Page:Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure Upload 2.pdf/80

76 pelled 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