Events will undoubtedly occur making it desirable to amend the bill materially. If it is desired to cut out some of its provisions or to limit its scope well and good; the petition will be broad enough for that. But if, as is more often the case, it is sought to enlarge the bill's scope and to increase its requirements, then one bumps right up against the limited wording of the petition. It is true, of course, that many bills are reported by committees and go through both branches despite the fact that they contain provisions which are beyond the scope of the petitions the original bill accompanied. But this is either because of inadvertence or because the bill is so unimportant that no opposition to it develops.
A point of order, moreover, cannot be upheld on this score after a measure has reached a certain stage. This is true, for instance, if the bill has gone to a third reading[1] or been substituted for the adverse report of a committee[2] or passed through the other branch of the Legislature.[3] These rulings are based on the theory that the discrepancy has been ratified by the action of the legislators and though in the last case the ratification is by the members of the other house, courtesy between the two branches governs.
Petitions Should be Broad in Scope
A bill broader than the scope of a petition may be saved from an adverse ruling (1) by another petition which happens to be before the committee, or (2) by some clause in a message of the Governor or in the report of some State officer or department or board, on which it can be based. It is not well to trust to luck in these matters, however. All difficulties can be best obviated by framing the petition
