[Hinds' Precedents, Volume 4]
[Chapter 84 - The Making of the Journal]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
THE MAKING OF THE JOURNAL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Proceedings only are recorded. Sections 2811-2825.
2. Record of votes and roll calls. Sections 2826-2833.\1\
3. Record of acts, rulings, etc., of the Speaker. Sections
2834-285l.\2\
4. As to bills, petitions, reports, etc. Sections 2852-2860.
5. As to acts of Members. Sections 2861-2873.
6. As to certain exceptional proceedings, etc. Sections 2873-
2883.\3\
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2811. The Journal records acts, but not the reasons therefor.--On
February 27, 1811,\4\ the House was considering the bill ``concerning
the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain
and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes,'' and the
previous question was ordered on the passage of the bill.
On February 28 Mr. John Randolph, of Virginia, moved to amend the
Journal so as to show that the vote on the passage of the bill was
taken ``without debate, being precluded by the decision of the House.''
The House disagreed to the motion.
2812. The Journal records the proceeding simply, and not the
circumstances attending it.--On February 5, 1840,\5\ the Journal
contained the following entry:
Mr. Randolph presented sundry resolutions adopted by the council and
general assembly of the State of New Jersey, which are in the words
following: (Here follow the resolutions in full.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As to record of vote by ballot. See. 232 of Vol. I, Sec. 368 of
Vol. III.
House declines to permit change of record of persons noted as present
to form a quorum. Sec. 2620 of Vol. III.
\2\ Farewell address of Speaker recorded. Sec. 233 of Vol. I.
\3\ Report of committee appointed to investigate the Clerk printed in
full. Sec. 295 of Vol. I.
As to record of certification by the Speaker in case of contumacious
witness. Sec. 1609 of Vol. II and Secs. 1672, 1686, 1691 of Vol. III.
Answers of persons arraigned at the bar of the House recorded in
full. Secs. 1673, 1699 of Vol. III. Not recorded, secs. 1674, 1685,
1686, 1690 of Vol. III.
Articles of impeachment appear in full. Secs. 2302, 2344, 2368 of
Vol. III.
\4\ Third session Eleventh Congress, Journal, pp. 600, 601 (Gales &
Seaton ed.); Annals, p. 1096.
\5\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 307, 310;
Globe, p. 167.
Sec. 2813
On February 6 Mr. Daniel P. Leadbetter, of Ohio, moved to strike out
this entry and insert the following:
Mr. Randolph inquired of the Speaker if he had received certain joint
resolutions from the governor and council of the State of New Jersey;
and if so, did the Speaker intend to present them? And if the Speaker
did not intend to present them, did the Chair wish to state his reasons
for refusing to present them?
Mr. Speaker replied that he had received certain resolutions from the
governor and council, addressed to him as a Member of the House and not
as Speaker; that he should not present them, and had so informed the
governor and council.
Mr. Randolph. Then I will present them, and move to have them spread
upon the Journal.
Mr. Leadbetter objected, as being out of order. The Chair stated that
by the practice of the House the resolutions were in order. Mr. Hand
rose to the same question of order; and, during a desultory debate,
wherein Mr. Randolph was called upon to either state the contents of
the resolutions, or to have them read, Mr. Randolph replied, Let them
be read. Mr. Dromgoole rose and objected to the reception, and would
continue to do so until the Speaker should state his reasons for not
presenting those resolutions.
After debate the motion to amend the Journal was laid on the table--
yeas 87, nays 86.
2813. A motion which is not entertained by the Speaker is not entered
on the Journal.--On May 8, 1868,\1\ Mr. Benjamin F. Butler, of
Massachusetts, offered a resolution to amend the Journal of the House
by striking out all record of a resolution offered on May 7 by Mr.
William E. Robinson, of New York, said resolution being intended as a
censure on the action of the House.
The Speaker \2\ said:
The resolution of the gentleman from New York was not entered on the
Journal according to the rule ``All motions, however, to be entered on
the Journal must be first entertained by the Speaker.'' The Chair
declined to entertain the motion of the gentleman from New York on the
ground that it was not, as alleged, a question of privilege. It could
not, therefore, be entered on the Journal.
2814. Proceedings of the House, rendered null through discovery of
errors, are not properly entered on the Journal.
Instance wherein the Speaker ruled out of order a motion to amend the
Journal by inserting a record of proceedings that became null through
errors.
The correction of an error having changed the result of a vote a
motion to reconsider, based on the erroneous vote, was treated as a
nullity.
On July 6, 1846,\3\ the Journal of Friday having been read, Mr.
Edward W. McGaughey, of Indiana, moved that the same be amended by
inserting thereon all the proceedings of Friday last in relation to the
vote upon inserting ``salt'' in the schedule of articles free of duty,
which were then declared by the Speaker to be null, in consequence of
the discovery of an error in the adding up of a vote, and which were
consequently omitted from the Journal of that day.
The Speaker \4\ stated that, inasmuch as the error alluded to in the
amendment proposed by Mr. McGaughey was discovered before the next vote
was announced,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 2387.
\2\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
\3\ First session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 1032; Globe, p.
1058.
\4\ John W. Davis, of Indiana, Speaker.
Sec. 2815
and as that vote was upon a motion to reconsider the last vote made by
a Member who voted with the majority, and as the correction of the
error changed the result of that vote, the Member making the motion had
no right, under the rule, to make it, and therefore all the action
subsequent to the announcement of the erroneous vote was properly
stated by the Speaker, at the time, to be a nullity; in which statement
the House acquiesced. The Speaker therefore decided that the amendment
of the Journal now proposed by Mr. McGaughey was not in order.
From this decision Mr. McGaughey appealed. The appeal was laid on the
table by a vote of 90 to 52, thus sustaining the Chair.
On the succeeding day the Speaker, in the course of a ruling, said
\1\ in relation to this subject:
All nullities or errors perpetrated on the part of the House, through
error on the part of the Clerk, had never been considered as
journalizing matter. And the Chair would call attention to two cases
that had occurred at the present session. On the engrossment of the
bill making provision for the payment of Indian annuities, when that
bill was under consideration, the Clerk omitted one of the amendments,
and the House went on and ordered the bill to a third reading. After
that had been done a gentleman from Tennessee called the attention of
the Chair to the fact that one of the amendments had been omitted. The
Chair stated that the proceedings would be regarded as a nullity and
that it would not appear in the Journal, and it did not. At another
time during this session, when the bill in relation to fishing bounties
was under consideration, the Chair was in precisely the same condition
in which it found itself on Friday last. The Chair gave the casting
vote. It was afterwards ascertained that the Chair had no right to
vote. The whole proceeding was a nullity, and did not appear in the
journal.
2815. While the Journal ought to be a correct transcript of
proceedings, the House has not insisted on a strict chronological order
of entries--On December 28, 1807,\2\ Mr. John Randolph, of Virginia,
calling attention to the supplemental or secret Journal of the House,
noted that while a resolution respecting the embargo was under
consideration a message had been received from the Senate. But the
Journal as published indicated that the resolution was disposed of
before the message was received. The Journal ought always to be a
correct transcript of proceedings as they actually happened; therefore
he moved to amend the Journal to read as follows:
On motion of Mr. Randolph, and seconded, that the House do come to
the following resolution:
Resolved, That an embargo be laid on shipping, the property of
citizens of the United States, now in port or which shall hereafter
arrive.
And debate arising thereon,
A message, pending the same debate, was received from the Senate by
Mr. Otis, their Secretary, as follows:
``Mr. Speaker: The Senate have in confidence directed me to inform
this honorable House that they have passed a bill entitled `An act
laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of
the United States,' to which they desire the concurrence of this
House.''
And then he withdrew.
Whereupon, it was moved by Mr. Macon, and ordered by the House, that
the said motion of Mr. Randolph do lie on the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Globe, p. 1065.
\2\ First session Tenth Congress, Journal, p. 95 (Gales & Seaton,
ed.); Annals, p. 1240.
Sec. 2816
2816. While the Journal does not record the reasons for an
adjournment, such reasons may be inserted by special direction of the
House.
