[Hinds' Precedents, Volume 4]
[Chapter 87 - The Order of Business]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
THE ORDER OF BUSINESS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rule prescribing the order of business. Sections 3056,
3057.
2. Proceedings by unanimous consent. Sections 3058-3060.
3. Motions relating to priority of business not debatable.
Sections 3061-3063.
4. Business sometimes limited at special sessions. Sections
3064-3069.
5. Privileged matters may interrupt. Sections 3070, 3071.
6. Privileged consideration of revenue and appropriation
bills. Sections 3072-3085.
7. In relation to privileged motions. Sections 3086-3088.
8. Business on the Speaker's table. Sections 3089-3111.
9. Unfinished business. Sections 3112-3114.\1\
10. The calendars for reports of committees. Sections 3115-
3117.
11. Consideration under call of committees. Sections 3118-3130.
12. Interruption of call of committees. Sections 3131-3133.
13. Interruption after sixty minutes by motion to go into
Committee of Whole. Sections 3134-3141.
14. Privilege of bills reported under leave to report at any
time. Sections 3142-3147.
15. Privileged matters in general. Sections 3148-3151.\2\
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3056. The order of business in the House is prescribed by rule. The
old methods of arranging business in the House, and evolution of the
present system.
Form and history of section 1 of Rule XXIV.
Section 1 of Rule XXIV prescribes the regular order of business.
The daily order of business shall be as follows:
First. Prayer by the Chaplain.
Second. Reading and approval of the Journal.
Third. Correction of reference of public bills.
Fourth. Disposal of business on the Speaker's table.
Fifth. Unfinished business.
Sixth. The morning hour for the consideration of bills called up by
committees.
Seventh. Motions to go into Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union.
Eighth. Orders of the day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unfinished private business. Sections 3276-3280 of this volume.
Unfinished business in Committee of the Whole. Sections 4735-4736 of
this volume.
\2\ Precedence of questions of privilege. Sections 2521-2531 of Vol.
ii.
Precedence after an adjournment of a bill on which the previous
question is ordered. Sections 5510-5520 of Vol. V.
Privilege of conference reports. Sections 6443-6446 of Vol. V.
Request for conference not privileged before disagreement. Section
6301 of Vol. V.
Sec. 3056
The rule relating to the order of business has undergone great
changes. Indeed, in the first rules of the House there was no rule
relating distinctively to the order of business.\1\ The House being
able to dispose of all that came before it, the question of order and
precedence was not important. But as the business of the House enlarged
and became more than could be comfortably transacted, order and
selection became vital questions. Originally, Members presented
petitions at any time when recognized by the Speaker, and committees
reported in the same way. The first proposition for a rule to prescribe
the order of business seems to have been made on February 19, 1807,\2\
by Mr. Joseph Clay, of Pennsylvania, who suggested an order both for
the House and Committee of the Whole; but the House after consideration
postponed it indefinitely. A similar proposition was made in vain
February 16, 1808.\3\ A ruling by Mr. Speaker Varnum on May 29,
1809,\4\ indicates that at that time custom had created an order which
gave the first hour of the session to the presentation of petitions and
communications. In accordance with the custom he ruled a resolution out
of order in that hour. But when the rules were revised on December 23,
1811,\5\ it was provided that, as soon as the Journal was read each
day, the Speaker should call the Members and Delegates by States and
Territories for the presentation of petitions; and, the petitions
having been presented and disposed of, reports from standing and select
committees should be called for and disposed of. It was specified that
these two classes of business should be in order at no other part of
the day. The remainder of the day would be devoted largely to ``orders
of the day,'' \6\--that is, such reports as had not been acted on when
made and had been assigned to a day in the future for consideration. On
March 13, 1822,\7\ a rule was adopted limiting the time for reports and
resolutions (which seem to have worked into a place in the morning
period) to one hour daily, after which should come Speaker's table
business and orders of the day. On January 5, 1832,\8\ the hour allowed
for the presentation of reports and resolutions was found too short.
The expiration of the time would often come in the midst of a
discussion, and the debate would be ``snipped off,'' as Mr. John
Randolph, of Virginia, expressed it. Resolutions also had multiplied
greatly, Members even in matters of private claims discarding the use
of petitions and introducing resolutions directing committees to
investigate certain subjects.\9\ So
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session First Congress, Journal, p. 9.
\2\ Second session Ninth Congress, Journal, pp. 595, 601. Mr. Speaker
Clay wrote: ``The object of all bodies, on this subject [determining
what shall be considered], is the same--so to arrange the subjects of
deliberation as best to promote the public interest.'' (Annals, fast
session, Twelfth Congress, p. 1472.)
\3\ First session Tenth Congress, Journal, pp. 179, 180; Annals, p.
1618.
\4\ First session Eleventh Congress, Journal, p. 23.
\5\ Twelfth Congress, Journal, pp. 89, 91.
\6\ ``Orders of the day'' are still mentioned in the order of
business, but they became obsolete many years ago. Now the House makes
``special orders'' which supersede often the entire order of business.
See the next chapter, sections 3152-3265, of this work.
\7\ First session Seventeenth Congress, Journal, p. 350; Annals; pp.
1299, 1300.
\8\ First session Twenty-second Congress, Journal, p. 155; Debates,
pp. 1482,1483.
\9\ For discussions as to the difficulties occasioned by this
presentation of resolutions instructing committees to examine subjects,
see Debates, First session Twentieth Congress, pp. 823-827, 1794-1756.
The old parliamentary practice of allowing the introduction of bills
only by motions for leave or through a committee to whom petitions had
been referred or instructions had been given still obtained, and hence
the more expeditious method of referring resolutions in the morning
hour became so popular, especially for private claims, as to seriously
hold back the reports of committees. (First session Twenty-second
Congress, Debates, p. 1482.)
Sec. 3056
the House adopted a rule on January 5, 1832, that after the hour for
petitions and resolutions had expired, it should be in order, pending
discussion or consideration of such petitions or resolutions, to
entertain a motion to proceed to business on the Speaker's table and to
the orders of the day. Meanwhile the congestion of business was
serious. As early as 1829 \1\ so many petitions were left unacted on as
to cause complaint that the constitutional right of petition was
impaired. The congestion also affected the disposition of other
business, and on March 31, 1830 \2\, Mr. Henry R. Storrs, of New York,
said that ``they continued to make bills the order of the day for to-
morrow, while to-morrow never came.''
On February 6, 1838, it was found necessary to set apart each
alternate Monday for calling the States and Territories for
resolutions, those giving rise to debate going over. Finally the
problem of disposing of resolutions was solved by including them with
bills and giving a time for their presentation.\3\
Before 1838, it had been found desirable to restrict the presentation
of petitions to Mondays, except during the first six days in the
session, when they were in order every day; \4\ and in that year the
time for presenting petitions was still further encroached upon in the
interest of other business. Finally, on March 29, 1842, the
presentation of petitions had become so difficult that the House, at
the suggestion of Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, adopted the
plan of allowing petitions to be handed to the Clerk for entry on the
Journal and reference in accordance with the Member's indorsement.\5\
Thus the presentation of petitions was removed from the order of
business, much time being saved thereby. In the same way, although at a
much later period, the problem of the introduction of bills and the
presentation of reports was solved, thereby relieving the House greatly
of the congestion of business.\6\
At the time of the revision of 1880 \7\ the House was confronted with
a difficulty arising from the fact that such reports of committees as
were not of a nature to go to Committee of the Whole had to be
considered in the hour for reports. Thus, lengthy consideration of a
bill, whether in good faith or for the purpose of obstruction, would
hold back committee reports, and the condition became such that
important measures could be reported to the House only by suspension of
the rules or by unanimous consent. Therefore, in 1880, it was provided
that as soon as reported each bill should be referred to one of three
calendars, there to await the action of the House in regular order.
Finally, in 1890,\8\ the morning hour for reports was abolished, and
they were delivered to the Clerk for reference to the calendars, as
petitions and bills were delivered for reference to committees.
Prior to 1880 unfinished business had been in order after the reading
of the Journal; but in that revision it was placed after the morning
hour for the presentation of reports. In the Forty-ninth Congress a
second morning hour was introduced
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Twentieth Congress, Debates, pp. 297, 298.
\2\ First session Twenty-first Congress, Debates, p. 720.
\3\ January 10, 1837, Mr. Speaker Polk entered into an elaborate
discussion of the order of business as it existed at that time. (Second
session Twenty-fourth Congress, Debates, pp. 1340-1345.)
\4\ Second session Twenty-fifth Congress, Globe, p. 162.
\5\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Globe, p. 367.
\6\ See section 3364 of this volume.
\7\ See report of committee, second session Forty-sixth Congress,
Record, p. 200.
\8\ See Report No. 23, first session Fifty-first Congress.
Sec. 3057
for the consideration of bills that committees might present, and
unfinished business became still more difficult to reach.
In 1890 unfinished business was restored to a position of privilege,
in accordance with the principle that business once begun should be
completed.
Thus in the order of business the time occupied in the presentation
of bills, petitions, and reports has been gradually eliminated from the
regular order, and the time of the House is devoted to the orderly
consideration of measures that have received the sanction of
committees.
3057. Discontinuance of the use of ``Orders of the day'' for
controlling the order of business.--On January 21, 1818,\1\ the old
practice of assigning business for consideration on future days, was
beginning to become unwieldy, and two propositions were made for new
rules, one for printing a calendar of the orders of the day and another
that any subject made a ``special order of the day'' by leave of the
House should have precedence over all other orders of the day. Before
this time also disappears the old entry found at the end of each day's
Journal since the beginning of Congress: ``The several orders of the
day were postponed until to-morrow.'' It is last seen in Journals of
the Eleventh Congress.\2\
3058. As a request for unanimous consent to consider a bill is in
effect a request to suspend the order of business temporarily, a demand
for the regular order may be made at any time and is equivalent to an
objection.--On August 3, 1892,\3\ Mr. Augustus N. Martin, of Indiana,
asked unanimous consent that the House now proceed to the consideration
of certain bills on which the previous question had been ordered.
Before the request was concluded and the business desired to be
considered was indicated, Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, demanded the
regular order.
