it is simply a declaration that the body does not wish to discuss that question at that time; it does not wish to vote either "yea" or "nay." It does not wish to adopt it or reject it, but lets it drop for the present to take up something else.

I repeat, that the insertion of the words "previous question" is a distinct violation of the rule of our Constitution, obligatory upon us all, that freedom of debate shall be allowed. Of course we are permitted to make our rules of order-we may limit debate, we may limit the time of remarks, we may fix the time when we shall take a vote-for all questions in a convention are always subject to the vote of the convention, and under their control.

The PRESIDENT. I considered the proposition offered by Mr. Ruggles to be, in the way he presented it, as simply argumentative. If it is an additional rule, his reading of it was to show cause why you should not adopt the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana; but it cannot be in order unless it be moved as a part of the eleventh rule.

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. Well, I make it a part of the eleventh rule.

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Ruggles says now that he offers it as part of the eleventh rule. Therefore it is in order as the first amendment to that rule to be voted on.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I think, with due submission to the Chair, that where there are two amendments, separate and independent in themselves, we must take the vote separately on the first amendment that is offered. You take, of course, the vote on an amendment to an amendment before you vote on the amendment itself; but when there are two separate and distinct amendments to a matter before the House, you take a vote on the first amendment, adopt that or reject it, and then take a vote on the second, because they are independent of each other. We may or may not vote down the motion for the previous question. If we vote it down, then the motion of the gentleman from New York will be perfectly in order. But we ought to have the opportunity of voting upon the previous question first, as a separate and independent amendment to the rule of order which is now before the House.

The PRESIDENT. otherwise be in order. man from New York amendment.

I consider that it cannot That motion of the gentlewas an amendment to an

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I did not so understand. I understood it more as a reason why we should vote down the previous question, because, if we do vote it down, the gentleman from New York then intends to introduce another amendment which will answer the purpose.

The PRESIDENT. That is logically so; but in this science of rules of order, as I understand, nothing can be offered when one amendment is presented, except new matter, as an amendment to that amendment.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. If

I apprehend the case aright, the proposition of Mr. Ruggles takes the place of the motion to insert the previous question. Put into technical legal form, according to parliamentary rules, his motion is this: "That the words previous question' be stricken out, and that there be substituted therefor " the words named by him at the end of the section. The PRESIDENT. He could not have made that motion, because the words "previous question " have not been put in.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. It is an amendment to an amendment, I understand. When an amendment is offered to an amendment, it may be offered in several ways. It may be first adding to the amendment, or it may be striking out the amendment and substituting other matter for it, either of which propositions is proper. Gentlemen are in the habit of very loosely saying, “I move this as an amendment to that." How? Will you add this to that, or put this in place of that? The motion of Mr. Ruggles here is to amend the motion to insert the previous question by inserting instead of it the words of his proposition. If I am wrong, the gentleman who made the motion will correct me. When we have adopted this amendment to the amendment, if we do so, the previous question is wiped out. We come to the question, then, whether we will incorporate the amendment to the amendment into the original proposition. That, I think, is familiar parliamentary law.

The PRESIDENT. The first question is on the amendment to the amendment, offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ruggles).

The Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. Something more must be done if you adopt that course, for if you read the rule with that insertion the gentleman will see that it is impossible to adopt it in that form. It will be, "When a question is under consideration, no motion shall be received, unless to lay it upon the table; and in order to secure freedom of debate with proper despatch of the business of the House, any member may move to reject, amend, or otherwise modify any resolution or measure reported for adoption by any committee of the House." You cannot insert it in that form, I think.

The Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. It is proposed to go in at the end of the rule.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Mr. President, I understand that the eleventh rule is before the House. The text of the eleventh rule is the matter before the House. The gentleman from Louisiana moves to insert in that text, after the first clause as to the order of motions, the words "the previous question." That is an amendment to the text proposed. The only amendment to that amendment that can be admitted is to substitute something else for it that would be congruous to the text, or to leave out some words in it, or to reject them. I say, therefore, with due respect to the Chair, that the Chair ought to rule out for the present what is proposed as an amendment to the amendment, simply because it is a departure from the rule of an amendment to an amendment, inasmuch as it does not propose to modify the amendment in any way, but proposes simply to insert an entirely different proposition. The eleventh rule provides for the order of motions.

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I withdraw my proposition for the present.