Instance wherein a correction of the Journal was recorded in the
Journal.
On February 21, 1834,\1\ the Journal of the preceding day having been
read, Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, proposed that, by
unanimous consent, it should be so amended as to state that the
adjournment of the House was for the purpose of affording the Speaker
and the Members an opportunity of attending the funeral obsequies of
William Wirt, deceased.
Mr. J. K. Mann, of Pennsylvania, objected.
The Speaker \2\ said that if a motion should be made, a majority of
the House could, of course, have their Journal modified to suit their
own pleasure. * * * The Speaker had not felt warranted to insert any
further record in the Journal of yesterday than the simple fact of the
adjournment. But if it was the pleasure of the House that the clause
proposed should be added, the Chair would most cheerfully assent.
A motion being made, the amendment was agreed to.
The Journal of February 20 appears in the amended form, and that of
February 21 shows the action of the House in making the amendment.
2817. The Journal is a record of proceedings simply, and does not
record the statements or opinions of Members.--On February 21, 1837,\3\
the Journal of the preceding day having been read, Mr. Francis W.
Pickens, of South Carolina, moved that the same ``be amended so as to
take notice of the fact that Mr. Gholson, of Mississippi, chairman of
the committee on the part of the House to conduct the examination of
witnesses, stated that he had handed over fourteen other questions to
another witness, which were in the progress of being answered.'' This
amendment to come in immediately preceding the resolution moved by Mr.
Lane, to dispense with further proceedings in the case of Reuben M.
Whitney, and for his discharge from custody.
The Speaker \4\ said that it had not been usual to make such entries
on the Journal, which was a record of proceedings simply, and not at
all a register of debates.
And on the question, ``Shall the Journal be amended in manner
aforesaid?'' it was decided in the negative.
2818. The Journal of March 22, 1842,\5\ contained this entry:
The House resumed the consideration of the resolution moved by Mr.
Weller yesterday, in relation to Mr. Joshua R. Giddings, one of the
Members of this House from the State of Ohio. The question pending at
the adjournment was on the appeal taken by Mr. Fillmore from the
decision of the Chair, to wit: ``That the matter before the House was a
question of privilege, and that on a question involving the privileges
of a member of the House the previous question could not be applied
and, consequently, that the motion for postponement was open for
debate.''
And on the question, ``Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the
judgment of the House?''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Twenty-third Congress, Journal, p. 349 Debates, p.
2758.
\2\ Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Twenty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 490; Debates,
p. 1880.
\4\ James K. Polk, of Tennessee, Speaker.
\5\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 573, 581;
Globe, p. 348.
Sec. 2819
It was decided in the negative, yeas 64, nays 118.
So the decision of the Chair was reversed; and the previous question
was demanded by a majority of the Members present; when the said
previous question was put, viz: Shall the main question be now put? and
passed in the affirmative, yeas 95, nays 92.
On March 23, when the Journal containing this entry was read for
approval, Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, moved to amend by
inserting next after the vote on the question, ``Shall the main
question be now put?'' the following:
Mr. Adams rose and said that there was one question which occurred to
him, and which he desired to submit to the House. In the question which
arose yesterday between the Speaker and the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Fillmore] the Speaker had decided that the previous question could
not be applied so as to cut off the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Giddings]
from his right, secured to him by the Constitution, to be heard in his
defense.
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Fillmore] had inquired if the
previous question could not be applied so as to operate upon all the
other Members of the House, leaving the gentleman from Ohio still his
privilege of being heard. That was what he [Mr. Adams] understood to be
the question between the Speaker and the gentleman from New York. The
Speaker had decided that it would operate to cut off the gentleman from
Ohio, and that, therefore, the previous question could not be
entertained. Now, he [Mr. Adams] took it that the decision of the House
had not decided that question between the Speaker and the gentleman
from New York. And he [Mr. Adams] would now ask whether an appeal might
not be taken from that part of the Speaker's decision; which was, that
the gentleman from Ohio could not be heard in his defense, because the
previous question had been applied. If an appeal was in order he would
now make it, on the ground that, according to the idea of the gentleman
from New York, although the previous question was now applied, it did
not and could not cut off the gentleman from Ohio from his right to be
heard; that the previous question could not apply to that gentleman,
although it applied to all others.
The Speaker. In the opinion of the Chair, the rules of the House can
not operate on one Member in one way and on another in another, whether
he stood here as an accused party or not.
And on the question, ``Shall the Journal be amended as proposed by
Mr. Adams?'' it was decided in the negative, yeas 41, nays 124.
2819. On January 14, 1840,\1\ Mr. Levi Lincoln, of Massachusetts,
moved to amend the following entry of the Journal in regard to a
petition presented by him on the preceding day:
It was objected that as the Member who presented the petitions had
not moved that they be received, the question of reception was not
before the House; by inserting ``thereupon Mr. Lincoln expressly
disclaimed an intention to move the reception of the petition,
declaring that he neither had nor would make such motion.''
Objection was made to this amendment on the ground that the Journal
should express facts and not reasons or opinions.
The House decided the motion to amend in the negative.
2820. On March 30, 1840,\2\ the Journal contains the following entry:
Mr. John Smith offered to present a petition the contents of which he
stated.
The Speaker decided that the petition came within the rule of the
28th of January,\3\ and could not therefore be received.
From this decision Mr. James appealed to the House, etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 206; Globe, p.
120.
\2\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 724, 732.
\3\ The rule excluding petitions relating to slavery.
Sec. 2821
On March 31, the Journal of the preceding day, having been read, Mr.
George N. Briggs, of Massachusetts, moved to amend the above entry by
changing the same to read as follows:
Mr. Smith offered to present a petition which he stated asked for the
suppression of the foreign slave trade and that the laws of the
District of Columbia, which authorized the sale of colored persons
under imprisonment on the suspicion of being slaves unless they proved
their freedom should be sold for jail fees, should be repealed.
This proposition to amend the Journal was laid on the table.
2821. The request of a Member to be excused from voting, or his
refusal to vote, may be recorded in the Journal, but his reasons
therefor, or even the fact that he offered reasons, may not be
recorded.--On May 27, 1836,\1\ upon the reading of that part of the
Journal of the previous day's session which contained the decision of
the Speaker on the vote and proceedings of the House on the question
that the House do agree to the first resolution reported by the select
committee on subjects relating to the agitation for the abolition of
slavery in the District of Columbia, Mr. John Quincy Adams, of
Massachusetts, moved to amend the same by inserting therein an entry in
the words following:
And while the Speaker was giving his decision Mr. Glascock offered to
present a paper, in compliance with the request made by Mr. Adams on
yesterday, which he alleged contained his reasons for asking to be
excused for not voting on the day before.
And the question being put, ``Shall the Journal be so amended?'' it
was decided in the negative, yeas 67, nays 111.
The reading of the Journal having proceeded as follows:
Pending the calling of the yeas and nays on the question on the said
second resolution, Mr. John Quincy Adams asked to be excused from
voting, and Mr. Francis Granger declined to vote.
Mr. Granger moved to amend the same by striking out the words ``and
Mr. Francis Granger declined to vote'' and inserting in lieu thereof as
follows: ``Upon his name being called, Mr. Granger declined voting, and
was proceeding to offer his reasons to the House when he was called to
order by the Speaker.''
After debate the motion to amend was decided in the negative.
After the reading of that part of the Journal containing the
proceedings on the adoption of the third resolution relating to the
slavery question Mr. Adams moved to amend by inserting the following
words:
Upon the name of John Quincy Adams being called, in taking the yeas
and nays on said third resolution, he answered: ``I hold the resolution
to be in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States, of
the rules of this House, and of the rights of my constituents,'' and
sent his answer in writing to the Chair.
The question being taken on amending the Journal, it was decided in
the negative.
Mr. Adams then proposed to amend by adding the following words:
When the name of Mr. John Quincy Adams was called he was present,
rose in his place, and answered, but did not vote.
