Historical question concerning precedence rules

[Guest A. Harris Fairbanks]

            I have a question that is purely historical and concerns a comment in the concluding paragraph of the Preface to the 1915 edition of Robert’s Rules of Order:   

 

 It is much more important, for instance, that an assembly has a rule determining the rank of the motion to postpone indefinitely, than that it gives this motion the highest rank of all subsidiary motions except to lay on the table, as in the U.S. Senate; or gives it the lowest rank, as in the U.S. House of Representatives; or gives it equal rank with the previous question, to postpone definitely, and to commit, so that if one is pending none of the others may be moved, as under the old parliamentary law.

 

My understanding of the precedence rule in the “old parliamentary law” (i.e., I suppose, the law as described in Hatsell’s Precedents and Lex Parliamentaria) is that while the three motions described in the final clause were indeed of equal rank, any one of them could be moved while another was pending; however, the one made first had to be voted on before the other in accordance with the rule “first moved, first put.”   This seemed to be Jefferson’s understanding of it as well; his chart in Sec. 33.8 of his Senate Manual asks which of two competing subsidiary motions including the three specifically named above should be put first when one has been moved before the other.  The question would make no sense if they could not both be pending at once.  Am I missing something?

   

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Perhaps the confusion on this point was one of the reasons General Robert wrote his book.

[Shmuel Gerber]

            I have a question that is purely historical and concerns a comment in the concluding paragraph of the Preface to the 1915 edition of Robert’s Rules of Order:   

 

 It is much more important, for instance, that an assembly has a rule determining the rank of the motion to postpone indefinitely, than that it gives this motion the highest rank of all subsidiary motions except to lay on the table, as in the U.S. Senate; or gives it the lowest rank, as in the U.S. House of Representatives; or gives it equal rank with the previous question, to postpone definitely, and to commit, so that if one is pending none of the others may be moved, as under the old parliamentary law.

 

My understanding of the precedence rule in the “old parliamentary law” (i.e., I suppose, the law as described in Hatsell’s Precedents and Lex Parliamentaria) is that while the three motions described in the final clause were indeed of equal rank, any one of them could be moved while another was pending; however, the one made first had to be voted on before the other in accordance with the rule “first moved, first put.”   This seemed to be Jefferson’s understanding of it as well; his chart in Sec. 33.8 of his Senate Manual asks which of two competing subsidiary motions including the three specifically named above should be put first when one has been moved before the other.  The question would make no sense if they could not both be pending at once.  Am I missing something?

 

What do you think is accomplished by allowing a motion to be moved which, in any event, cannot be put to a vote until after another pending question is disposed of first? In other words, suppose you're right; are you simply suggesting that General Robert should have written "none of the others may be stated by the chair" instead of "none of the others may be moved"?

[Gary Novosielski]

Still the point remains that having a reasoned rule to go by is more important than exactly what the rule says.

 

My historical question about the ROR preface is:  Which  "one of the greatest of English writers on parliamentary law" was the General quoting in the closing paragraph?

[Shmuel Gerber]

Still the point remains that having a reasoned rule to go by is more important than exactly what the rule says.

 

My historical question about the ROR preface is:  Which  "one of the greatest of English writers on parliamentary law" was the General quoting in the closing paragraph?

 

See this topic.

[Gary Novosielski]

So the quote is Hatsell's not Jefferson's?

[Shmuel Gerber]

I don't know the exact words used by Hatsell, but when Jefferson put that statement into his manual, he cited Hatsell.

[Dan Honemann]

What do you think is accomplished by allowing a motion to be moved which, in any event, cannot be put to a vote until after another pending question is disposed of first? In other words, suppose you're right; are you simply suggesting that General Robert should have written "none of the others may be stated by the chair" instead of "none of the others may be moved"?

 

Well, maybe Prof. Fairbanks thinks that General Robert should have said "none of the others may be voted on [or "may be considered and voted on"] until the one first moved has been disposed of by being rejected (although, with respect to the previous question, its rejection would effectively postpone the main motion)" instead of "none of the others may be moved".