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Ruggles having withdrawn his proposition, the question is on the first amendment of Mr. Race.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I move an indefinite postponement of the amendment to insert the previous question.

The PRESIDENT. Under our present rules, I think that postponement would carry the whole subject.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. Then I withdraw the motion.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment to insert "the previous question" after the word "table" in the second line of the eleventh rule.

The amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDENT. The question now is on the second amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana to strike out the following words: "If a motion to lay on the table an amendment be carried, the matter before the House shall be proceeded with as if no such amendment had been offered," The amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDENT. The question recurs on the adoption of the eleventh rule as reported. The rule was adopted.

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. Now, I offer as an additional rule, to come in after Rule 11th, the proposition which I submitted before :

"In order to secure due freedom of debate, with proper despatch of the business of the House, any member may move to reject, amend, or otherwise modify any resolution or measure reported for adoption by any committee of the House. In debating such motion, the members shall not speak more than ten minutes each, unless leave be granted by the House."

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I raise the point of order whether that motion is now in order. We have already decided to take these rules seriatim. We must go through with them as they are printed and presented to us. Then, when we are through, it will be in order for any member to introduce an additional rule. But if we begin to introduce additional rules now, we shall throw the whole thing into disorder. I hope we shall go straight through just as we resolved to do.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. It occurs to me that any proposition which is germane to the question before us, that is, to the rules of order, may come in before we proceed with the succeeding rules, because we are now adopting a new set of rules; and this matter is germane to the question we now have under consideration. Therefore we are not to wait until we go through the whole, and then take it up.

Rev. Dr. MINNIGERODE, of Virginia. Is the proposition to limit gentlemen to ten minutes on any subject that may come up?

The PRESIDENT. I am not able to answer.

Rev. Dr. MINNIGERODE, of Virginia. If it is, I have simply to say that it would be an excellent thing, no doubt, to teach every member of this Convention to confine himself to ten minutes; but the General Convention is not a good school for that kind of training, and all experience has shown that the effect of making such a rule would be to limit the freedom of debate.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment offered as an additional rule by the Deputy from New York (Mr. Ruggles).

There

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. is nothing in this proposition but the ten-minutes' rule. All the rest we have now under the rules of the House. It is a mere question now, therefore, whether we will adopt the ten-minute rule. I suppose the Convention is not prepared to do it. The amendment was rejected.

The Secretary read the next proposed rule, as follows:

"12. There shall be no debate upon a resolution which proposes to refer any matter to a committee, or upon a motion to recommit any subject which has been before a committee. And if objection be made to the consideration of a resolution designed for the action of the House, without a reference to a committee, it shall lie over, and come up the next

day as unfinished business. But the member who offers such resolution or motion may speak five minutes, for the purpose of explaining its object."

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I rise for information. The eleventh rule provides that a motion to commit shall be one of the motions debatable. Now, here, it is true, the word "resolution" is used; but is it perfectly clear what the difference is? A resolution to be committed is not debatable, while a motion to commit is debatable. I rise to ask what the difference is, and whether it is sufficiently clear that there is any difference?

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. The object of the rule was to prevent two debates on the same subject in the House. A member rises and submits a resolution, which, under the rules of the House, ought to go to a committee. He is allowed by this proposed rule five minutes to explain the object of his resolution. Thereupon, as a standing order of the House, the resolution goes to a committee without further debate. When the committee has acted upon it, it comes back, and then the gentleman from Maryland can speak at large. So upon a question which has been once before a committee and comes back for the consideration of the House, and for some technical want of form, or for some reason or other, the House desires to send it back to the committee, the motion to commit is to be submitted under this rule without debate. The result is that when a measure is perfected the subject will be open for legitimate debate, and for the final action of the House.

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I see what was in the mind of the committee, and yet it is not at all clear to my mind, and I will state my difficulty once more. I will read the twelfth rule as it is printed: "There shall be no debate upon a resolution which proposes to refer any matter to a committee "

Not a matter that comes from a committee. If I make a motion, if I offer a resolution to this House and say that that resolution is to be committed to a committee, I cannot debate it, nor can I upon a motion to recommit it. Again:

"And if objection be made to the consideration of a resolution "

That is a separate subject altogether-"designed for the action of the House without a reference to a committee, it shall lie over and come up the next day as unfinished business. But the member who offers such resolution ".

What resolution? A resolution that he wants passed without sending it to a committee.