And the question being taken on amending the Journal by the insertion
of these words, it was decided in the negative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Twenty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 889; Debates.,
p. 4061.
Sec. 2822
2822. On February 11, 1837,\1\ the Journal of the preceding day's
session having been read, on motion of Mr. Charles F. Mercer, of
Virginia, it was amended by striking out the reasons given by Mr. John
Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, for the request to be excused from
voting on the question of privilege affecting Reuben M. Whitney.
2823. On December 22, 1837,\2\ the Journal of the preceding day
having been read, Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, moved to
amend the same by inserting therein, immediately after the vote on the
resolution moved by Mr. Patton--``that all petitions, memorials, and
papers touching the abolition of slavery, or the buying, selling, or
transferring of slaves in any State, District, or Territory of the
United States, be laid upon the table, without being debated, printed,
read, or referred, and that no further action shall be had thereon''--
an entry in the words following, viz:
Upon the name of John Quincy Adams being called, in taking the yeas
and nays on the foregoing resolution, he answered: ``I hold the
resolution to be a violation of the Constitution of the United States,
of the right of my constituents and of the people of the United States
to petition, and of my right to freedom of speech as a Member of this
House.''
A motion was made by Mr. Ratliff Boon, of Indiana, that the motion of
Mr. Adams to amend the Journal lie on the table, and this motion was
agreed to.
The record of debates shows that the Speakers \3\ pronounced the
proceeding proposed by Mr. Adams out of order, and referred for a
precedent to a similar case in the preceding Congress.
2824. On July 15, 1840,\4\ Mr. Edward Stanly, of North Carolina,
moved to amend the Journal of the preceding day by inserting therein
his reasons for asking to be excused from voting on the motion to
suspend the rules to enable a resolution to be submitted in relation to
the case of Lieutenant Hooe.
After debate, the motion to amend was decided in the negative, yeas
23, nays 102.
2825. The House once allowed a Member to insert in the Journal a
declaration of his reasons for a vote.
In early and rare instances the names of absent Members have been, by
consent of the House, recorded in the Journal among the yeas and nays.
On March 29, 1822,\5\ the Journal of the preceding day having been
read, was, by unanimous consent, amended by correcting the recorded
number of votes on the resolutions recognizing the independence of the
South American Republics, so as to include the votes of several Members
present on this day but absent on the preceding day when the vote was
taken. Some question was made as to this proceeding. Mr. John W. Taylor
recalled the fact that several who were not present when the American
Declaration of Independence was adopted were allowed to affix their
signatures on the succeeding day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Twenty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 372; Debates,
p. 1707.
\2\ Second session Twenty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 133; Globe, p.
47.
\3\ James K. Polk, of Tennessee, Speaker.
\4\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 1273.
\5\ First session Seventeenth Congress, Journal, pp. 409, 423, 435;
Annals, pp. 1404, 1455, 1489.
Sec. 2826
But when Mr. Robert Wright, of Maryland, asked that the name of his
colleague, Mr. Philip Reed, who was absent this day on account of
illness, be also recorded, the Speaker \1\ ruled that such a privilege
might not be granted to a Member who was not present.
On April 2 Mr. William B. Rochester, of New York, who attended for
the first time since the proceedings, asked and received unanimous
consent to be similarly recorded, and on April 8 the privilege was
accorded to Mr. Thomas H. Hubbard, of New York.
On March 30 \2\ Mr. Philip Reed sent to the House a letter explaining
his inability to be present and vote, and asking that if his vote could
not be placed among the yeas that the letter might be placed in the
Journal. The House ordered that the letter be entered on the Journal.
Mr. Robert S. Garnett, of Virginia, who alone had voted in the
negative on the passage of the resolutions, asked the privilege of
inserting in the Journal a long written declaration of his reasons for
his vote. On Mr. Garnett's motion that his declaration be inserted on
the Journal at length, there were ayes 49, noes 51.
On April 1 this vote was reconsidered, and Mr. Garnett modified his
declaration to read as follows:
I, Robert S. Garnett, a Member from Virginia, make the following
declaration: That I voted against the recognition of the independence
of the late American provinces of Spain because, considering it a
question of policy, not of principle, I believed that no immediate
advantage could grow out of it to either country, whilst many
considerations, affecting the interest of both, rendered it at this
time inexpedient. I am not opposed to the independence of the late
provinces; on the contrary, in common with the rest of my countrymen, I
heartily rejoice in their accomplishment, and in the prospects of
freedom and happiness which it opens to them.
Considerable debate arose over this motion. The only precedent, that
of Mr. Poindexter, was declared not to go so far as this, for in that
case the Delegate could not record his opinion in any other way.\3\
The motion was agreed to, yeas 89, nays 71. So the declaration was
placed in the Journal.
2826. When a vote is recorded by yeas and nays the nature of the
question on which they are taken should be clearly stated in the
Journal, even though thereby the summary of an exceptionable petition
be printed.--On March 12, 1818,\4\ the Journal of the preceding day,
being read, was found to contain this entry:
The Speaker laid before the House the memorial of Vincente Pazos,
representing himself as the ``deputed agent of the authorities acting
in the name of the Republics of Venezuela, New Granada, and Mexico,''
representing the views with which the said authorities took possession
of and occupied Amelia Island, in East Florida, complaining of the
investment and capture thereof by the arms of the United States, the
loss of property and other injuries sustained in consequence of the
occupation of the island by the United States, and his application to
the President of the United States for redress in the premises, and his
failure to obtain it, and praying relief from Congress; which being
read, Mr. Forsyth moved that the said memorial ``be not received,'' * *
* and the question being ``taken on Mr. Forsyth's motion,'' it passed
in the affirmative, yeas 127, nays 28. (The list of the yew and nays
was then given.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Philip P. Barbour, of Virginia, Speaker.
\2\ Journal, pp. 412, 413, 418; Annals, pp. 1418-1421, 1447-1449.
\3\ See section 2808 of this volume.
\4\ First session Fifteenth Congress, Journal, pp. 320, 323; Annals,
p. 1282.
Sec. 2827
This reading of the Journal having been completed, Mr. George
Poindexter, of Mississippi, moved to amend the Journal by striking out
after the word ``Mexico'' all of the recital of the substance of the
memorial and inserting, ``Which being read, and on the question, Will
the House receive the same?'' it was, on motion of Mr. Forsyth,
determined that the said memorial be not received.\1\
It was urged on behalf of this motion that the contents ought not to
be spread on the Journal, as it would give publicity to a petition of
an exceptionable character. On the other hand, it was contended that,
the yeas and nays being recorded, it was necessary to state so much of
the petition as would show the grounds on which the House acted; that
as the Constitution required the yeas and nays to be recorded, the
nature of the question on which they were given should be clearly
stated.
The House disagreed to Mr. Poindexter's motion by a large majority.
2827. The Journal records the result of a vote in figures only when
the yeas and nays are taken.--On June 18, 1856,\2\ after the reading of
the Journal of the preceding legislative day, Mr. George W. Jones, of
Tennessee, raised a question of order in regard to the method of
recording the vote on a motion which he made to fix the day to which
the House should adjourn. When the question was put, and the vote taken
by tellers, the tellers reported 88 in the affirmative and 31 in the
negative. That fact did not appear in the Journal.
The Speaker \3\ said:
The Chair recollects that the facts were as stated by the gentleman
from Tennessee, but the omission upon the Journal is in accordance with
the usual custom and mode of keeping the Journal, which is not to
record the figures unless the result is arrived at by the yeas and
nays. * * * Injustice to the recording clerk, the Chair would say that
there is no instance upon the Journal of the House where such a result
as that alluded to by the gentleman from Tennessee is recorded in
figures. When the result of a vote is determined by yeas and nays, the
result so determined is placed upon the Journal. When the result is
otherwise ascertained, it is not so recorded. The Chair does not feel
authorized to change the ordinary practice of the House in keeping the
Journal.\4\
2828. The refusal of the yeas and nays by the House is not recorded
in the Journal.--On February 2, 1847,\5\ the Journal of the preceding
day having been read, Mr. Reuben Chapman, of Alabama, moved that the
same be amended by stating thereon that he demanded the yeas and nays
on the motion made by Mr. Gordon that his resolution (relating to the
Alabama Regiment of volunteers and to Lieutenant McDuff) be laid on the
table and that the yeas and nays were refused by the House.