Mr. Martin made the point of order that, having been recognized and
having proceeded to make a request of the House, he could not be taken
off the floor until his request was completely stated.
The Speaker \4\ held:
The demand for the regular order is of course equivalent to an
objection, and when demanded the Chair is required to enforce it. The
gentleman making a request for unanimous consent can not submit the
request as against the demand for the regular order. So if at any
period the regular order is demanded it is understood to be equivalent
to an objection to anything but the regular order. The gentleman has
the right to demand the regular order. The gentleman may state that he
wants unanimous consent to consider a bill, and the Chair would direct
the Clerk to read it, but any gentleman, even during the reading of the
bill, could demand the regular order, and the Chair has always held
that equivalent to an objection, and suspended the further reading of
the bill.
3059. Unanimous consent to consider a bill implies a setting aside of
the order of business for that purpose, hence the withdrawal of an
objection thereto does not bring the bill up if other business has
intervened.--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifteenth Congress, Journal, pp. 181, 167; Annals,
p. 798.
\2\ The present rule for the order of business (section 3056 of this
chapter) has as its eighth stage ``orders of the day.'' This is a
survival of the past and does not represent any business under the
present practice. The use of special orders is very frequent; but they
have priority over the rule for the order of business.
\3\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 351; Record, p.
7028.
\4\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
Sec. 3060
On May 24, 1898,\1\ Mr. Charles A. Boutelle, of Maine, asked unanimous
consent for the consideration of a bill relating to the hospital
service of the Navy. Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, objected.
Later Mr. Boutelle announced that the gentleman from Alabama had
withdrawn his objection.
Mr. John W. Gaines, of Tennessee, made the point of order that the
objection could not be withdrawn.
The Speaker \2\ said:
The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gaines] is right in making the
point that the objection can not be withdrawn, because it is effectual
when it happens; therefore that matter will have to come up at some
other time. * * * Objection cannot be withdrawn after we have passed to
another thing. The matter may again be presented to the House, but the
objection can not be withdrawn.
3060. Before the adoption of rules, and the consequent establishment
of an order of business, it was held in order, without unanimous
consent, to offer on the floor and consider at once a proposition
relative to the transaction of business.--On December 12, 1889,\3\ the
House had not adopted a system of rules, and business was proceeding
under general parliamentary law, excepting that the Committees on
Rules, Accounts, Enrolled Bills, and Mileage had been authorized by a
special resolution.\4\ Mr. Nelson Dingley, Jr., of Maine, offered a
series of resolutions providing for a call of the States and
Territories on December 16 for the introduction of public bills and
also for the presentation through the Clerk of private bills,
petitions, and memorials.
The House having proceeded to the consideration of the resolutions,
Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, and Mr. Roger Q. Mills, of Texas,
made the point of order that, the House having adopted a rule by which
all propositions touching the rules of the House should be referred to
the Committee on Rules, the said resolution must be so referred.
Mr. Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, made the further point of order
that unanimous consent was required for the introduction and
consideration of the said resolutions, which had not been asked for or
granted.
The Speaker \2\ overruled the said points of order on the ground that
the said resolutions related to the order of business on a given day
and not to the rules, and that it was not necessary to ask unanimous
consent for their introduction and consideration, as well as on the
further ground that the said points of order were submitted too late.
3061. Questions relating to the priority of business are decided
without debate.
Early reference to the use of debate as a method of obstruction.
Form and history of Rule XXV.
Rule XXV is as follows:
All questions relating to the priority of business shall be decided
by a majority without debate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 5159, 5161.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\3\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 19; Record, p.
166, 167.
\4\ Record, p. 84.
Sec. 3062
This rule was first adopted on February 21, 1803, and the record of
debates shows that it was used on that day to stop debate where a
gentleman was suspected of ``a wish to procrastinate, in order to
frustrate a great deal of important business, necessary to be
transacted.'' \1\ At the time of the revision of 1880 \2\ this rule,
which was No. 66 in the old system, was made Rule XXV. With this change
came a few unimportant changes in verbiage.
3062. A motion relating to the order of business is not debatable.--
The motion to go into Committee of the Whole is not debatable.
On January 26, 1900,\3\ the House went into Committee of the Whole
House; and thereupon Mr. Thaddeus M. Mahon, of Pennsylvania, moved that
the committee take up the bill (H. R. 6909) to pay the claim of the
Eastern Extension Australasia and China Telegraph Company, Limited.
Mr. George W. Ray, of New York, as a parliamentary inquiry asked if
the motion was debatable.
The Chairman \4\ said:
As it relates to the order of business, it is not debatable.
3063. On February 15, 1906,\5\ Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York,
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.
R. 14606) to provide for the consolidation and reorganization of
customs collection districts, and for other purposes.
Mr. Charles R. Thomas, of North Carolina, asked the floor for debate
on the motion.
The Speaker \6\ held that the motion was not debatable.
3064. At an extraordinary session the House sometimes adopts a rule
limiting the business to be considered.--On September 11, 1837 \7\ at
the extra session called by proclamation of the President of the United
States, Mr. Francis O. J. Smith, of Maine, offered this resolution:
Resolved, That the action of the several standing committees of this
House on all matters not embraced by the message of the President of
the United States to the two Houses of Congress, communicated on the
second day of the current session, be suspended until the commencement
of the annual session of Congress in December next; and that the
consideration of all petitions on such suspended matters be also
postponed to the period above specified.
Mr. James Garland, of Virginia, moved to amend by adding the words:
``With the exception of private business.''
This amendment was disagreed to, and then the resolution was agreed
to, without division.
On September 13 \8\ this rule was rescinded so far as it applied to
the Elections Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Seventh Congress, Journal, p. 358; Annals, p. 580.
\2\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 207.
\3\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1225.
\4\ George W. Steele, of Indiana, Chairman.
\5\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 2608.
\6\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\7\ First session Twenty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 47; Globe, pp.
20, 21.
\8\ Journal, p. 52.
Sec. 3065
3065. On June 12, 1841,\1\ at the special session of the Congress
convened by proclamation of the President, the Committee on Rules
reported and the House agreed to, yeas 105, nays 61, the following
rule:
Upon the presentation of petitions and other papers, on subjects not
specially referred to the consideration of the House in the message of
the President at the opening of the present extra session, objection to
the reception shall be considered as made, and the question of
reception shall be laid on the table. This rule to be considered only
in force during the present session. Petitions and other papers for or
against a bankrupt law to be excepted from the operation of this rule.
The action of all committees on all subjects not specially referred to
the consideration of the House in the message of the President shall be
suspended during the present session. This suspension not to apply to
business before the Committee on Elections, on Ways and Means, on
Accounts, and on Mileage, nor, if the House shall so determine, to the
subject of a general bankrupt law.
3066. On July 8, 1861 \2\ the House, on motion of Mr. William S.
Holman, of Indiana, agreed to the following resolution:
Resolved, That the House, during the present extraordinary session,
will only consider bills and resolutions concerning the military and
naval operations of the Government and the financial affairs therewith
connected; and all bills and resolutions of a private character, and
all other bills and resolutions not directly connected with the raising
of revenue or affecting the military or naval affairs of the
Government, shall be referred to the appropriate committees without
debate, to be considered at the next regular session of Congress.
3067. The first session of the Fortieth Congress was convened by law
on March 4, 1867,\3\ and by concurrent resolution stood in recess from
March 30 to July 3. On the latter day, when Congress had reassembled,
the House adopted a resolution that no proposition for general
legislation should be entertained during the session, except
reconstruction legislation.\4\
On July 5, after debate, the Senate adopted a similar but not
identical resolution.
3068. At the extraordinary session, convened according to law in
1871, the Senate adopted a resolution which, in its final form as
amended on March 30, 1871,\5\ was as follows:
Resolved, That the Senate will consider at the, present session no
other legislative business than the deficiency appropriation bill, the
concurrent resolution for a joint committee of investigation into the
condition of the States lately in insurrection, and the resolution now
pending instructing the Committee on the Judiciary to report a bill or
bills that will enable the President and the courts of the United
States to execute the laws in said States, and the report that may be
made by the Committee on the Judiciary on that subject, and any bill
that may be sent to the Senate from the House of Representatives on the
same subject.
3069. The time occupied by a joint meeting of the two Houses is not
counted in the time of the House's legislative session.--On February
11, 1885,\6\ when the session of the House was resumed after the joint
session of the two Houses to count the electoral vote, the Speaker pro
tempore announced the regular
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 121; Globe, p.
49.
\2\ First session Thirty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 46; Globe, p.
24.
\3\ First session Fortieth Congress, Journal, p. 162; Globe, pp. 480,
481.
\4\ At the special session of the Fifty-fifth Congress the House
attained the object of considering certain business only by the
adoption of a standing order in accordance with which it sat only on
two days of the week. (See Journal and Record, first session, Fifty-
fifth Congress.)
\5\ First session Forty-second Congress, Globe, pp. 154, 226, 227,
345.
\6\ Second session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 521, 522;
Record, p. 1533.
Sec. 3070
order to be the further consideration of the bill (H. R. 483) for the
erection of a public building at Keokuk, Iowa.
Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, made the point of order that
the hour given to the consideration of that bill under the special rule
had expired.
The Speaker pro tempore \1\ overruled the point of order, on the
ground that the time occupied by the two Houses of Congress under the
terms of the concurrent resolution providing for counting the votes for
President and Vice-President could not be counted or included as a part
of said hour, the House not having been in session for legislative
business during that time.
3070. Privileged questions often interrupt the regular order of
business, but when they are disposed of it continues on from the point
of interruption.
Business on the Speaker's table and the call of committees, although
in order early in the day, may be deferred by privileged questions.
On February 5, 1885,\2\ pending a request that a House bill with
Senate amendments might be taken up, Mr. William. S. Holman, of
Indiana, made the point of order that the special rule establishing a
morning hour \3\ for consideration of bills fixed this hour at a time
immediately after the approval of the Journal.