"such resolution or motion may speak five minutes."

Here are two separate things. When a member offers a resolution, and couples that resolution with a proposition to send it to a committee, he cannot debate it; but if he offers a resolution and does not say it is to be sent to a committee, then he may explain his views for five minutes.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Mr. President, really taking the context, I think there is no ground for the objection of my friend from Maryland; but, to obviate all possibility of criticism, I move to transpose the sentence, "But the member who offers such resolution or motion may speak five minutes, for the purpose of explaining its object," to that part of the rule after the word "committee " in the third line, so that the rule will read :

"There shall be no debate upon a resolution which proposes to refer any matter to a committee, or upon a motion to recommit any subject which has been before a committee. But the member who offers such resolution or motion may speak five minutes for the purpose of explaining its object."

The other clause of the Rule has respect to business that ought properly upon objection to go on the Calendar, and therefore a speech of five minutes on

that is not necessary. I move therefore to transpose the last clause so as to make it the second, and the second clause the third.

RECESS.

The PRESIDENT. I ask the gentleman to give way that we may receive an interesting communication from the Secretary.

The SECRETARY. I will announce to the Convention that lunch is prepared for the members of the Convention, and is now ready, and that a motion for a brief recess for the purpose of giving attention to it I think, with all due deference, will be in order.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I make the motion that half an hour's recess be taken.

The motion was agreed to; and the House accordingly took a recess for half an hour. At the expiration of that time the President resumed the chair.

PRINTING OF MEMORIALS.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I wish to present a memorial, and move that it be referred and printed to save the time of the house, and I take this course after consultation with various members of the Convention.

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Texas moves to suspend the business which was being discussed before the recess to receive a paper, and the Chair will suggest that there are business matters of importance to be acted on promptly, and which can be attended to during the suspension. The motion was agreed to.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I move that the memorial from the diocese of Texas, touching the setting off of a portion of its territory into missionary jurisdictions, which I now present, be referred to the Committee on Canons, and ordered to be printed, and a sufficient number of copies being printed to be distributed to the House.

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. Perhaps the memorial of California, which was suspended when the order of the day was called for, had better be included in that motion.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I will include the memorial of California in my motion. I move that the memorials of California and Texas be referred to the Committee on Canons, and ordered to be printed in sufficient number to distribute copies to the House.

Mr. CORNWALL, of Kentucky. I think it would be an unnecessaryexpense to print all the formal matter of these memorials. The principal part is very short. If we begin printing memorials at their entire length, we shall add to the expenses of the General Convention. I move that only such portions as are necessary to an understanding of the purport of the papers be printed.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I will explain, so far as the memorial of our diocese is concerned, that it has no formality about it, save a dozen lines. The rest consists of the facts stated for the judgment of this Convention. It is not a long memorial.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion of the Deputy from Texas.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. This is establishing a precedent which may give us trouble before we get through the sessions of this body. I think there is a growing feeling of antagonism to this great use of paper and type. The expense of it is never estimated at the moment, but in the aggregate it amounts to a very great deal, and I think this body should be careful as to the expenditure of money where it can be avoided.

It seems to me that these memorials have only one office, and that is to have their contents submitted to the deliberation of this body, while the

subject of which they are the predicate is being discussed. If these memorials are referred to the proper committees, and the subject is proposed for action by these committees, if the gentlemen who bring the memorials here read them to us as part of their speeches, the whole House gets the full possession of their contents at the time. If these memorials are printed, they will be taken home and probably will not be on hand at the time the debate comes up in most instances the reading of them will be deferred until the time when the debate does come up, and we shall find that the mind of the House will be probably less fully informed on the subject than if at the time the discussion takes place the gentlemen from Texas and California would rise, and, as part of the discussion, here read the memorials to the House. We know what the subject-matter will be. We know that it is as to the division of dioceses.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Not the division. Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Well, we shall be able to comprehend the matter of the memorials as they are read. It is not proposed to take any action at this particular time. One of them is in print already; it was read this morning from a printed copy, as I observed. It seems to me that, instead of setting the precedent of printing these long memorials, and incurring a heavy expenditure thereby, it would be far better when the time comes for those who represent the memorialists to read the memorials, and then they would be open for discussion.