The Speaker \6\ stated that it had never been the practice to enter
upon the Journal calls for the yeas and nays, and decided the motion to
amend not in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Petitions are no longer presented in open House, being referred
through the Clerk's desk.
\2\ First session Thirty-fourth Congress, Globe, p. 1418.
\3\ Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\4\ So, also, where a vote by tellers is not accepted as final, and
the yeas and nays are ordered, the result by tellers does not appear in
the Journal, and the fact of a vote by tellers does not appear. See
instance January 27, 1875 (2d sess. 43d Cong., Journal, p. 271; Record,
p. 786), when the fact of a ruling being made as to tellers would have
justified insertion if ever made.
\5\ Second session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, pp. 293, 294;
Globe, p. 310.
\6\ John W. Davis, of Indiana, Speaker.
Sec. 2829
2829. An error in a vote may be corrected in the Journal of the
succeeding day, even though the result be changed thereby.--On February
22, 1844,\1\ Mr. Thomas J. Henley, of Indiana, moved that the rules be
suspended to enable him to move a resolution fixing the day for the
adjournment of the present session of Congress.
The question being taken, there were yeas 108, nays 54. Precisely
two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the Speaker voted in the
negative, and so the rules were not suspended.\2\
On February 22, the journal of the preceding day having been read,
Mr. John Slidell, of Louisiana, moved that the same be amended by
entering his name in the affirmative on Mr. Henley's motion, he having
voted ``aye'' and his name having been erroneously entered in the
negative.
As this change of a vote would reverse the result considerable debate
arose, and there was question as to what would be the procedure.
The Speaker \3\ said that if the motion was made to amend the Journal
the result would be a change of the decision made the day before and
the resolution proposed by the gentleman from Indiana would be before
the House.
The motion to amend the Journal was carried in the affirmative, and
Mr. Henley presented his resolution.
2830. On February 28, 1860,\4\ we find an instance where, after the
reading and approval of the Journal of the preceding day, a member
proposed a motion to correct the Journal so as to insert his name among
those voting on a certain roll call. He explained that he had in fact
voted, and that his motion was for the purpose of correcting an error.
Mr. Speaker Pennington admitted his motion as privileged, and on the
succeeding day the motion was debated and agreed to. The debate was in
the nature of testimony from Members who heard the Member vote.
2831. On March 4, 1852,\5\ Mr. James Abercrombie, of Alabama, stated
that on the preceding day he had voted in favor of the reference of the
Missouri land bill, whereas his intention was to have voted in the
negative. Therefore, he desired to have the record of his vote changed
in the Journal.
The Speaker \6\ said:
The Chair begs to say to the gentleman from Alabama that, under the
rule, it is competent to make a correction of the Journal, but that an
alteration can not be made except by unanimous consent. The Chair,
throughout his service, does not recollect an instance of the sort.
Unanimous consent being given, the change was made.
2832. A Speaker being elected by ballot, the Journal should show not
only the fact but the state of the ballot or ballots.--On May 22,
1809,\7\ on the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 444, 445, 447;
Globe, pp. 317, 323.
\2\ The rule at this time provided that the Speaker should Dot vote
unless the House be equally divided, or unless his vote, if given to
the minority, would make the division equal, in which case the question
should be lost. The Speaker considered the case of an exact two-thirds
vote as one in which he could vote under the rule. (See Globe, p. 323.)
\3\ John W. Jones, of Virginia, Speaker.
\4\ First session Thirty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 407; Globe, pp.
902, 908, 922.
\5\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, p. 671.
\6\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\7\ First session Eleventh Congress, Journal, p. 7 (Gales & Seaton
ed.); Annals, pp. 57, 58.
Sec. 2833
first ballot for the choice of a Speaker there was doubt about the
election and a second ballot was ordered, from which a choice resulted.
The Journal of this day, when read on the succeeding day, was found
to have this entry relating to the choice of Speaker:
The House proceeded by ballot to the choice of a Speaker; and, upon
examining the ballots, a majority of the votes of the whole House was
found in favor of Joseph B. Varnum, one of the Representatives for the
State of Massachusetts.
Mr. John Randolph, of Virginia, with a view of recording the precise
state of the ballot, so the case might be correctly understood if drawn
into precedent in the future, moved to amend the Journal by inserting
after the word ``ballots'' the following:
The letters reported that the whole number of ballots were one
hundred and twenty; that sixty votes were found in favor of Joseph B.
Varnum, of Massachusetts; thirty-six votes in favor of Nathaniel Macon,
of North Carolina; twenty votes in favor of Timothy Pitkin, junior, of
Connecticut; one vote in favor of Roger Nelson, of Maryland; one vote
in favor of Charles Goldsborough, of Maryland; and two blank ballots.
On motion of Mr. Randolph,
The House proceeded to a second ballot, and, on examining the
ballots, the tellers reported that the whole number of ballots given
were one hundred and nineteen; that sixty-five votes, being a majority
of the whole number of Members present, were found in favor of Joseph
B. Varnum; for Nathaniel Macon, forty-five votes; for Timothy Pitkin,
junior, six; for Benjamin Howard, one; for Roger Nelson, one; and for
Charles Goldsborough, one.
After debate, this amendment was agreed to.
2833. The Senate Journal has shown the number of Senators answering
to a call of the Senate, but not the names.--On August 1, 1890,\1\ the
Senate considered the practice of the Senate in journalizing a call of
the Senate, so as to show only the number of Senators answering to the
roll call and not the names of those answering. After debate it was
concluded that the Journal was made up in accordance with immemorial
custom, and the Vice-President announced that in the future, until
otherwise ordered, it would continue to be made up in the same way.\2\
The rule of the Senate provided that the proceedings of the Senate
should be ``briefly and accurately stated in the Journal.''
In the House the Journal records the names of members answering on a
call of the House.
2834. The Speaker having made a verbal statement concerning a
communication returned by him to the governor of a State, the Journal
simply recorded the fact that such a statement was made.--The Journal
of February 6, 1840,\3\ contains this entry:
The Speaker made a verbal statement, and submitted the letter
addressed to him, in his character as a Representative from Virginia,
by the governor of New Jersey, inclosing the resolutions of the
legislature of that State; also a copy of a letter addressed by him to
the governor of New Jersey declining to present the said resolutions to
this House and assigning his reasons for so declining, which letters
were read.
This is the entire entry in the Journal. The record of debates gives
the explanation and the letter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 7990.
\2\ This continues to be the practice in the Senate. (See Senate
Journal, Third session, Fifty-eighth Congress, pp. 116, 122, etc.).
\3\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 311; Globe, p.
166.
Sec. 2835
2835. Only on special occasions are communications addressed to the
Speaker recorded in the Journal.--On February 19, 1867,\1\ the House
ordered entered on the Journal a telegram addressed to the Speaker
announcing the death of the last soldier of the Revolution.
2836. The report of a committee which investigated the charge that
the Speaker had mutilated the Journal was, by order of the House,
printed in full in the Journal.--On March 29, 1850,\2\ by vote of the
House, the report of the select committee that investigated the charge
that the Speaker had mutilated the Journal was, on recommendation of
the committee, and by vote of the House, inserted in the Journal.
2837. The Journal may record the simple fact that a Member makes an
explanation, but it does not record the act of the Speaker in calling
him to order for irrelevancy.--On February 5, 1839,\3\ the Journal of
the preceding day having been read, Mr. John Quincy Adams, of
Massachusetts, moved to amend the same by striking out the words next
following the entry of the petition of citizens of the District of
Columbia, presented by Mr. Moore, which words are as follows:
A brief statement of the contents of this petition was made by Mr.
Moore, when it was laid on the table--
And inserting in lieu thereof these words:
And while Mr. Moore was making a brief statement of the contents of
said petition he was called to order, and the Speaker decided him to be
out of order, and the petition was sent to the Clerk's table, and no
order of the House was taken thereon.