The Speaker pro tempore \4\ held:
Under the rule, the morning hour comes at a stated time in the day,
yet frequently it comes twenty-four \5\ hours after the time when it
would be due by the clock. This new rule, declares that immediately
after the approval of the Journal an hour shall be set apart for the
calling up of bills and resolutions subject to consideration under the
rule. But a rule of the House, which is imperative, declares that
questions of personal privilege, or privileged reports, or privileged
questions, shall take precedence of all other questions, and that their
consideration, and the time consumed therein, shall not to be taken
account of by the Chair or by the House. The Chair has no arbitrary
power to deny the right of the House to state and to be heard upon its
privileged reports, its questions of privilege, and its privileged
questions. The Chair therefore overrules the point of order made by the
gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Holman, and holds that nothing has occurred
since the reading of the Journal but the acceptance and entertaining of
a privileged report, or the consideration of a question of privilege,
or a privileged question.
3071. On May 2, 1896,\6\ near the close of the day's session, which
had been occupied by a special order, Mr. Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia,
called for the regular order.
The Speaker thereupon laid before the House business on the Speaker's
table.
Mr. Crisp raised a question as to whether or not this business should
not come after the reading of the Journal.
The Speaker \7\ held that, as a special order had intervened to
prevent business on the Speaker's table coming after reading of the
Journal, such business was in order after the execution of the special
order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph C. S. Blackburn, of Kentucky, Speaker pro tempore.
\2\ Second session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 476; Record, p.
1295.
\3\ This was a special morning hour established temporarily in
addition to the regular morning hour for the call of committees for
reports. In the next Congress a similar morning hour for consideration
of bills was regularly established.
\4\ Nathaniel J. Hammond, of Georgia, Speaker pro tempore.
\5\ Meaning the regular morning hour for reports of committees.
\6\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 4761.
\7\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
Sec. 3072
3072. The motion to go into Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union to consider a revenue or general appropriation bill may,
when authorized by a committee, be made at any time after the Journal
is read.
Form and history of section 9 of Rule XVI.
Section 9 of Rule XVI provides:
At any time after the reading of the Journal it shall be in order, by
direction of the appropriate committees, to move that the House resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
for the purpose of considering bills raising revenue, or general
appropriation bills.
The necessity of giving a special privilege to the appropriation
bills became evident many years ago. On December 10, 1835, Mr. John
Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, criticised at length the long delays of
these bills, and at that time, with his approval, Mr. Horace Everett,
of Vermont, suggested an amendment to the rules providing that ``the
general appropriation bill shall always be in order in preference to
any other bill of a public nature.'' \1\
The suggestion was not adopted, however, until September, 14,
1837.\2\ On March 11, 1844,\3\ on motion of Mr. Cave Johnson, of
Tennessee, a rule was adopted providing that the House might at any
time, by a vote of a majority of the Members present, suspend the rules
\4\ and orders for the purpose of going into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union.\5\ Four years later the practice under
this rule compelled business on the Calendar of this committee to be
taken up in order; so that, on July 28, 1848,\6\ on recommendation of
the Committee on Rules, the House adopted a rule that in Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union general appropriation bills,
and, in time of war, bills for raising men and money and bills
concerning a treaty of peace, should be preferred to all other bills,
at the discretion of the committee; and that, when demanded by any
Member, the question should be first put in regard to them.
When the revision of 1880 \7\ was made the Committee on Rules in
their report omitted these provisions, leaving the appropriation bills
to take their chance in the rule for the order of business, which
brought motions to go into Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union in a very unfavorable place near the end of the order. To
remedy this difficulty the committee offered during the debate what is
now section 9 of Rule XVI. In the form then agreed to the motion was
made in order after the morning hour for the call of committees; and
the authorization of a committee was not required. In the revision of
1890 \8\ the motion was made privileged
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On February 10, 1834 (First session Twenty-third Congress,
Journal, p. 312) Mr. Adams had proposed a rule making it the duty of
the Committee on Ways and Means to report the appropriation bills
within thirty days after the beginning of the session.
\2\ First session Twenty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 55.
\3\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, Globe, p. 367.
\4\ For ruling as to privilege of appropriation bills on a suspension
day under the old system see second session Forty-fourth Congress,
Journal p. 270.
\5\ Until March 4, 1828 (First session Twentieth Congress, Debates,
p. 1721), the motion to go into Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union seems to have retained an old privilege of being in
order at any time.
\6\ First session Thirtieth Congress, Globe, p. 1006.
\7\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 206, 830.
\8\ See House Report No. 23, first session Fifty-first Congress.
Sec. 3073
after the reading of the Journal, and the requirement that the motion
be authorized by a committee was inserted. In the Fifty-second and
Fifty-third Congresses the old form was restored, but in the Fifty-
fourth the form of 1890 was again adopted.
3073. A motion to go into Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union is most highly privileged only for revenue and
appropriation bills.--On May 24, 1890,\1\ Mr. Thomas J. Henderson, of
Illinois, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill of the House (H. R. 9486) making appropriations for the
construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on
rivers and harbors, and for other purposes.
Mr. John H. Rogers, of Arkansas, made the point of order that the
motion was not in order, according to section 9 of Rule XVI,\2\ until
after the morning hour.
The Speaker pro tempore \3\ sustained the point of order. \4\
3074. The motion to go into Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union to consider revenue or appropriation bills may designate
the particular bill to be considered.--On April 10, 1890,\5\ Mr.
Charles A. Boutelle, of Maine, moved that the House resolve itself into
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the
consideration of the naval appropriation bill.
Mr. William D. Bynum, of Indiana, rising to a parliamentary inquiry,
made the point that under section 9 of Rule XVI \6\ it was not in order
to specify a particular bill, as that could only be done under section
5 of Rule XXIV.\7\ The Speaker \8\ held:
The Chair thinks that under section 9 of Rule XVI the motion may be
made to go into Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering a
particular bill. The intention of the rule was, as the Chair
understands, to give the Appropriations Committee and the revenue
committees the right of way before and above everything else; in fact,
to give them the control, so far as that is concerned.
3075. The motion to go into Committee of the Whole to consider
revenue bills and the motion to do the same to consider general
appropriation bills are of equal privilege.--On February 22, 1893,\9\
Mr. John S. Henderson, of North Carolina, moved that the House resolve
itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to
consider general appropriation bills.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 660; Record, p.
5239.
\2\ See section 3072. The river and harbor bill is not one of the
general appropriation bills. See sections 3897-3903 of this volume.
\3\ Bishop W. Perkins, of Kansas, Speaker pro tempore.
\4\ At this time also the Speaker pro tempore entertained a motion to
dispense with the morning hour, ruling that such a motion was in order.
The rules of the preceding Congress had authorized such a motion; but
those of the Fifty-first did not. The right of the Committee on Rivers
and Harbors to report at any time carries with it the right to consider
at any time; and it is probable that on this view a motion to go into
Committee of the Whole to consider a river and harbor appropriation
bill would be given precedence of the call of committees. But this
privilege of river and harbor bills would probably not be of avail on
days set apart for special business, such as Fridays and Mondays.
\5\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 3256.
\6\ See section 3072 of this chapter.
\7\ See section 3134 of this chapter.
\8\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\9\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 108.
Sec. 3076
Pending this motion, Mr. William H. Hatch, of Missouri, moved that
the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union to consider bills raising revenue.
Thereupon Mr. Hatch submitted the point that the motion just
submitted by him took precedence over the motion submitted by Mr.
Henderson, of North Carolina.
The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order, holding that the motion
to resolve into Committee of the Whole to consider appropriation bills
and the motion to resolve into Committee of the Whole to consider
revenue bills were of equal privilege, and consequently that the motion
first submitted should be first put.
3076. On April 8, 1902,\2\ Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, as a
privileged motion, moved that the House resolve itself into Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of
the bill (H. R. 12765) to provide for reciprocal trade relations with
Cuba.
Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, rising to a parliamentary inquiry,
asked on what grounds the motion was considered privileged.
The Speaker \3\ said:
The Chair will call the attention of the gentleman from Minnesota to
Rule XI, clause 59, which provides that the Committee on Ways and Means
may report at any time on bills raising revenue; and it has been
repeatedly held that that included bills affecting the revenue. So that
under the decisions under that rule, the Chair is clearly of the
opinion that the gentleman has a right to call up the bill.
3077. The motion to go into Committee of the Whole to consider a
general appropriation bill may not be amended by a nonprivileged
proposition, and the previous question may not be demanded on it.--On
February 17, 1899,\4\ Mr. Charles A. Boutelle, of Maine, moved that the
House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union to consider the naval appropriation bill. On this motion Mr.
Boutelle demanded the previous question.
The Speaker \5\ said:
The Chair decides that the gentleman from Maine can not ask for the
previous question upon the motion which he has made.
Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked
whether or not it would be in order to amend the motion by instructing
the committee to consider the bill (S. 4792) relating to the Nicaragua
Canal.
The Speaker said:
It would not be in order because this is a general appropriation
bill.
Mr. Hepburn then asked whether it would be in order to strike out of
the motion the portion relating to the particular bill and thus leave
the Committee of the Whole to take up any bill which it might choose.
The Speaker said:
The Chair thinks it would not be competent, because the gentleman
from Maine makes a privileged motion, and the other is not. One can not
be substituted for the other.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
\2\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 3847.
\3\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\4\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 1995,1996.
\5\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
Sec. 3078
3078. The motion to resolve into Committee of the Whole to consider a
privileged bill is not amendable or debatable.--On May 22, 1906,\1\ Mr.
Robert Adams, jr., of Pennsylvania, moved that the House resolve itself
into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the
consideration of the consular and diplomatic appropriation bill, and on
this motion demanded the previous question.
Pending this motion, Mr. Augustus P. Gardner, of Massachusetts,
rising to a parliamentary inquiry, asked if it would be in order to
move to amend the motion; and also raised the question of order that
the previous question was not in order on the motion.
The Speaker \2\ said:
This motion, the Chair finds, after consulting one who knows the
precedents, is not amendable and is not debatable.
Therefore the Speaker ignored the demand for the previous question,
which was not pressed.
3079. On February 15, 1901,\3\ Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois,
moved that the House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union, for the consideration of general
appropriation bills.