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Cornwall) suggested that only the_important parts of the memorials be printed. I did not observe that he made any motion.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Mr. President, when the memorial of California was being read this morning, objection was taken thereto upon the double ground, first, that it took the time of this House, and next, that it could not be heard, and the objector suggested that these important memorials -memorials that have been before the General Convention substantially for nine years-should be printed, that the prayer of these dioceses might be understood, and that it might be acted upon with some degree of understanding, and candor, and caution. Then I objected. I desired that the memorial of Texas should be heard upon this floor from my lips or the lips of the Secretary; but on consultation with the different members of the Committee on Canons and various members of this Convention, I have come to the conclusion that Texas will be content if her memorial can be printed and put into the hands of the members of the Convention, and then, if she can, be heard at the proper time without an attempt even to read it. In order to facilitate business, I asked a suspension of the order of the day that this might be done, and now I ask that my motion to print and send to the Committee on Canons may not be negatived, but that it may be granted, and, by-and-by, when it comes before you, I will take a few moments to explain it.

Rev. Mr. EASTON, of California. I believe a sufficient number of the California memorials are printed already for the information of the House.

The PRESIDENT. Then I suppose the gentleman from Texas withdraws his motion as to the California memorial.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Yes. My motion is only to print the memorial from Texas, and to refer both memorials to the Committee on Canons. The motion was agreed to.

RECEPTION OF CANADIAN CLERGY.

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. In be

half of the Committee appointed at the last annual Convention

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I rise to a question of order. The regular business was only suspended for one specific subject, and other business is not in order.

The PRESIDENT. No; it was suspended for several purposes. I distinctly announced myself that I had several things to bring before the House, matters of detail, but which it is very important to dispose of. If the gentleman from New Jersey will pardon me, I will bring these matters to the notice of the House now.

There has been put in my hands a paper adopted at a meeting of the Provincial Synod of the Ecclesiastical Province of Canada. There is a delegation here expecting to present this paper to the House. The Metropolitan of Canada also is here desiring to present an address to the two Houses of the General Convention, and he wants a time fixed when this can be done. I ask the House now to fix a time and to appoint a committee to wait upon these gentlemen and inform them of the time.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move that to-morrow, at 12 o'clock, it be the special order of the day to receive these gentlemen and hear the address of the Metropolitan of Canada, and also to have the address of the Synod read, and also that a committee be appointed to wait upon them.

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. Did I understand the Chair to say that these gentlemen from Canada had a memorial from the Church in Canada in relation to bringing our body and theirs more closely together?

The PRESIDENT. I did not state the purpose of the paper; only that there was a paper.

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. Then I move the appointment of the committee which was desired by the Chair.

The PRESIDENT. The appointment of a committee to carry out the purpose indicated by the motion of Dr. Mead is also moved. The Chair will put the question on the motion as thus amended.

The motion was agreed to; and the President appointed Rev. Dr. Rudder, of Pennsylvania; Mr. Fish, of New York; and Mr. Ruggles, of New York, as the committee.

NEW DIOCESE IN NEW JERSEY.

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. In behalf of the Committee appointed at the last Annual Convention of the Diocese of New Jersey, I present the papers touching the proposed division of the Diocese of New Jersey, and I move that these papers be referred to the Committee on the Admission of New Dioceses.

The motion was agreed to.

HYMNAL MEMORIAL.

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. May I be allowed, Mr. President, a word of explanation? The delegation from Pennsylvania have a memorial from that Diocese to the General Convention. They are not prepared, as it is not now in order, to present that memorial, and they have not as yet received any certified copy of the memorial. My object is only to make an explanation that certain documents connected with this memorial were put into the hands of the Secretary of this House, and they have been distributed throughout the House. I wish to call attention to this fact, or otherwise the documents may be passed over. They are relative to reports of the Committee on the Revision of the Hymn-Book. find that the Secretary of the House has caused copies to be placed in every pew. At the proper time, when it is in order, I shall take the liberty of

presenting the memorial from the Diocese of Pennsylvania.

HOURS OF SITTING.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, has any time been fixed for the sessions of the House?

The PRESIDENT. Not yet.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I move that the sessions be from 10 o'clock in the morning until 4 in the afternoon, allowing half an hour for recess.

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I move to amend that the recess be from half-past 1 to 2 o'clock.

The amendment was agreed to.

The motion as amended was agreed to.