A motion was made by Mr. Isaac Toucey, of Connecticut, to amend the
amendment proposed by Mr. Adams, by inserting therein, after the words
``and the Speaker decided him to be out of order,'' the words ``for
entering into a discussion of the merits of the petition, instead of
confining himself to a brief statement of the contents thereof, which
being suggested, he acquiesced therein.''
Mr. Robert Craig, of Virginia, moved to lay the proposed amendment,
with the amendment to it, on the table, saying that he believed the
original entry represented the facts of the case. This motion was
agreed to by the House without division.
2838. It was held in the Senate that when a Senator, called to order
for words spoken in debate, appealed to the Senate, the Journal should
record the words.--On April 23, 1872,\4\ a question arose over the
Senate Journal which had this entry:
Mr. Howe, while engaged in debate, was arrested in his remarks by the
Chair, on the ground that he was discussing the merits of the subject,
which was not in order on a motion to proceed to its consideration.
From this decision of the Chair Mr. Howe appealed to the Senate.
The Journal having been read, Mr. Timothy O. Howe, of Wisconsin,
raised the question that the entry did not state the question presented
to the Senate, and insisted that the actual words used by him should be
incorporated.
After debate, the Senate ordered the Journal corrected by inserting
the words.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Thirty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 428.
\2\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 739; Globe, p.
619.
\3\ Third session Twenty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 479; Globe, p.
163.
\4\ Second session Forty-second Congress, Globe, pp. 2672, 2673.
Sec. 2839
2839. When the Speaker calls a Member to order for irrelevancy in
debate, and the House votes that the Member may proceed, the Journal
should contain a record of the transaction.--On May 19, 1840,\1\ the
Journal contained this entry:
The House proceeded to the consideration of the bill (No. 15) to
secure the freedom of elections, and to provide more effectually for
the faithful administration of the Government patronage.
Objection being made to this bill on the 10th of February last, at
the time it was introduced, the question again recurred, Shall the bill
be rejected? \2\
And, after debate, the hour of 2:30 o'clock arrived, and the House
took a recess, etc.
On the succeeding day, the Journal of the preceding day having been
read, a motion was made by Mr. David Petrikin, of Pennsylvania, to
amend the portion given above by inserting:
The Speaker called Mr. Gentry to order for irrelevancy in debate.
Mr. Petrikin objected to Mr. Gentry's proceeding out of order. Leave,
by unanimous consent, was then given to Mr. Gentry to proceed.
Mr. Petrikin called Mr. Gentry to order, and sent his objection, in
writing, to the Speaker's table, as follows: ``The gentleman is not in
order, what he is now stating not being relevant to the bill now under
discussion. The opinions of Members of this House delivered in other
places not being authority here, nor the campaign previous to the
election of Mr. Van Buren in 1836, has no bearing on the present
subject now before the House.''
The Speaker did not entertain the point of order, as it did not state
the nature of Mr. Gentry's remarks objected to by Mr. Petrikin.
Mr.Gentry, by common consent, proceeded again.
The Speaker called Mr. Gentry to order.
Mr. Petrikin objected to Mr.Gentry's proceeding.
Mr. Wise moved that Mr. Gentry have leave to proceed, which was
agreed to by the House.
The question on agreeing to this amendment being put, it was decided
in the affirmative.
2840. The Journal records the rulings but not the remarks of the
Speaker.--On January 23, 1877,\3\ after the reading of the Journal, Mr.
George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that a
statement of the Chair as to what his action might be in a certain case
which had not now arisen should not be placed in the Journal as a
ruling of the Chair.
The Speaker \4\ said:
The Chair agrees with the gentleman from Massachusetts that no
remarks of the Chair should go upon the Journal; that only rulings of
the Chair should be entered upon the Journal. The modification
suggested will be made in this respect.
2841. In later years, although not in the very earliest practice, the
Journal has recorded the reasons for the decisions of the Speakers.--On
May 30, 1809,\5\ the Journal of the preceding day was read, including
the following relating, to a decision of order by the Speaker:
Mr. Speaker decided that, in his opinion, it was not in order for the
House to take the said resolution into consideration, as the hour which
the House usually appropriated for the presentation of petitions and
communications had not elapsed; and that he had some communications to
lay before the House from some of the Executive Departments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 966-968.
\2\ The rules of the House no longer provide for this motion.
\3\ Second session Forty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 832.
\4\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
\5\ First session Eleventh Congress, Journal, pp. 23, 25 (Gales &
Seaton, ed.); Annals, p. 152.
Sec. 2842
Mr. John Randolph, of Virginia, moved to expunge all after the word
``consideration.''
The motion was disagreed to.\1\
2842. The Journal does not record the response of the Speaker to a
parliamentary inquiry.--On February 11, 1840,\2\ the Journal of the
preceding day having been read, a motion was made by Mr. John Quincy
Adams, of Massachusetts, to amend the same by inserting therein, after
the entries of the resolutions moved by Mr. Rhett, in relation to the
slaves liberated by the authorities of the island of Bermuda from the
American vessel Enterprise, and by Mr. Garrett Davis in relation to the
escape of slaves into Canada, respectively, an entry in these words,
viz:
Mr. Adams inquired of the Chair whether these resolutions came under
the rule on the subject of slavery, and the Speaker answered that they
did not.
In the course of the debate the Speaker \3\ said that it was not
usual to insert on the Journal the opinions of the Chair as to whether
certain resolutions came within the rules, unless an appeal was taken
from his decision.
Mr. Hopkins L. Turney, of Tennessee, moved that the motion to amend
the Journal lie on the table, and the motion was agreed to, yeas 116,
Days 53.
2843. The Speaker having ruled a resolution out of order, and an
appeal having been taken from the decision, it was held that the
resolution should appear in the Journal in full.--On December 30,
1839,\4\ the Journal contains the following entry:
Mr. Duncan submitted the following resolution:
Resolved, That the Speaker is hereby advised and directed to swear
into office Messrs. Philemon Dickerson, Peter D. Vroom, Daniel B.
Ryall, William R. Cooper, and Joseph Kille, Members-elect from the
State of New Jersey, and said members thereon be directed to take their
seats until the contest is regularly determined by the House.
Objection was made to receiving this resolution, on the ground that,
as the presentation of petition was the first business which of right
should occupy the attention of the House, it was not in order to offer
the resolution, unless by general consent, or by a suspension of the
rules.
The Speaker decided in favor of the objection.
From this decision Mr. Duncan took an appeal to the House;
And on the question, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the
judgment of the House?
It passed in the affirmative.
On December 31, the Journal of the preceding day having been read,
Mr. George N. Briggs, of Massachusetts, moved to amend the above entry
so as to read as follows:
Mr. Duncan proposed to move a resolution which the Speaker decided to
be out of order, according to the regular course of business prescribed
by the rules.
From which decision Mr. Duncan appealed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Journals up to this time had rarely given even the slightest
indications of the reasons of the Speaker's decisions, although on
February 27, 1807, and April 10, 1808, the Journals give the Speaker's
reference to rules governing the cases.
\2\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 400; Globe p.
184.
\3\ Robert M.T. Hunter, of Virginia, Speaker.
\4\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 146, 150;
Globe, p. 93.
Sec. 2844
Mr. Briggs, in support of his motion, contended that the resolution
ought not to appear in the Journal, because the Chair had ruled it out
of order.
The question being put: ``Shall the Journal be so amended?'' it was
decided in the negative, yeas 71, nays 84.
2844. It is the usual practice that motions, points of order, and
appeals not entertained by the Speaker shall not appear in the
Journal.--On May 13, 1854,\1\ Mr. James Maurice, of New York, moved to
amend the Journal of the preceding day by inserting, after the record
of the motion to lay on the table an appeal from a decision of the
Chair that it was not in order to move to be excused from voting on a
call of the House, the following:
Mr. Maurice moved to be excused from voting thereon. The Speaker
decided that the motion was not in order, on the ground that the same
question was involved in the decision already pending on appeal. From
this latter decision Mr. Maurice proposed to take an appeal, and the
Speaker refused to entertain the same, on the ground that two appeals
could not be pending at the same time.