Mr. John F. Fitzgerald, of Massachusetts, rising to a parliamentary
inquiry, asked if the motion was debatable.
The Speaker \4\ replied that it was not.
3080. The privileged motion to go into the Committee of the Whole to
consider revenue or appropriation bills may be made on a ``suspension
day'' as on other days.--On February 16, 1891,\5\ Mr. Bishop W.
Perkins, of Kansas, moved that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the
consideration of general appropriation bills.
Mr. Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, by way of a parliamentary
inquiry, suggested the point of order that under the rules the day was
set apart for motions to suspend the rules.
The Speaker \6\ thereupon made the following statement:
The Chair desires to say, with regard to this matter, in order that
the House may understand it that the provision in the rule is that the
rules shall be suspended at no other time than on certain Mondays and
during the last six days of the Session.\7\ That is simply a permission
for suspension of the rules upon those days; but it has been
permissible upon proper occasions to allow the appropriation bills to
be presented in order to test the sense of the House with regard to the
order of business, and, in the present condition of the public
business, the Chair thought that the gentleman from Kansas, Mr.
Perkins, ought to be recognized to make the motion to go into Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of
general appropriation bills, and the Chair accordingly entertains and
submits that motion, which is itself highly privileged.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 7248.
\2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2476.
\4\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\5\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 251.
\6\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\7\ For this rule see section 6790 of Vol. V of this work.
Sec. 3081
3081. A motion to go into Committee of the Whole to consider general
appropriation bills is in order Friday as on other days.--On March 28,
1890,\1\ Mr. Byron M. Cutcheon, of Michigan, moved that the House
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union for the consideration of the general army appropriation bill.
Mr. Benjamin A. Enloe, of Tennessee, made the point of order that
under the rule the House could only consider business on the Private
Calendar on Fridays.
The Speaker \2\ ruled that under section 9 of Rule XVI \3\ the motion
was in order.
3082. The motion to go into Committee of the Whole to consider
general appropriation bills has precedence on a Friday of a motion to
go into Committee of the Whole to consider the Private Calendar.--On
Friday, February 4, 1898,\4\ Mr. James A. Hemenway, of Indiana, from
the Committee on Appropriations, moved that the House resolve itself
into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the
consideration of general appropriation bills.
Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, made the point that the motion to go
into Committee of the Whole House to consider business on the Private
Calendar was of higher privilege than the motion made by Mr. Hemenway.
The Speaker \2\ said that it had been the invariable construction of
the rule that public business had the right of way. If the House did
not desire to consider appropriation bills it could vote down the
motion of the gentleman from Indiana; and then the motion to go into
Committee of the Whole to consider the Private Calendar \6\ would be
next in order.
3083. On Friday, June 17, 1898,\6\ Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois,
moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the
deficiency appropriation bill.
Mr. Gevrge W. Ray, of New York, made the point of order that this day
being Friday such motion was not in order.
The Speaker pro tempore 7 overruled the point of order.
3084. On December 16, 1898,\8\ a Friday, Mr. Nelson Dingley, of
Maine, moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union to consider the bill (H. R. 11191) to
extend the laws relating to customs and internal revenue over the
Hawaiian Islands.
Mr. C. N. Brumm, of Pennsylvania, demanded the regular order, which
would be, under the rule, the consideration of the Private Calendar.
The Speaker \2\ held that the motion to go into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union to consider the revenue bill had
precedence.
3085. On February 15, 1901,\9\ a Friday, Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of
Illinois, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of general
appropriation bills.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 2747; Journal, p.
398.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\3\ See section 3072 of this chapter.
\4\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 1436.
\5\ See sections 3266, 3267 of this volume.
\6\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 6077, 6078.
\7\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Speaker pro tempore.
\8\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 266.
\9\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2476.
Sec. 3086
Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, rising to a parliamentary
inquiry, asked if it was not in order, under the rules, to move to go
into Committee of Whole House to consider business on the Private
Calendar.
The Speaker,\1\ replied that if the motion of the gentleman from
Illinois should be voted down, the motion to go into Committee of the
Whole House would then be in order; and the latter motion could be
reached only in this way.
3086. A motion to go into Committee of the Whole to consider a
specified bill is privileged when the bill has been reported by a
committee under its leave to report at any time.--On February 7,
1894,\2\ Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, presented as a matter of
privilege the bill (H. R. 4956) directing the coinage of the silver
bullion held in the Treasury, and for other purposes, heretofore
reported from the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures \3\ and
referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
Mr. Bland moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union to consider the bill.
Mr. C. W. Stone, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that it was
not in order to move to resolve into committee for the purpose of
considering a particular measure.
The Speaker \4\ held that when a privileged report was presented, the
consideration of which was required to be in Committee of the Whole, it
was in order to move to resolve into committee to consider it, since,
were it otherwise, its privileged character would be lost.
3087. A motion that the House resolve itself into Committee of the
Whole, or a demand that the House return to committee, may not take
precedence of a motion to reconsider.--On January 28, 1847,\5\ the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, finding itself
without a quorum, rose, and the Chairman reported that the committee,
while considering the bill making appropriations for the naval service,
had found itself without a quorum.
Mr. Seaborn Jones, of Georgia, moved that the vote whereby the House
had this day agreed to the resolution terminating all debate on the
said bill at 1 o'clock to-morrow be reconsidered.
A call of the House having been moved and decided in the negative,
sufficient Members being recorded on the vote to make a quorum of
record, Mr. George Ashmun, Of Massachusetts, moved that the House
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union.
The Speaker \6\ decided that pending a motion to reconsider a vote,
that being a privileged motion, it was not in order to entertain a
motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union. The record of debates also shows that
Mr. Robert C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, made the point
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 145.
\3\ In the Fifty-third Congress this committee was included by
section 57 of Rule XI, but is not so included at present.
\4\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
\5\ Second session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, pp. 246-250;
Globe, pp. 281, 282.
\6\ John W. Davis, of Indiana, Speaker.
Sec. 3088
that, the presence of a quorum being ascertained, it was the duty of
the Chair to resign and for the House to return into the Committee of
the Whole. The Speaker replied that this would be so but for the high
privilege of the motion to reconsider.
The Speaker's decision was sustained on appeal.
3088. By refusing to go into Committee of the Whole to consider a
bill which has been made a special order for consideration therein the
House may then consider business prescribed by the regular order.--On
Friday, March 7, 1902,\1\ Mr. Eugene F. Loud, of California, moved that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, in accordance with the terms of the following
special order:
On motion of Mr. Loud, by unanimous consent, it was ordered that the
bill (H. R. 11728) ``to classify the rural free delivery service and
fix the compensation to employees thereof ``shall be taken up on Monday
next, immediately after the reading of the Journal, and shall become a
continuing order until disposed of; the bill to be considered in the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union; the same to be
subject to appropriation bills, bills raising revenue, and conference
reports, and the time of debate to be equally divided between those in
favor of and those opposed to said bill.
Mr. Thetus W. Sims, of Tennessee, rising to a parliamentary inquiry,
asked whether, if the motion of Mr. Loud should be decided in the
negative, it would be in order to make a motion to go into Committee of
the Whole House for consideration of the Private Calendar.
The Speaker \2\ replied that such a motion would be in order under
those conditions.
3089. The rule governing the disposition of business on the Speaker's
table.
Messages from the President and communications from the heads of
Departments and from other sources are referred from the Speaker's
table.
Messages, and bills from the Senate are either referred from the
Speaker's table or placed before the House directly.
Form and history of section 2 of Rule XXIV.
Section 2 of Rule XXIV provides:
Business on the Speaker's table shall be disposed of as follows:
Messages from the President shall be referred to the appropriate
committees without debate. Reports and communications from the heads of
Departments and other communications addressed to the House, and bills,
resolutions, and messages from the Senate may be referred to the
appropriate committees in the same manner and with the same right of
correction as public bills presented by Members; but House bills with
Senate amendments which do not require consideration in a Committee of
the Whole may be at once disposed of as the House may determine, as may
also Senate bills substantially the same as House bills already
favorably reported by a committee of the House and not required to be
considered in Committee of the Whole be disposed of in the same manner
on motion directed to be made by such committee.
This rule in substantially its present form was adopted in the
revision of 1890.\3\ In the general revision of 1880 \4\ the committee
had revised old rule 54, which dated
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2498.
\2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\3\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Congressional Record, p.
1287, and House Report No. 23, first session Fifty-first Congress.
\4\ See Record, second session Forty-sixth Congress, p. 207.
Sec. 3090
from January 5, 1832,\1\ and which specified the order of taking up
business on the Speaker's table.\2\ The rule of 1880 brought the
Speaker's table after the morning hour for the reports of committees
and after the unfinished business. In a few years it was found
difficult to reach this order and much time was consumed by requests
for unanimous consent to go to the Speaker's table merely for the
purpose of referring Senate bills to committees. So the Speaker's table
was given the first place in the following rule, adopted in the Forty-
ninth Congress:\3\
After the Journal is read and approved each day other than Monday the
Speaker shall lay before the House, for reference, messages from the
President, reports and communications from the heads of Departments and
other communications addressed to the House, and also such bills,
resolutions, and other messages from the Senate as may have been
received on previous days.
This rule was modeled after the Senate rule and was intended to
secure the prompt reference of President's messages, Executive
documents, Senate bills, etc.
In 1890 the principle of saving the time of the House by having the
reference of Executive documents and Senate bills made by rule under
direction of the Speaker was adopted in the present form of the
rule.\4\
3090. A Senate amendment being such as requires consideration in
Committee of the Whole, the bill and amendment are referred directly
from the Speaker's table to the appropriate standing committee.
A request for a conference before there has been actual disagreement
between the Houses confers no privilege on the bill affected.
History of practice of the House as to disposition of business on the
Speaker's table.
On January 26, 1889,\5\ the Speaker laid before the House the bill
(H. R. 9051) to reduce taxation and simplify the laws in relation to
the collection of the revenue with an amendment by the Senate in the
nature of a substitute, and with a request of the Senate for a
conference.
Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, proposed that the House concur in the
Senate amendment, or, if the House determined to nonconcur, that a
committee of conference be granted.
