Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure/Order of Motions and their Precedence to One Another

by Orson B. Felt

Layout 2

ORDER OF MOTIONS AND THEIR PRECEDENCE TO ONE ANOTHER.

73. To fix the time to which to adjourn.
To adjourn.
Questions of privilege.
Orders of the day.
To lay on the table.
The previous question.
To postpone to a certain time.
To commit.
To amend.
To postpone indefinitely.
Appeals.
Objection to consideration.
Withdrawal of a motion.
Division of a question.
Suspension of the rules.
To fill blanks.
Reading of papers.
To reconsider.
To substitute.
Main, or principal motion.

Note.—The above is the order in which motions may be said to have precedence over one another. It is understood that motions compelled by necessity, questions of privilege, questions of order, and questions of consideration (when applying to the main question) should take precedence for the time being over everything in the order named; but since there are many exceptions and much conflict of authorities on the subject of precedence and since many emergencies may arise, the chairman should be guided largely by common sense. As “necessity knows no law,” he should be the judge (subject to an appeal to the assembly) whether the motion so offered is of such character that necessity requires it should have precedence. (a) For instance, while good authorities assert that the motion for adjournment is not in order after the previous question has been acted upon and ordered. Because if ordered and the adjournment is decided in the affirmative, then the question would come up immediately upon re-assembling—since the previous question is still in force—and the vote is so ordered by the previous question would then be taken. (b) So also there seems to be no good reason why the previous question, both motions for postponement, and to commit should be regarded of equal rank, and therefore the previous question not allowed while either of these questions, or in fact any debatable question, is pending. (c) Furthermore, if an amendment is pending why should not a motion to indefinitely postpone be allowed without first acting on the amendment? Because it is presumable that the members are competent to judge whether they desire to dispose of the whole matter for that session by indefinite postponement.