I Beg, Sir to Move an Amendment.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 4985, 18 April 1889, Page 3

I Beg, Sir to Move an Amendment.

May, in his “ Parliamentary Practice " in a chapter on Amendments, says “ The confusion which must arise from any irregularity in the mode of putting amendments, is often exemplified at public meetings, where fixed principles and rules are not observed ; and it would be well for persons in the habit of presiding at public meetings of any description to make themselves familiar with the rules of Parliament in regard to questions and amendments, which have been tested by long experience and found as simple and efficient in practice as they are logical in principle." Also “ Sometimes the object of an amendment is to present to the House an alternative proposition, either wholly or partially opposed to the original question ; and the form of an amendment is here convenient, as affording the House an opportunity of deciding, in one proceeding, upon the two propositions. The first paragraph above quoted is deserving of the attention of some of the local bodies in this district; the second is quoted as the “ alternative proposition ” is the most usual form of amendment with such bodies. The Timaru Borough Council, for instance, follows a very irregular practice in one respect, which sometimes produces the confusion referred to by May, and occasionally to what a stranger might consider very queer results. The practice to which we refer consists in putting to the vote a motion in place of which an alternative and incompatible proposition has already been adopted as an amendment. Councillor A for instance moves that a special meeting be held next Wednesday; Councillor B moves that the special meeting be held next Thursday ; the amendment is put and carried by a majority. According to Parliamentary usage this would end the matter ; but according to the usage of the council it does not. The'original motion of councillor A, which ought to be considered amended out of eight, must be put to the vote. It is therefore quite possible that both amendment and original motion may each ho carried by a majority of votes. Councillors are supposed not to «stultify ” themselves by voting for the original if they had voted for the amendments ; but it hgs been done. Such an absurd conclusion ought to have pointed out a defect in practice, and led to its remedy. On one occasion a string of amendments in the form of alternative propositions were carried one after the other, and the first motion on ' being put to the vote was carried and accepted aa the final decision. No doubt it was what the council really meant to bo their conclusion,but ft was arrived at by a curious travesty of the recognised mode of procedure. Wo have "-mentioned only the Timaru Borough Council in this connection, but tho reports we receive p| meetings of various lauds, small and great,

! frequently contain such statements as, “ The f amendment was carried, and the original motion declared lost.” There is no need to declare a motion lost when another has been adopted in its place. It is lost as a matter of course. The rule of reasonable practice is founded on the simple principles that not more than two alternative propositions shall be submitted for decision at the same time, and that a decision in favour of one is destructive to the other. A difficulty may apparently arise if there are three or more propositions made relating to the same subject, all of equal moment, but the difficulty disappears if they are dealt with in an orderly manneraocording to those principles Suppose A proposes X; B moves as an amendment Y: C would not bo satisfied with either and intimates that he will move Z as a further amendment. D follows suit with V, still another proposition. This is not at all unusual According to Parliamentary practice, if three propositions are made, the original motion is temporarily put aside, the first amendment is put temporarily in its place and the second treated as an amendment upon it. A choice having been made by vote between these, the approved proposition is then taken as an amendment on the original, If four proposals were made, the second and third (first and second amendments) might be pitted against each other, then the fourth against the survivor, lastly, the next survivor against the first proposal. Or the fourth and third might bo first selected from and so upwards. Some local bodies, we. understand have bye-laws which prohibit the consideration of”more than one amendment at a time. How they are to conduct their, business in order it is difficult to conceive. The Timaru Borough Council’s bye-law regulating their proceedings is understood to bo of this absurd character, but it is hardly so bad as that. It prohibila “ discussion ” of more than one at a time, but expressly provides for the amending of amendment*, in other words the moving of second amendments. The clauses of the bye-law relating to this subject are (By-law No. 1) : —34. “ No second or subsequent amendment, whether upon an original proposition or on an amendment, shall be taken info consideration until the previous amendment is disposed of. 35. If an amendment be carried, the question or amendment as amended shall become itself the question or amendment, whereupon any further amendment upon any portion of tho question or amendment coming after such first mentioned amendment may be moved. 36. If an amendment bo negatived, then a second may bo moved to the question to which the first-mentioned amendment was moved, but only one amendment shall be submitted to the Council for discussion at a time.” Clause 35 is delightfully involved, and a demand for a solution of its intricacies would make a good thing for a puzzle column.