In regard to the motion of Mr. Maurice, the Speaker \2\ said:
Motions made, and on which there has been no action of the House, do
not go upon the Journal. For that reason the Clerk did not enter what
occurred at the time to which the gentleman has referred. In this
connection, the gentleman from New York regards it as important that
the minutes of the Clerk should be entered upon the Journal; and the
Chair is of the opinion that it would not be inappropriate to enter
them on it. It is a simple question. It is for the House to say whether
or not they shall be entered on the Journal.
The question being taken, the motion of Mr. Maurice was agreed to,
and the Journal was amended accordingly.
2845. On December 6, 1881,\3\ the pending question being on the
approval of the Journal, Mr. Richard G. Frost, of Missouri, raised the
question that he had on the previous day made a point of order which
had not appeared in the Journal.
After debate, the Speaker \4\ said:
It is sufficient for the Chair to state that the gentleman from
Missouri attempted to make a point of order, which, under the
circumstances, was out of order, after the demand for the previous
question had been made by the gentleman from Kansas. There was also
pending at that time a point of order made by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Randall, and it was not proper for the Chair to
entertain the point of order made by the gentleman from Missouri. It is
sufficient for this purpose to state that whether the Chair was right
or wrong in refusing to entertain the point of order at that time, the
fact is he did not entertain it, and the record would be wrong if it
undertook to state what the gentleman suggests.
2846. On May 30, 1882,\5\ after the reading of the Journal, Mr.
William M. Springer, of Illinois, moved to amend the same by inserting
from the Record certain motions made by Members but not entertained by
the Speaker, and also certain appeals taken by Members from the rulings
of the Chair but not entertained by the Chair.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Thirty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 836, 837;
Globe, p. 1184.
\2\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\3\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 32, 33.
\4\ J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, Speaker.
\5\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 1369-1372;
Record, pp. 4331, 4332.
Sec. 2847
The Speaker \1\ directed the Clerk to read the following rule:
Every motion made to the House and entertained by the Speaker shall
be reduced to writing on the demand of any Member and shall be entered
on the Journal with the name of the Member making it unless it is
withdrawn the same day.
The Speaker then said:
The Chair desires simply to state that if the Clerk had made up the
Journal as the gentleman from Illinois asks it should be made up, it
would have been in express violation of the rules in so far as it would
have included any of these motions or the appeals that the gentlemen
sought to take that were not entertained by the Speaker. If the Clerk
had entered on the Journal those motions and appeals they would have
been stricken out as having been inserted in absolute violation of the
rules.
The question was then taken on Mr. Springer's motion, and it was
rejected, yeas 89, nays 133.
The motion to amend the Journal, with the extracts from the Record
which it was proposed to insert, appear in the Journal in full.
2847. It was the early (but is not the present) practice that a
decision on a point of order should not be recorded in the Journal
unless an appeal had been taken.--On January 5, 1833,\2\ the Speaker,
on a point of order, had stated his position so clearly and fully that
Mr. John Quincy Adams, who had taken an appeal, withdrew it.
Thereupon Mr. Thomas D. Arnold, of Tennessee, asked if the ruling
would appear in the Journal.
The Speaker \3\ replied that it would not.
Thereupon, in order that the decision might appear in the Journal,
Mr. Arnold renewed the appeal.\4\
2848. An expression of opinion as to a decision of the Chair is not
in order as an amendment to the Journal.
An amendment to the Journal disapproving a ruling of the Speaker was
held out of order without question as to the propriety of calling
another to the Chair.
On Monday, January 19, 1891,\5\ the Journal of the sitting of
Saturday, January 17 instant, having been read and the question being
on its approval,
Mr. Roger Q. Mills, of Texas, moved to amend the Journal as follows:
By inserting at the point when the Chair refused to entertain his
motion to reconsider the words: ``Which said ruling of the Chair is
disapproved by the House.''
The Speaker \6\ decided the said motion to be out of order for the
reason that it was not an amendment to the Journal.
2849. Where the Speaker names a Member to preside during the
remainder of a day's sitting the Journal properly records the fact.--On
May 16, 1834,\7\ the Journal has this entry:
The Speaker having withdrawn, Mr. Hubbard was substituted to act as
Speaker and continued to officiate as such for the remainder of the
day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Twenty-second Congress, Journal, p. 139; Debates,
p. 951.
\3\ Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, Speaker.
\4\ The present practice is to include points of order in the Journal
irrespective of the question of appeal. (See Journal, first session
Fifty-seventh Congress, pp. 91.5-919.)
\5\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 148; Record, p.
1540.
\6\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\7\ First session Twenty-third Congress, Journal, p. 630.
Sec. 2850
2850. The Journal of February 28, 1845,\1\ has this entry:
The Speaker having withdrawn, Mr. Hopkins was substituted to act as
Speaker and continued to officiate as such for the remainder of the
day.
2851. The practice has not been uniform as to the recording of the
addresses of Speakers in the Journal.--On December 7, 1885,\2\ the
Journal records in full the address of Mr. Speaker Carlisle on taking
the Chair.
The address of Mr. Speaker Colfax on taking the chair December 4,
1865,\3\ does not appear in the Journal.
The Journal of December 4, 1905,\4\ does not record the address of
Mr. Speaker Cannon on taking the Chair.
The farewell addresses of the Speakers are always recorded in full.
2852. The demand of a Member for an alleged constitutional right was
held to be sufficiently journalized as a point of order.--The Journal
of April 30, 1852,\5\ contained this entry:
The yeas and nays having been demanded, no quorum voted, when
Mr. George W. Jones made the point of order that, inasmuch as one-
fifth of the Members voting had voted in favor of taking the vote on
the engrossment of the bill by yeas and nays, it was not necessary that
a quorum should have voted, etc.
On May 1, the Journal having been read, Mr. Jones moved to amend by
striking out ``Mr. George W. Jones made the point of order,'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``Mr. George W. Jones demanded, as a
constitutional right.''
The Speaker \6\ said:
The Chair, if the House will indulge him in his own behalf, will
state that, according to his recollection, the Journal states
substantially the history of the matter. It was certainly the object of
the Speaker and the Clerk to state it. The Chair thinks that it must at
last be a question of order to be determined by the House. The question
is whether the Journal reports correctly all the facts.
The question being taken on Mr. Jones's motion, it was decided in the
negative, without division.
2853. Bills and resolutions presented in the House for reference
under the rule are entered in the Journal and Record by title only.--
Bills and resolutions presented in the House for reference under the
rule are in all cases entered in the Journal and Record by title and
never in full, even in cases where the resolution is very short.\7\
2854. A bill on its introduction is entered on the Journal by its
number and title, but is not printed therein in full.--On January 27,
1885,\8\ after the reading of the Journal, Mr. John D. White, of
Kentucky, raised the question of order that a bill which he had
introduced on the preceding day
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 509.
\2\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 14.
\3\ First session Thirty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 8.
\4\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 6.
\5\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, p. 655; Globe, p.
1221.
\6\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\7\ Direction given by Mr. Speaker Crisp February 10, 1892, First
session Fifty-second Congress, Record, p. 1026.
\8\ Second session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 1020.
Sec. 2855
did not appear in full in the Journal, although it had been read in
full to the House on its presentation.
The Speaker \1\ showed that the Journal had an entry relating to the
introduction of the bill, which was described by its number and title,
but stated that there was no rule which required a bill, on its
introduction, to be printed in full in the Journal.
2855. Memorials of State legislatures were for a time spread on the
Journal in full, but the practice has ceased.--For a time it was the
practice to insert resolutions of State legislatures in the Journal in
full. An instance occurs on December 22, 1843,\2\ which was in line
with the precedents for several preceding Congresses.