Mr. Roger Q. Mills, of Texas, made the point of order that the bill
must first go to the Committee on Ways and Means.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Twenty-second Congress, Journal, p. 155.
\2\ On April 21, 1836 (1st sess. 24th Cong., Journal, p. 735), we
find the Clerk directed to make up a weekly printed statement of the
resolutions and bills, including Senate bills, on the Speaker's table.
Under the present system of rules no such list is kept, as bills on the
Speaker's table are at once referred by direction of the Speaker or are
acted on by the House without much delay.
\3\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 171.
\4\ The Speaker's table should be distinguished from ``the table'' of
the House referred to in the motion to lay on the table. Under the
usage of the House a matter laid on the table is finally disposed of
adversely. There is no method of taking it from the table except by
unanimous consent. In this respect the usage of the House differs from
the usage of general parliamentary law. The Speaker's table, on the
other hand, as the rule indicates, receives many matters from the
Executive Departments and the Senate, which are distributed from it
under the rule.
\5\ Second session Fiftieth Congress, Journal, p. 348; Record, pp.
1216-1220.
Sec. 3091
After debate, the Speaker \1\ ruled:
The Chair decided the same question now presented not only in the
case of the oleomargarine bill but upon several other occasions; yet it
may not be inappropriate to restate briefly the grounds of those
decisions.
Prior to the beginning of the Forty-ninth Congress all bills coming
from the Senate, and Senate amendments to House bills, went upon what
was called the Speaker's table, which was one of the Calendars of the
House. The business on the Speakers' table was reached precisely in the
same way as the business upon any other calendar--by a motion to
proceed to its consideration; and when that motion was agreed to by the
House, the bills and amendments in their regular order were laid before
the House, not for reference to a committee, but for immediate
consideration, subject, of course, in the case of Senate bills or
Senate amendments to House bills making appropriations or creating
liabilities on the part of the Government, to the point of order that
they must first have consideration in the Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union. So long as that practice continued it was in order
for any gentleman, when a Senate amendment was taken up from the
Speaker's table, to move to concur or nonconcur, as the case might be,
subject, as the Chair has stated, to the point of order that the
proposition should go to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the
Union, if it was a proposition which the rules of the House required to
go there.
But at the beginning of the Forty-ninth Congress the Speaker's table,
as one of the calendars of the House, was abolished; and in lieu of
that proceeding the House adopted a rule \2\ which made it the duty of
the Speaker every morning, immediately after the reading of the
Journal, except on Monday mornings, to lay before the House for
reference all bills, amendments, and other communications from the
Senate and communications from the heads of Departments; and under that
rule the invariable practice has been to send Senate amendments to
House bills to the appropriate standing committee of the House, unless
unanimous consent was given to concur or nonconcur. So the Chair thinks
that under that rule this Senate amendment must go to the Committee on
Ways and Means, and can not, except by unanimous consent, go to the
Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, which is one of the
House calendars, until it has been reported back.
On the other point, as to the effect of a request by the Senate for
the appointment of a committee of conference before there has been an
actual disagreement between the two Houses, the Chair has repeatedly
ruled that until there has been an actual vote of disagreement between
the two Houses the privileged stage of the bill has not been reached,
and it can not be taken up for consideration, under the other rule to
which the Chair has referred, but must go to the committee.
The Chair has reexamined this rule, and reexamined the practice of
the House, and is constrained to adhere to the rulings heretofore made,
because the Chair believes it is the only proper practice under the
rules which the House itself has established, and which has been the
uniform practice ever since they were adopted.
3091. General discussion of rule requiring reference from the
Speaker's table to a standing committee of House of bills returned with
Senate amendments such as require consideration in Committee of the
Whole.
Instance wherein an act performed by the Speaker under the rules was
reversed by an amendment changing the Journal entry.
The Speaker held that he could not prevent a majority of the House
from so amending the Journal as to undo an actual transaction.
On June 19, 1890,\3\ pending the question on the approval of the
Journal, Mr. Roger Q. Mills, of Texas, submitted the following
resolution:
Whereas the order of reference made by the Speaker referring House
bill 5381, which was returned to the House yesterday with a Senate
amendment, to the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures was
incorrect under the rules of the House and without authority under said
rules: Therefore
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\2\ For this rule see section 3089.
\3\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 758; Record, p.
6281.
Sec. 3091
Resolved, That the Journal of yesterday, Wednesday, June 18, be
corrected by striking therefrom this entry, to wit:
``Under clause 2 of Rule XXIV, a House bill of the following title
with Senate amendments was taken from the Speaker's table and referred
as follows:
``A bill (H. R. 5381) directing the purchase of silver bullion and
the issue of Treasury notes thereon, and for other purposes--to the
Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures.''
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
said resolution was not in order for the following reasons: First, it
proposes to strike out an entry in the Journal that records a matter of
fact. Second, it is not in order for the reason, under the rule, that
if adopted it would have the effect, if it has any effect at all, to
change a reference of a bill with a Senate amendment otherwise than as
provided by Rule XXIV, clause 2.\1\
After debate on the point of order made by Mr. Cannon, the Speaker
\2\ overruled it on the following grounds:
The Chair desires first that the House, if any Member of it has that
impression, should rid itself of the idea that any unusual procedure
has taken place in connection with this bill. The reference of bills of
this kind and in this way has been of daily occurrence since the
adoption of the present rules of the House. The Chair desires also that
the House should know that this particular transaction did not take
place in a corner. In the regular course of business the officer of the
House to whom the Speaker had intrusted the clerical work of the
reference of bills, the Journal clerk, informed the Speaker that upon
his list of bills which were to be referred, under the rules, to
committees of the House, in the same manner as hundreds, and possibly
thousands, of bills have been referred heretofore, was the bill known
as the bill for silver coinage which had come from the Senate, with
amendments, and the Chair was asked if he had any particular direction
to make in regard to it.
Knowing the bill to be one of grave public importance, and anxious
that he might have all the light that could be thrown upon it, he
consulted with two Members upon the other side on the Committee on
Rules, also the gentleman who was specially in charge of the bill upon
the Democratic side, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Bland], and with
another gentleman upon the left of the Chair, not for the purpose of
throwing any responsibility upon them, but for the purpose of obtaining
whatever light it might be possible to obtain in that way. After
listening to and conversing with those gentlemen it seemed very clear
to the Speaker that the rules of the House covered the question, and
that his duty was to treat this bill the same as he would treat any
other. Accordingly the clerk was not directed to make any change in
regard to the reference. It is due to the House, since the question has
been made--and the Chair is appreciative of the courteous manner in
which the question has been discussed--it is due to the House that the
Chair should give the reasons which induced him to make such reference
and to feel perfectly clear that that reference was in accordance with
the rules of the House.
The House must bear in mind that this is not a question of politics
or of currency, but a question of parliamentary law, and that upon its
decision depends the carrying out of the system of rules which the
House has adopted. That system of rules, like every other, is an
evolution from the preceding rules. Under the former rules of the House
every bill which came from the Senate had to be referred in open House
to a committee. No other motion was permissible unless by unanimous
consent. When the tariff bill, for instance, came over here, suggestion
was made that it go at once to the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, but the Speaker ruled that it should go to the
Committee on Ways and Means, and it went there. The only control which
the House had left to itself, under its rules, was to change the
reference if it was not satisfied with the reference directed by the
Speaker. Under the present system of rules the same reference is to be
given to Senate bills, because the same language which applied to them
then is applied to them now. The only difference is that, instead of
being done in open House, it is done by the Speaker, with a right of
correction which the House thought ample; because if the committee to
whom the bill was wrongfully referred did not desire it, or if there
was another committee that thought the bill ought rightfully be
referred to them, either committee could make a motion in open House
(there being a special provision to the order of business for the time
of that motion) for a change of reference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 3089.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
Sec. 3091
Such had been the case for a long time with petitions. Such had been
the case for a considerable time with private bills, and under the new
rules of the House it was made so with regard to public bills, both
those sent in by Members and those which came from the Senate, but the
new rules made two exceptions: First, Senate bills, the like of which
had been passed upon favorably by a committee of the House, could be
taken up and disposed of when that committee voted that it should be
done whenever the bills came over from the Senate; second, House bills
with Senate amendments which were not subject to be considered in
Committee of the Whole could also be laid before the House for its
disposal. The question is, Was this a House bill? Undoubtedly it was.
Did it have a Senate amendment? Unquestionably. The third test is: Does
it contain provisions which under our rules require it to be considered
in a Committee of the Whole? There was a provision in the original
House bill by which certain bullion was to be purchased, for coinage or
otherwise, and certificates were to be issued.
The Senate amendment was an amendment for free coinage, or for
fashioning the silver into bars without charge to those who deposited
it, and for that an appropriation was made. It has been said that the
House dispensed with the consideration of the original bill in
Committee of the Whole. That is perfectly true, and it was perfectly
competent for the House in a proper way so to do, but the fact that the
House dispensed with the consideration in Committee of the Whole of a
provision which it knew does not in any way indicate that it was its
intention to dispose in the same way of an amendment which it did not
know. This being a Senate amendment, the question is, What rule of the
House is applicable to it? And the Chair desires to call the attention
of the House to the very strong language of the rule, which is Rule
XX.\1\ It does not content itself with saying that an amendment of the
Senate to a House bill shall be subject to the point of order, but it
says any amendment of the Senate to any House bill shall be subject to
the point of order. If there is anything clear in parliamentary law it
is that this bill was one of those that would be properly considered in
a Committee of the Whole and consequently was not within the exception.
What, then, was the duty of the Speaker in regard to it? Obviously, to
refer it in the same manner in which hundreds and thousands of bills
have been referred at this session.
Some gentlemen contend, not many, but some contend, that it was not
intended that bills which came from the Senate, which were subject to
the point of order under Rule XX, should go to a committee at all, but
must go directly to the Calendar. The Chair think that if any gentleman
will carefully examine the rule he will perceive that it is impossible
for the bill to go to the Calendar in that manner.
