    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 106th Congress]
    [106th Congress]
    [House Document 105-358]
    [Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
    [Pages 243-246]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                      sec. xxxvi--division of the question

    [[Page 244]]

    plicated 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, December 2, 1640, making void the election
    of the knights for 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.

    Sec. 480. Parliamentary law for 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 com

      The House, by clause 5 of rule XVI and the practice thereunder, has
    entitled a procedure differing materially from that above set forth.
    While a resolution electing Members to committees is not divisible
    (clause 5 of rule XVI), other types of resolutions containing several
    names may be divided for voting (Mar. 19, 1975, p. 7344).

    Sec. 481. Jefferson's discussion of division of
    the question.

      The soundness  of these observations will be evident from the
    embarrassments produced by the XVIIIth rule of the Senate, which says,
    ``if the question in debate contains several points, any member may have
    the same divided.''

    [[Page 245]]

    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, without an enacting clause, does not contain an entire point
    or proposition.
      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

    [[Page 246]]

    must be so made as that each part may stand by itself, yet the House
    having, on the question, retained the two first 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.
      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 a 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

    Sec. 482. Division of question as related to debate or
    amendment.

      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 the question, both affirmative
    and negative, remains still to be put. See Execut. Jour., June 25, 1795.
    The same decision by President Adams.

      Where a division of the question is demanded on a portion of an
    amendment, the Chair puts the question first on the remaining portions
    of the amendment, and that portion on which the division is demanded
    remains open for further debate and amendment (Oct. 21, 1981, p. 24785).
    However, where neither portion of a divided question remains open to
    further debate or amendment, the question may be put first on the
    portion identified by the demand for division and then on the remainder
    (June 8, 1995, p. 15302).