2856. On June 21, 1838,\3\ the House ordered the resolutions of the
general assembly of the State of Rhode Island, presented by Mr. Joseph
L. Tillinghast, of that State, on the 29th of the preceding December,
to be entered at large on the Journal.
This practice ceased long since, and the memorial of a State
legislature is now entered like any other memorial, except that it is
classed as public instead of private.
2857. The Journal should record the name of the first signer of a
petition, the number of other signers, and the general place of their
residences.--On January 10, 1837,\4\ the Journal of the preceding day
having been read, on motion of Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts,
it was amended by inserting the name of the first signer and the number
of signers of each of the petitions presented by him yesterday for the
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, as well as the place
of residence of the petitioners.
2858. A letter from the head of an Executive Department, responding
to a resolution of inquiry, is not printed in full in the Journal, but
a brief summary of its contents is printed.--On May 6, 1844,\5\ Mr.
John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, moved to amend the following
paragraph in the Journal of the preceding day:
A letter from the Secretary of State, in answer to the resolution of
the House of the 26th of February last, as to whether any gross errors
have been discovered in the printed Sixth Census, or enumeration of the
inhabitants of the United States, and stating that no such errors had
been discovered.
By striking therefrom the following words: ``and stating that no such
errors had been discovered.''
Mr. Adams urged in support of his motion that the statement in the
letter was erroneous.
The Speaker \6\ said that whether errors existed in the letter or not
would be a subject for investigation, but the Journal contained only a
faithful transcript of the contents of the letter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\2\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 93.
\3\ Second session Twenty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 1127.
\4\ Second session Twenty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 185.
\5\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 878, 879;
Globe, pp. 606, 607.
\6\ John W. Jones, of Virginia, Speaker.
Sec. 2859
On the question of amending the Journal, there were yeas 32, nays
126.
Mr. Robert C. Schenck, of Ohio, then moved to insert the letter of
the Secretary of State in the Journal in full.
This motion was decided in the negative.
2859. The House decided that the Journal should record not only the
delivery of a message but also the withdrawal of the messenger.--On
April 14, 1836,\1\ the Journal of the preceding day having been read, a
motion was made by Mr. Ratliff Boon, of Indiana, to amend the entry
which set forth the message received from the Senate by Mr. Lowrie,
their Secretary, by striking out the concluding words thereof, viz,
``and then he withdrew.''
And on the question that the Journal be so amended, it was decided in
the negative.
2860. The Journal does not record in full a conference report
presented merely for printing in the Record under the rule.--On
February 26, 1903,\2\ during the reading of the Journal, Mr. Oscar W.
Underwood, of Alabama, raised the question that the Journal should
contain in full a conference report which had been presented to be
printed in the Record under the rule,\3\ and of which the Journal
recorded only the fact of its presentation.
The Speaker \4\ overruled the question of order.\5\
2861. An attempt of a Member to speak when debate is not in order is
not noticed in the Journal.--On March 23, 1842,\6\ a motion was made by
Mr. Patrick J. Goode, of Ohio, that the Journal of the preceding day be
amended by inserting therein the following:
Mr. Giddings arose and addressed the Chair. The Speaker said the
gentleman was out of order, the House having reversed the decision of
the Chair, and decided that the rules in relation to the previous
question should be rigidly enforced.
Mr. Giddings arose and said: ``I stand before the House in a peculiar
situation.''
Mr. Mark A. Cooper objected to Mr. Giddings proceeding.
Mr. George W. Hopkins, of Virginia, moved to amend the proposed
amendment by adding as follows:
but afterwards withdrew his objection; and the said Joshua R. Giddings
declined speaking, after all objection to his proceeding had been
withdrawn.
Mr. John M. Botts, of Virginia, moved that the amendments lie on the
table, and the motion was agreed to, yeas 104, nays 64.
2862. On March 23, 1842,\7\ Mr. John B. Weller, of Ohio, moved to
amend the Journal of the preceding day by inserting the following:
That before the previous question had been sustained by the House,
and whilst the same was under his control, as the mover, Mr. Weller
offered to withdraw the previous question, if his colleague [Mr.
Giddings] would rise and say that he wished to be heard; the said
Joshua R. Giddings making no response thereto, the vote was then taken
on sustaining the previous question.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Twenty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 697.
\2\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2709.
\3\ This rule requires printing in the Record only.
\4\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\5\ Conference reports are printed in full in the Journal when they
are acted on by the House.
\6\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 583; Globe,
p. 348.
\7\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 585; Globe,
p. 349.
Sec. 2863
A motion was made by Mr. Patrick J. Goode, of Ohio, to add to the
proposition as follows:
And that Mr. Weller, on being asked by the Speaker whether he
unconditionally withdrew the motion for the previous question, did not
so withdraw it.
On motion of Mr. Christopher H. Williams, of Tennessee, the subject
was laid on the table, yeas 85, nays 58.\1\
2863. The refusal of leave to make a personal explanation is not
recorded in the Journal, but as to the granting of such leave the
practice is not uniform.--On February 13, 1849,\2\ the Journal of the
preceding day was read, when Mr. George Ashmun, of Massachusetts, moved
to amend the same, by stating that Mr. Wallace, of South Carolina,
asked the general consent of the House to address the House upon the
resolutions presented by him; and, no objection being made, he
proceeded to address the House; and that, after he had concluded, Mr.
Ashmun rose to address the House, when the Speaker said he could not
proceed if objection was made; and objection was then made.
The entry on the Journal which Mr. Ashmun's motion proposed to
correct was as follows:
Mr. Wallace moved that the rules be suspended for the purpose of
enabling him to present joint resolutions of the State of South
Carolina in opposition to the principles of the Wilmot Proviso.
And the question being put, Shall the rules be suspended?
It was decided in the affirmative--two-thirds voting in favor
thereof.
Mr. Wallace accordingly presented the said resolutions; and, having
obtained special leave for that purpose, proceeded to address the House
in regard to them.
In the course of the debate on the propriety of the proposed
amendment, the Speaker \3\ said that the precedents were that whenever
a gentleman had leave to make a personal explanation, by unanimous
consent, it was always so recorded. If a gentleman proposed to do a
thing, and did nothing, no record was made. The fact that he asked
leave to do so did not go on the record. But when a gentleman obtained
unanimous consent to do anything, or did it under a suspension of the
rules, the fact was always mentioned.
The motion to amend the Journal was decided in the negative, yeas 81,
nays 82.
2864. On June 16, 1894,\4\ the Journal of the proceedings of the
previous day having been read, Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, suggested
that the Journal should be amended by inserting the statement that the
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Richardson, arose and addressed the House
upon a question of privilege.
The Speaker \5\ stated that the remarks of Mr. Richardson had been
delivered, upon the unanimous consent of the House, as a personal
explanation, and held that it was not usual to make a note in the
Journal of such explanations when no action or proceeding of the House
or question of order was based thereon.
The Journal was then approved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These proceedings relate to a motion for censuring Mr. Giddings,
introduced by Mr. Weller, and agreed to by the House under the
operation of the previous question without allowing Mr. Giddings the
opportunity of being heard.
\2\ Second session Thirtieth Congress, Journal, pp. 428, 432; Globe,
pp. 527-529.
\3\ Robert C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 435.
\5\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
Sec. 2865
2865. The Journal does not record the name of a Member objecting to a
request for unanimous consent.--On March 10, 1840,\1\ Mr. Edward
Stanly, of North Carolina, moved to amend the Journal of the preceding
day by inserting after the resolution moved by him, and laid over under
the rule, these words:
which resolution was objected to by Mr. Dromgoole.
During the debate on this motion, the Speaker \2\ said that it was
not usual to insert in the Journal the name of the gentleman objecting;
and that it could not be done except by a vote of the House.
The motion to amend was disagreed to.
2866. The Journal specifies by name the Members taking the oath and
at times the form of oath taken.--The Journal not only specifies to
what Members the oath is administered, but also specifies the form of
oath, at times where there are distinctions in this respect.\3\
2867. The Journal announces the return of a Member to whom leave of
absence for the remainder of the session has been granted.--The Journal
of February 25, 1833,\4\ records that--
Mr. Appleton, of Massachusetts, to whom leave of absence for the
remainder of the session had been granted, returned to his seat this
day.