The Chair desires also to animadvert upon a decision which has been
the subject of so much studied compliment on the part of the gentleman
from Kentucky, a decision said to have been made with regard to a bill
which came over from the Senate. The fact that that bill contained an
appropriation, or required an appropriation, for a matter different
from the House bill, was not in any way called to the attention of the
Chair, and there are too many lawyers in this House for the House to
fail to comprehend that when the matter is not brought to the attention
of the presiding officer or the judge he can not be making a direct
decision upon that point.
If the Chair recollects this matter correctly, the answer which was
made to the inquiry of the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Rogers] was
with reference to the request, or the Chair had in mind rather the
request, for a conference on the part of the Senate. The former Speaker
of the House decided both ways in regard to that question of asking for
a conference, that it was to be permitted, and afterwards, upon what
was perhaps maturer consideration, that it was not. The present
occupant of the chair had a different opinion, and until argument
convinced him to the contrary he would be disposed to regard that as a
desirable thing; not meaning, however, now or at any other time, except
at the proper time, to enter into the consideration of the question
whether the point of order upon an appropriation bill would send it to
the committee, even if the conference had been asked by the Senate.
But the particular point of order which has been presented here by
the gentleman from Illinois puts the Chair in the position somewhat of
embarrassment, because the proposed action of the House is the
declaration that an error has been made in parliamentary law upon this
subject, and it is proposed to erase from the Journal a statement of
fact. While the Chair might have some doubt upon that point of order,
it feels this to be a question which the House ought to determine. As
to what would be the effect of overruling a statement in the Journal
which was a fact would have to be a matter of after consideration, but
it is a matter now for consideration on the part of the House. If the
House sees fit to put anything which is or is not a fact into its
Journal, the Chair has no mean of interfering and no desire to
interfere, and the Chair will therefore overrule the point of order and
submit the question on the motion of the gentleman from Texas.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 4796 of this volume.
Sec. 3092
3092. On June 20, 1890,\1\ Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, on the
ground of its being a privileged question, submitted the following
resolution:
Resolved, That the Speaker lay before the House the bill No. 5381,
directing the purchase of silver bullion and the issue of Treasury
notes therefor, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments, for
consideration.
Mr. William McKinley, jr., of Ohio, made the point of order that the
resolution was not in order for present consideration, not being a
privileged question, and also being a change of the order of business.
After debate on the point of order Mr. Bland modified the resolution
so as to read as follows:
Resolved, That the Speaker proceed under Rule XXIV to lay the matter
on the Speaker's table under said rule, and to lay House bill 5381,
directing the purchase of silver bullion and issue of Treasury notes
thereon, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments, before the
House for its action.
Mr. McKinley renewed the point of order made by him on the original
resolution.
After further debate on the point of order the Speaker \2\ sustained
the same on the ground that the resolution proposed to change the rule
relating to the order of business, and was not in order for present
consideration.
From this decision of the Chair Mr. Bland appealed; and Mr. McKinley
moved to lay the appeal on the table. This motion was decided in the
affirmative on June 21.
3093. On June 21, 1890,\3\ the regular order of business being
demanded, the Speaker made the following statement in regard thereto,
viz:
The Chair desires the attention of the House on this matter.
The question was somewhat discussed on yesterday as to the condition
of the silver-coinage bill (H. R. 5381, with Senate amendments) which
had been referred by the Speaker, and the record of which in the
Journal was not concurred in by the House, but was rejected, or, if it
can be mid to be--the Journal not having been then adopted--erased. The
provision of our rules requires not only that such bills should be
referred, but that a statement of the reference should be put into the
Journal and also into the Record. The statement was made in the Record.
It was also put into the Journal, which was submitted to the
consideration of the House. The House saw fit not to permit that record
to be made and to become a part of the Journal. That left a somewhat
difficult question as to the status of the bill.
The opinion of the present occupant of the chair, as an individual,
would be very much in accord with what was said by the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Conger], that the refusal to record a fact did not obliterate
the fact itself any more than the destruction of a deed would prevent
the transfer of property which had already taken place, or the
scuttling of a boat which had carried a man across a lake would reland
him on the other side. Nevertheless, the action of the House may have
had its origin in another motive, which was that it would not give its
sanction, by recording it in the Journal, to a transaction which it
desired to subvert; and while it might seem to the Chair that some
definite action ought to be taken by the House, yet, as gentlemen may
have noticed within the last few days, parliamentary law does not seem
to be an exact science.\4\
The great object which everyone must have is in trying to arrive, in
proper fashion, at a legitimate decision; and it is especially the
business of the occupant of the chair to give the House, so far
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 767; Record, pp.
6314, 6353.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\3\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 770-772; Record,
pp. 6354-6364.
\4\ On March 23, 1880 (second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record,
pp. 1804-1807), in a case wherein a bill had been referred to the
Committee on Revision of the Laws when many in the House thought that
it had been wrongly, even surreptitiously, referred, Mr. James A.
Garfield, of Ohio, moved to correct the fact by changing the entry in
the Journal. But there was a diversity of opinion as to the proposed
method, and it was abandoned.
Sec. 3094
as in him lies, all proper opportunity for the transaction of business
in the manner which the House may determine upon, subject to all the
rules of the House.
The Chair, therefore, in order to enable the House to pass its
judgment upon this question, whether the bill should go to the
Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures, will take action in regard
to it, with an opportunity for the House to review the same, believing
that that will enable the House to come quickest to its conclusion upon
the subject. That conclusion, the Chair need not say, ought to be
arrived at with reference to all the business of the House; and the
House ought to come to its decision in some way that will not
disarrange its business. As the Chair remarked the other day, this
reference which was made of the bill was made in accordance with the
custom which has prevailed ever since the establishment of the rules of
the House.
The Chair believes, after a careful examination of the Senate
amendments to the House bill, which is known as the silver bill, that
it comes within the purview of Rule XX, which prescribes that any
amendment made by the Senate to any House bill must be considered first
in the Committee of the Whole, which would have been so liable to be
considered had it originated in the House. It is not necessary to
enlarge upon that point except to point out the fact that the Senate
amendments to the House bill entirely strike out the first section,
which contains the words of appropriation in the House bill and
substitutes another section containing no words of appropriation, but
embodying an altogether different line of action, to wit, the
substitution of the fashioning of silver bars and the coinage of all
silver which may be presented instead of the purchase by the Treasurer
of a certain amount of silver and the coining of it for the use of the
Government. Another section is also stricken out and a substitution
made; and in that substitution is an appropriation for the purpose of
carrying out, not what the House ordered, but what the Senate ordered.
This plainly is a new proposition, which requires its consideration
in the Committee of the Whole House. Its consideration being required
in the Committee of the Whole House--and this does not depend upon the
point of order being made because it is a description of a class of
bills--the Chair is of opinion that it should be referred to the
committee, and the reason for the opinion that it should be referred to
the committee arises from this provision in the rule, that all proposed
legislation must be referred to certain committees. Legislation can be
proposed to this House either by a Member of it or by the Senate. Such
has always been the construction of the identical language which is
used in this set of rules and in those which preceded it. Under those
circumstances, and in conformity to the rules, the Chair announces to
the House that in obedience to the rules the bill has been referred, is
now referred, to the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures. From
that decision, if the House think the Chair is wrong, an appeal can be
taken.
From this action and decision of the Speaker Mr. Bland appealed. and
the question being put, ``Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the
judgment of the House?'' Mr. McKinley moved to lay the appeal on the
table; which was agreed to by the House.
3094. The point being made and sustained that a Senate amendment to a
House bill must be considered in Committee of the Whole, the bill is
referred directly from the Speaker's table to the standing committee
having jurisdiction.--On September 6, 1890,\1\ as part of the business
on the Speaker's table, the Speaker pro tempore \2\ laid before the
House the bill of the House (H. R. 901) for the erection of a new tower
near the site of the light-house on Smiths Island, Virginia, with
amendments of the Senate thereto and a request for a conference with
the House on the bill and amendments.
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
bill had no place on the Speaker's table and no right to be thus laid
before the House, but that under the rules it should properly be
referred either to the Committee on Commerce or the Committee on
Appropriations without being laid before the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 1018; Record, p.
9827.
\2\ Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, Speaker pro tempore.
Sec. 3095
Mr. Cannon also made the further point of order that the amendments
to the bill should receive their first consideration in the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
After debate on the points of order, the Speaker pro tempore
sustained the point of order that the said amendments must receive
their first consideration by the House in the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union.
Then the bill and amendments were referred to the Committee on
Commerce.
3095. On March 2, 1891,\1\ Mr. Byron M. Cutcheon, of Michigan, by
unanimous consent, called up from the Speaker's table the bill of the
House (H. R. 3865) to provide for the reorganization of the artillery
force of the Army, with amendments of the Senate thereto, and a request
for a conference with the House on the bill and amendments.
Mr. Clifton R. Breckinridge, of Arkansas, made the point of order
that the amendments must receive their first consideration in the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
After debate on the point of order, the Speaker \2\ sustained the
same.
Mr. Cutcheon moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of
the said named Senate amendments; which motion was disagreed to.
Subsequently the Speaker stated that without objection the bill and
amendments would be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs where
they should have been referred under his ruling.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
3096. A Senate bill, in order to be brought up directly from the
Speaker's table, must have come to the House after and not before a
House bill substantially the same has been placed on the House
Calendar.--On June 30, 1898,\3\ Mr. Ebenezer J. Hill, of Connecticut,
called up from the Speaker's table Senate bill No. 3414, and asked for
its consideration under Rule XXIV, section 2,\4\ the bill of the House
No. 10807, reported from the Committee on Banking and Currency, and
substantially the same as the Senate bill, being on the House Calendar.
Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, made the point of order that the
Senate bill had been passed by that body June 17, and that the House
bill had not been reported by the Committee on Banking and Currency and
placed on the House Calendar until June 27. Therefore the Senate bill
had been retained on the Speaker's table without warrant under the
rules, and could not be called up in the regular order under the rules.
The Speaker \2\ decided as follows:
The Chair would like to have the House understand what the course of
practice was intended by the rule to be which the Chair intends to
follow and has intended to follow. There is a provision that two
classes of bills may be taken from the Speaker's table. One is House
bills with Senate amendments which do not have to go to the Committee
of the Whole, and the other is Senate bills substantially the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 340; Record, p.