SECRETARY AND TREASURER.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I offer the following resolution, and I move that it be referred to the Committee on Canons for consideration and report:

'Resolved, That the following be added to the standing orders:

"That the Secretary of the House of Deputies and the Treasurer of the Convention, when not returned as Deputies to the Convention, shall be members of this House, with the right to speak as to the subjects of their respective offices, but without the right to vote.""

The Secretary now is not a member of the House, but frequently he is necessitated to make explanations. The Treasurer of the Convention is not a member, but he should be here, and it is necessary for him sometimes to make explanations as to matters connected with his office. That he should be allowed to do, and I make the motion that this resolution be referred to the Committee on Canons to consider and report whether it is advisable.

The PRESIDENT. It is moved to refer the resolution to the Committee on Canons.

The motion to refer was agreed to.

ENGLISH CHURCH CONGRESS.

The following message (No. 3) was received from the House of Bishops:

"The House of Bishops informs the House of Deputies that it has appointed the Bishops of Indiana, Minnesota, and Central New York as the Joint Committee on the part of this House to reply to the communication received yesterday from the President of the Church Congress, sitting at Brighton, England."

The SECRETARY. I can state to the House that the following message will be sent this afternoon:

NEW YORK, October 8, 1874. "The General Convention reciprocates the greeting of the Church Congress, and prays for the unity of the whole Church in the faith of our Lord Jesus. BISHOP OF INDIANA,

Chairman Joint Committee.

RULES OF ORDER.

Several Deputies called for the order of the day. The PRESIDENT. The order of the day is called for. The twelfth proposed rule was under consideration at the recess, and Mr. Sheffey, of Virginia, had moved an amendment to transpose the last sentence of the twelfth rule in these words, "But the member who offers such resolution or motion may speak five minutes, for the purpose of explaining its object," and insert it after the word "committee " in the third line of the text.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I move to amend that rule further by adding after the word

un

over" in the fifth line the following words: less two-thirds shall vote to proceed to its immediate consideration." The rule is now that, "if objection be made to the consideration of a resolution designed for the action of the House, without a reference to a committee, it shall lie over, and come up the next day as unfinished business."

A resolution might be offered which might require immediate action. Some provision ought to be made by a vote of two-thirds to proceed to its immediate consideration; and I therefore move to add after the word "over" in the fifth line the words "unless two-thirds shall vote to proceed to its immediate consideration." When a proposition is offered to the Convention, any member, as the rule now stands, can object to it and defeat it; but by adding the words I propose, two-thirds can vote to consider it immediately. In the latter days of this Convention very important questions may come up requiring immediate action, and therefore the House ought to have the power by a two-thirds vote, at any time, to dispense with this rule.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Will the gentleman from Kentucky hear me for a moment?

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. Certainly. Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Let me suggest the insertion, after the words "unfinished business," in the sixth line, of these words: "But by a vote of two-thirds of the members present the House may at once consider the resolution."

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I accept that. I only want to put the matter in the power of the Convention.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I think the objection of the gentleman from Kentucky might be met by another rule, but this amendment will answer the purpose.

The amendment was agreed to.

The twelfth rule as amended was adopted.
The Secretary read the next rule, as follows:

"13. All amendments shall be considered in the order in which they are moved. When a proposed amendment is under consideration, a motion to amend the same may be made. No after amendment to such second amendment shall be in order. No proposition on a subject different from the one under consideration shall be received under color of a substitute."

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. It seems to me that the first line of this thirteenth rule expresses that it is not true in point of fact that "all amendments shall be considered in the order in which they are moved." I supposed that the universal action of all deliberative bodies was in the reverse order. You do not first act on an amendment, and if that is lost, then consider an amendment to that amendment; but you first put the question on the amendment to the amendment, and if that is lost, then put it on the amendment. Now, this rule provides for the other mode of doing business-that you shall first put the amendment, and then if that is lost, the amendment to the amendment. I apprehend that we do not wish to do business in that order; hence I move to amend by inserting the word "reverse" after the word "the" in the first line, so as to read, "all amendments shall be considered in the reverse order in which they are moved."

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I do not read that rule as the gentleman does. It strikes me that the object of the rule is simply to provide that, when four or five or two or three single and separate amendments are moved to a measure before the House, they shall be taken up in the order in which they are moved. It does not apply to the case of an amendment to an amendment. We all know, when that is moved, the vote on the amendment to the amendment must be taken first. That is a matter of course. This rule simply provides that, where