2868. The practice is not uniform as to whether or not a Member's
letter of resignation should appear in full in the Journal.--On January
6, 1826,\5\ Mr. Joseph Kent, of Maryland, transmitted his resignation
to the House, addressed to the Speaker, stating ``I hereby resign my
seat as a Member,'' etc. The letter appears in full in the Journal. The
House ordered the Speaker to notify the governor of Maryland of the
resignation.
2869. On May 9, 1828,\6\ the Speaker laid before the House a letter
from Mr. Thomas J. Oakley, of New York, announcing that he had accepted
a judicial appointment under the government of the State of New York,
and resigning his seat in the House. The Speaker was directed to
communicate the resignation of Mr. Oakley to the executive of New York.
The letter of Mr. Oakley was laid on the table. It appears in full in
the Journal.
2870. On February 16, 1829,\7\ the Speaker laid before the House a
letter from Silas Wright, jr., of New York, resigning his seat. The
letter does not appear in full in the Journal.
2871. On March 9, 1869,\8\ the Speaker laid before the House a letter
from Mr. Elihu B. Washburne, of Illinois, resigning his seat as a
Member from the Third Congressional district of his State. This letter
of resignation does not appear in full in the Journal. It was presented
to the House without request for unanimous consent, and, having been
read, was laid on the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal p. 569; Globe, p.
256.
\2\ Robert M.T. Hunter, of Virginia, Speaker.
\3\ First session Forty-second Congress, Journal, p. 9. Since the
repeal of the law requiring the special form of oath in use during the
civil war period, there has been only one form of oath.
\4\ Second session Twenty-second Congress, Journal, p. 396.
\5\ First session Nineteenth Congress, Journal, p. 124.
\6\ First session Twentieth Congress, Journal, p. 719.
\7\ Second session Twentieth Congress, Journal, p. 294.
\8\ First session Forty-first Congress, Journal, p. 18; Globe, p. 36.
Sec. 2872
2872. On January 5, 1871,\1\ the Speaker, without requesting consent,
laid before the House a letter from Mr. Robert C. Schenck, of Ohio,
tendering his resignation as a Member of the House, and requesting the
Speaker to inform the governor of Ohio of the fact.
The letter does not appear in full in the Journal.
2873. A Member, in a letter asking to be excused from committee
service, gave reasons derogatory to another Member, whereupon it was
held that the Journal should record only the fact that the request was
made in writing.--On February 14, 1842,\2\ a letter from Mr. Mark A.
Cooper, of Georgia, was read, asking to be excused from service on the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, and giving his reasons at length, stating
that the resignation was caused by the course of the chairman of the
committee, Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, in speaking against
the property rights of a large section of the people of the country.
Mr. John Campbell, of South Carolina, made the point of order that a
Member had no right to spread on the Journal opinions that he might
entertain of the conduct of another Member.
The Speaker \3\ stated that the letter would not appear on the
Journal.
The Journal merely states that the request to be excused was made in
writing.
2874. The oath administered to a witness at the bar of the House is
not recorded in full in the Journal.
In the earlier practice the response of a witness arraigned at the
bar of the House was never recorded in the Journal.
On February 14, 1838,\4\ the Journal of the preceding day having been
read, Mr. Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, moved to amend the same by
stating therein the oath, to wit, ``You solemnly swear that the
evidence you will give to the House of Representatives, touching the
matter now under examination, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth: so help you God,'' which the Speaker of this
House administered to the witness, Matthew L. Davis, at the bar of the
House, February 13, 1838; and further to amend the same by inserting
the answers of the said witness to the second and third interrogatories
of the House, to wit: to the second interrogatory, the answer ``I do;''
to the third interrogatory, the answer ``He is not.''
The Speaker \5\ stated that in no former instance had the oath ever
been recorded; and it was contrary to the express and positive law,
laid down in Jefferson's Manual, to insert the answers of a witness
given to the House. This was only done in examinations before
committees because the House was not present.
After debate the motion of Mr. Wise was laid on the table.
2875. The House declined to amend its Journal so as to include the
letter of a Presidential elector explaining his inability to give his
vote.--On February 9, 1809,\6\ the Journal of the proceedings of the
House of the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Forty-first Congress, Journal, p. 105; Globe, p.
320.
\2\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Globe, p. 233; Journal,
p. 366.
\3\ John White, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Twenty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 388; Globe, p.
180.
\5\ James K. Polk, of Tennessee, Speaker.
\6\ Second session Tenth Congress, Journal, p. 515 (Gales & Seaton
ed.); Annals, p. 1426.
Sec. 2876
8th instant being read by the Clerk, a motion was made by Mr. Nathaniel
Macon, of North Carolina, and seconded, to amend the same by inserting
a letter written by Matthew Walton, one of the electors of President
and Vice-President of the United States for the State of Kentucky, to
the other electors for the said State relative to the cause of his
inability to attend and give his vote at the time and place appointed
by law for that purpose.
Some discussion took place on this point, it being contended by some
gentlemen that the House had no concern with the causes why any vote
was not received, but merely to count those which came to hand, and
that if it was intended to fix a precedent to govern future proceedings
on this subject, it ought to be done with great deliberation.
Mr. Macon's motion was then decided in the negative.
A motion to amend the Journal so as to add an explanation of Mr.
Walton's failure to vote to the declaration made by the President of
the Senate was also decided in the negative.
2876. The proceedings of the joint meeting to count the electoral
vote are journalized in the same form as the proceedings of the House
alone.--On February 9, 1865,\1\ Mr. John V.L. Pruyn, of New York,
raised a question as to the method of journalizing the joint
convention, or meeting, of the two Houses for the counting of the
electoral vote. Mr. Pruyn contended that the proceedings should be
journalized in the form of a report made by the Speaker when the House
resumed its session.
The Speaker \2\ said:
The gentleman is mistaken so far as the practice of the House is
concerned. The present occupant of the chair has been present on two
previous occasions when the Presidential vote was counted, and the form
of proceeding in that respect has been the same as that read from the
Journal to-day.
The Speaker thereupon had read the usual form, which journalized the
proceedings of the joint meeting as proceedings of the House alone
would be journalized.
2877. A correction of the Congressional Record which involves a
motion and a vote is recorded in the Journal.--On May 12, 1879,\3\ a
correction of the Record of debate, where a vote was taken on a motion
to insert, is recorded in the Journal.
2878. In the later practice the proclamation of the President
convening Congress appears in full in the Journal.--The First session
of the Twenty-seventh Congress met on May 31, 1841,\4\ being called
together by a proclamation from the President. This proclamation
appears in full on the Journal.
2879. The proclamation of the President of the United States
convening the Thirty-fourth Congress in extra session appears in full
in the Journal.\5\
2880. The Twenty-fifth Congress was convened in extra session by
proclamation of the President. The Clerk of the last House called the
House together on September 4, 1837,\6\ in accordance with the
proclamation, and this proclamation is printed in full in the Journal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Thirty-eighth Congress, Globe, p. 683.
\2\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
\3\ First session Forty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 282.
\4\ First session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 3.
\5\ Second session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 1543.
\6\ First session Twenty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 3; Globe, p. 1.
Sec. 2881
2881. On July 4, 1861,\1\ the Thirty-seventh Congress met in
extraordinary session, convened by proclamation of the President. This
proclamation appears in full on the Journal of that date.
2882. The First session of the Forty-fifth Congress was convened by
proclamation of the President. This proclamation appears in full on the
Journal.\2\
2883. The Senate in 1867 discontinued the use in the Journal of the
word ``honorable'' before the name of a Senator.--On December 3,
1867,\3\ the Senate amended the Journal by striking out the word
``honorable'' whenever it occurred before the name of a Senator. The
President pro tempore stated at the time that the word had been used in
the Journals since the organization of the Government.
The title has never been used in the House Journal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Thirty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 3.
\2\ First session Forty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 3.
\3\ Second session Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 9.