3689.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 6552.
\4\ See section 3089 of this chapter.
Sec. 3097
same as House bills already favorably reported by committees of the
House, and not required to be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Now, the reason for having those bills left upon the Speaker's table,
to be disposed of by the House without reference to a committee, was
that House bills with Senate amendments would not be a surprise to any
Member of the House, because they had already passed through the House
and been amended by the Senate, and therefore were in a favorable
condition to be finished. Then, also, it was determined when the rule
was adopted that whenever the Senate passed a bill which was not
required to go to the Committee of the Whole, not involving an
appropriation of money, that if a House committee had passed a similar
bill and reported it favorably to the House, in that event, by
notifying the Speaker, the Senate bill would be retained on the
Speaker's table, to be acted upon whenever the matter came up in the
regular order--that is, when there was not prior business superseding
it.
If the House bill was not already reported, the Senate bill ought to
have been referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency; and the
point having been made it must be sustained. The Chair thinks the
practice is a simple one. It is not a retention to oblige anybody, but
simply a retention under the rules where notification has been given
that a similar bill has been reported by the committee of the House.
The object of the safeguards thrown about both these classes of bills
was to prevent any surprise to the House by making a bill the regular
order of which the House could not be presumed to have any notice.
3097. A Senate concurrent resolution substantially the same as a
House bill on the House Calendar may be taken from the Speaker's table
for consideration.--On April 29, 1890,\1\ the Speaker laid before the
House a concurrent resolution of the Senate providing for an adjustment
of certain difficulties occasioned along the Rio Grande River by
changes in its channel.
Mr. Daniel Kerr, of Iowa, made the point of order that no committee
had reported favorably upon this or any similar resolution.
The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order and held that the
resolution was the substance of the bill H. R. 3924 on the House
Calendar, reported by the Select Committee on Arid Lands; that the
resolution was in order for present consideration under clause 2 of
Rule XXIV, as stated by the Chair in laying it before the House.
3098. The three conditions needed in order that a Senate bill on the
Speaker's table may be taken up for direct action by the House.--On
January 16, 1897,\3\ Mr. William H. Doolittle, of Washington, asked
that Senate bill No. 3375 be taken from the Speaker's table and put
upon its passage, it being identical with House bill No. 9922, already
on the House Calendar.
Mr. William L. Terry, of Arkansas, having, as a parliamentary
inquiry, asked how the bill could come up under the rule, the Speaker
\2\ said:
This is a Senate bill, which does not require reference to the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, a bill
substantially like which, not necessarily identically the same, is on
file and has been reported by a House committee. Such bills can be
called up without unanimous consent by the committee. The three
requisites are: First, that the bill shall not require reference to the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union; second, that it
shall be similar, substantially the same, as one that has already
received the approval of the committee having it in charge; and third,
that it shall be called up at the request of the committee. There are
two kinds of business which can be disposed of at once from the
Speaker's table. First, House bills with Senate amendments not
involving consideration by the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, where the amendments do not require that; and
second, this class of Senate bills.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 541; Record, p.
3977.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 847.
Sec. 3099
3099. Interpretation of the words ``substantially the same'' as used
in the rule providing for calling a Senate bill from the Speaker's
table for immediate consideration.--On May 11, 1898,\1\ Mr. Lorenzo
Danford, of Ohio, called up from the Speaker's table, by direction of
the Committee on Immigration, the bill (S. 112) to amend the
immigration laws of the United States, and asked its consideration on
the ground that it was substantially the same as a House bill already
on the House Calendar.
Mr. Richard Bartholdt, of Missouri, made the point of order that the
two bills were not substantially the same, but differed in several
particulars, notably as regarded an exemption of all persons arriving
from Cuba, and an educational requirement which specified ``reading and
writing'' in one bill and ``reading or writing'' in the other.
The Speaker \2\ held:
In this case the rule is invoked which permits a committee to call up
from the Speaker's table a measure which is ``substantially'' the same
as one already reported by the committee. The object of the restriction
is that no committee shall have it in its power to bring before the
House a matter of which there has not been sufficient and reasonable
notice. In other words, while it was desired under the rules to
facilitate legislation, it was also desired that there should be
nothing in the nature of a surprise to the House.
This bill having come over from the Senate, the question arising is,
therefore, whether it shall be retained on the Speaker's table as being
substantially the same as one already reported to the House. In order
that it may be so kept upon the table, the Chair must be notified that
a committee has passed upon the subject and made a report to the House
and asks that the bill be retained on the table for action. The next
question to be considered is whether the bill upon the Speaker's table
from the Senate is ``substantially'' the same as the House bill which
has been reported. The reason it ought to be substantially the same is
that the House may be notified of the subject that is to come up, that
it may have due information as to what is to be brought before it, and
if it is so informed by a bill having been considered and reported by
its committee, that is enough.
The rule does not say that the two measures shall be absolutely the
game. It only requires that they shall be ``substantially'' the same.
Now, as the Chair understands, the bill reported to the House provides
that only certain persons shall be admitted into this country as
immigrant--persons who can read and write or who can pass a certain
kind of examination. That is the plan in the House bill and also the
plan in the Senate bill. The only difference is that the Senate bill
allows for only a limited time and to a limited portion of a foreign
community the right to be admitted. It seems to the Chair that the two
bills are substantially the same, if any effect is to be given to the
word ``substantially.''
Now, it may be that this proviso is an inopportune and unsuitable
proviso, in which case the House can deal with it directly; but the
Chair feels constrained to hold that the two bills are substantially
the same, providing for the same examination and also for the same
exclusion, the only difference being that, owing to what are thought to
be peculiar circumstances, a certain set of persons only are to be
admitted and for only a limited time. The Chair therefore overrules the
point of order.
During the consideration of this subject, Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of
Texas, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked if the bill, which had come
from the Senate some time before, should not have been referred to a
committee instead of being allowed to remain on the Speaker's table.
The Speaker replied that, as the committee had given notice that a
similar House bill was on the House Calendar, the Senate bill was held
until the committee should choose to call it up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 4804, 4805.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
Sec. 3100
3100. Although a committee must authorize the calling up of a Senate
bill directly from the Speaker's table, the actual motion need not be
made by one of the committee.--On July 11, 1890,\1\ the Speaker laid
before the House the bill of the Senate (S. 1258) for the relief of
Charles Murphy, on the Speaker's table, the bill being identical with
House bill No. 2232, heretofore reported from the Committee on Claims.
Mr. W. C. P. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, made the point of order that
the motion must now be submitted by a member of the Committee on Claims
by direction of that committee, or the authority for the presentation
of the bill furnished.
The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order on the ground that the
written authority of the Committee on Claims for the presentation of
the bill by the Chair to the House had been heretofore furnished the
Speaker and read to the House, and that the bill was properly before
the House under clause 2 of Rule XXIV.
3101. If a Senate bill be such as to require consideration in
Committee of the Whole, it may not be taken from the Speaker's table
for direct action of the House.
The rule providing for consideration of Senate bills on the Speaker's
table applies to private as well as public bills.
Formerly a bill referring a claim to the Court of Claims did not
require consideration in Committee of the Whole; but a rule has changed
this practice.
On June 10, 1890,\3\ the Speaker laid before the House, from the
Speaker's table, the bill of the Senate (S. 1205) for the relief of
Hyland C. Kirk and others, assignees of Addison C. Fletcher.
Mr. Wm. M. Springer, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
bill, under clause 3 of Rule XXIII,\4\ must receive its first
consideration in a Committee of the Whole.
After debate, the Speaker \2\ overruled the same on the following
grounds:
The Chair desires to say that this matter is not entirely free from
doubt, but the best construction that the Chair has been able to give
it leads to this result. This bill is not governed by Rule XIII,\5\ for
that refers exclusively to House bills. This does not go to the
Committee of the Whole by virtue of Rule XIII, because it is not a
House bill, and it is not a bill reported from a committee. The Chair
should not use the term ``House bill,'' but simply ``a bill reported
from a committee.''
It is not governed by Rule XIII. It must therefore be governed by the
second clause of Rule XXIV,\6\ taken in connection with the third
clause of Rule XXIII,\4\ and the House will notice that the expression
used in the second clause of Rule XXIV is:
``As may also Senate bills substantially the same as House bills
already favorably reported by a committee of the House, and not
required to be considered in Committee of the Whole, be disposed of in
the Fame manner on motion directed to be made by such committee.''
The Chair thinks that the letter ``a'' was omitted in the second use
of the expression ``Committee of the Whole,'' and that it should have
the same interpretation as this in the first use of the phrase
``Committee of the Whole,'' where it is designated as ``a Committee of
the Whole,'' intended to refer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 849, 850;
Record, p. 7161.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\3\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 726; Record, p.
5907.
\4\ See section 4792 of this work.
\5\ See section 3115.
\6\ See section 3089.
Sec. 3102
both to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and
to the Committee of the Whole to which private bills would naturally go
if reported by a committee. The question, then, is whether this is a
bill which is required to be considered in Committee of the Whole; if
not, being substantially the same as House bills already reported, and
being brought up on a motion directed to be made by said committee, it
is in condition under this rule to be considered.
The provision of the third clause of Rule XXIII,\1\ with which the
House is familiar, and which governs all proceedings touching
appropriations of money, etc., has been repeatedly construed by
previous occupants of the Chair. In the Forty-fifth Congress, third
session, page 244 of the Journal, the Speaker [Mr. Randall] decided
that a bill like this did not require to be considered in Committee of
the Whole; and that has been sustained by other Speakers, and has
already been ruled upon in this House.\2\
If, then, it is the same as a House bill already favorably reported
by a committee of the House, and is not required to be considered in
Committee of the Whole, and is brought up on motion directed to be made
by the committee of the House which actually pawed upon it, it then
becomes ready for the action of the House. There are three safeguards:
First, that it has been favorably reported in substance by a committee
of the House; second, that it is not a bill that is required under our
rules to be considered in Committee of the Whole; and, third, the
committee asks for it's consideration at this time. That does not put
the Senate in control of the rules of the House, because it is to be
offered under the rules of the House itself, and thus the bill becomes
ready to be acted on. The Chair therefore is obliged to overrule the
point of order, inasmuch as the bill is not required by the rules to be
considered in Committee of the Whole.
3102. On August 13, 1890,\3\ the Speaker laid before the House the
bill of the Senate (S. 846) for the relief of Nathaniel McKay and the
executors of Donald McKay, on the Speaker's table, it being identical
with the bill of the House (H. R. 4687) reported favorably from the
Committee on War Claims.
Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, made the point of order that
the bill being a private bill was not in order for consideration under
this class of business; that the bill involved an appropriation and
should have its first consideration in a Committee of the Whole, and
that it had not been shown that the bill, if in order under clause 2,
Rule XXIV, had been called up by direction of the Committee on War
Claims.
After debate on the points of order, the Speaker \4\ overruled the
same on the grounds that the rule (clause 2, Rule XXIV \5\) under which
this bill was retained on the Speaker's table and laid before the House
made no distinction between public and private bills, and that the rule
invoked-paragraph third of clause 1 of Rule XIII \6\--applied to bills
``reported from committees,'' as stated in the first paragraph of that
rule; that the usual notice had been given by the Committee on War
Claims, and that the bill pending did not involve an appropriation of
money for the reason--uniformly held in such cases--that it could not
be asserted with certainty that the Court of Claims would find anything
due the claimant.
Mr. Springer appealed from the decision of the Chair, and the
question being put, ``Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the
judgment of the House?'' there appeared, yeas 108, nays 21.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 4792 of this work.
\2\ The bills in this case referred claims to the Court of Claims. In
the Fifty-fourth Congress section 3 of Rule XXIII was amended to cover
such cases. See section 4792 of this work.
\3\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 951; Record, p.
8527.
\4\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\5\ See section 3089.
\6\ See section 3115.
Sec. 3103
3103. On February 13, 1891,\1\ the Speaker also laid before the
House, from the Speaker's table, the bill of the Senate (S. 4472) for
the relief of Charles B. Stivers, the same being identical with the
bill of the House (H. R. 12294) on the Private Calendar.
Mr. Benton McMillin, of Tennessee, made the point of order that the
bill must receive its first consideration in the Committee of the
Whole.
The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order, and the bill was
referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.
3104. On January 19, 1893,\3\ the bill (H. R. 9757) to provide for
the better protection of commerce and for the general welfare, for the
establishment of a national quarantine, etc., was read twice.
Mr. Isidor Rayner, of Maryland, submitted a motion that the bill on
the Speaker's table (S. 2707) granting additional quarantine powers,
imposing additional duties upon the Marine-Hospital Service, and making
an appropriation therefor, be considered in lieu of bill H. R. 9757.
Objection being made to this motion, the Speaker \4\ declined to
entertain the motion of Mr. Rayner, on the ground that the Senate bill
must receive its first consideration in one of the committees of the
House.\5\
3105. Under the former rules, a House bill with Senate amendments
requiring to be referred was referred by vote of the House.--On
February 3, 1893,\6\ the House was considering the Senate amendments to
the bill (S. 7845) defining ``options'' and ``futures,'' imposing
special taxes on dealers therein, etc.
Mr. William H. Hatch, of Missouri, moved that the bill and amendments
be referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Charles J. Boatner, of Louisiana, made the point of order that
the motion of Mr. Hatch to refer was not in order, because, under the
rules, the bill appropriately should be referred to the Committee on
Ways and Means.\7\
Mr. C. B. Kilgore, of Texas, made the further point of order that if
the proper reference was to the Committee on Agriculture, no motion to
that effect was required or was in order.
The Speaker \4\ overruled both points of order.
3106. A House bill with Senate amendments requiring consideration in
Committee of the Whole should be referred from the Speaker's table to
the proper standing committee under the rules.--On February 9, 1905,\8\
Mr. John A. Moon, of Tennessee, rising to a parliamentary inquiry,
said:
There was reported to the House to-day from the Senate a House bill
to create the States of Oklahoma and Arizona, with certain amendments
passed by the Senate. That bill with amendments, as I understand it, is
now on the Speaker's table. The inquiry I desire to make is this, Can a
motion be now made under the rules of the House to concur in the Senate
amendments?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 241; Record, p.
2623.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 52; Record, p.
717.
\4\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
\5\ Section 2 of Rule XXIV was section 1 in the Fifty-second
Congress, and so different that this precedent does not apply fully to
the rule as it now is.
\6\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 68, 79;
Record, p. 1150.
\7\ The rule at that time provided that House bills with Senate
amendments should be laid before the House for reference. By the
present rule they are referred by the Speaker.
\8\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record p. 2206.
Sec. 3107
The Speaker \1\ said:
The Chair will answer the parliamentary inquiry, first, upon the
question of fact. Under the rules of the House the Chair found upon
examination of the bill that one of the Senate amendments provides for
an appropriation of money. That is original, and under the rule of the
House the bill went to the Committee on Territories, in contemplation
of the rule, at once, and the Chair directed that it go manually.
3107. On the calendar day of February 27, 1903 \2\ (but the
legislative day of February 26), the Speaker called the House to order
after a recess, and after the presence of a quorum had been
ascertained, Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, raised the question of
order that the agricultural appropriation bill, returned from the
Senate with amendments, was still on the Speaker's table and should be
referred.
The Speaker \3\ said:
There is a certain discretion given to the Speaker, and he always has
exercised it, to hold the appropriation bills for the usual custom of
having them referred to a conference committee.\4\
3108. A House bill returned with Senate amendments involving a new
matter of appropriation, whether with or without a request for a
conference, is referred directly to a standing committee, and on being
reported therefrom is referred to the Committee of the Whole.--On May
22, 1896,\5\ Mr. William R. Ellis, of Oregon, from the Committee on the
Public Lands, reported the bill (H. R. 5819) to provide for the
examination and classification of certain lands in the State of
Florida, which, with Senate amendments, had been committed to that
committee.
The Speaker stated that the bill would be referred to the Committee
of the Whole.
Mr. Eugene F. Loud, of California, raised a question of order as to
why the bill should have been sent to the Committee on the Public
Lands.
The Speaker \6\ said:
The Chair will state precisely how it went to the committee. Being a
House bill with Senate amendments, with a request for a conference, it
went to the committee. That committee had the right to report, because
the Senate requested a conference. Being reported, it goes to the
Committee of the Whole, because that is the rule of the House. * * *
Pension bills for increases of pensions, with Senate amendments, or
Senate amendments representing increases by the Senate are not within
the rule of measures like this, where a new item is presented involving
a new appropriation, which Rule XX of the House sends to the Committee
of the Whole. The matter is very clear. That bill was submitted to the
Chair, and the Chair was not aware on a cursory examination that there
was a new appropriation in it; but on a careful examination it is quite
evident there are expenditures not in the original bill, and relating
to a new or cognate subject; that is, including another State.
3109. On September 16, 1890,\7\ Mr. Charles S. Baker, of New York, by
unanimous consent, from the Committee on Commerce, to which was
referred the bill of the House (H. R. 901) for the erection of a new
tower near the site of the light-house
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record p. 2756.
\3\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\4\ Such reference to conference can only be effected under these
circumstances by unanimous consent, suspension of the rules or by
special order.
\5\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 5564, 5565.
\6\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\7\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 1046; Record, p.
10111.
Sec. 3110
on Smiths Island, Virginia, with amendments of the Senate thereto, and
a request for a conference with the House on the bill and amendments,
reported the same with the recommendation that the House nonconcur in
all of the amendments and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
Mr. Benton McMillin, of Tennessee, made the point of order that the
amendments to the bill must receive their first consideration in the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, as the bill was
in effect an omnibus bill including millions of dollars of
appropriations.
The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order, and the bill,
amendments, and report were referred to the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union.
3110. On February 3, 1893,\2\ the House resumed consideration of the
point of order submitted by Mr. William D. Bynum, of Indiana, against
the motion of Mr. William H. Hatch, of Missouri, that the House
disagree to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (S. 7845) defining
``options ``and ``futures,'' imposing special taxes on dealers therein,
and requiring such dealers and persons engaged in selling certain
products to obtain license, and for other purposes.
After further debate, the Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order,
holding that since the Senate amendments provided for a new and
distinct subject-matter of taxation not included in the original bill
they must receive their first consideration in the Committee of the
Whole, and therefore the motion to disagree to the amendment was not in
order at this time.
3111. Discretion of the Speaker in referring to committees bills on
the Speaker's table.--On March 1, 1901,\4\ Mr. John Dalzell, of
Pennsylvania, reported from the Committee on Rules, and the House
agreed to this resolution:
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H. R.
14017) making appropriations for the Army and without intervening
motion to move to concur in the Senate amendments thereto in gross;
after two hours, debate (one hour on each side) the previous question
shall be considered as ordered on said motion, and a vote then be had
thereon without delay or intervening motion.
Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, then made the point of order
that the rule was inoperative, since under the rule the bill, which on
the preceding day came from the Senate, must have been referred from
the Speaker's table to the Committee on Military Affairs.
The Speaker \5\ having had read section 2 of Rule XXIV,\6\ said:
The House is well aware--and the Chair presumes no one more so than
the gentleman from Tennessee, who submits this point of order--that in
the rule which the Chair has had read the language is ``may be
referred,'' not ``must be referred.''
Furthermore, every Speaker since the service of the present occupant
of the Chair began in this House has exercised a discretion in regard
to the matter of making references of bills immediately. This bill,
according to the practice for many years--the Chair does not know how
long--was not referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and is in
fact upon the Speaker's table. If the Speaker erred or departed from
the rule in retaining the bill on the table, that error would not do
away with the fact that here
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 68; Record, pp.
1150-1153.
\3\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 303-305;
Record, pp. 3331-3337.
\5\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\6\ See section 3089 of this work.
Sec. 3112
is the bill upon his table; and that alone destroys the effect of the
point of order submitted by the gentleman from Tennessee.
But the Chair believes that in this matter he has simply exercised a
discretion which has usually been exercised in this House by occupants
of the chair. There is scarcely a Member of this House who, when
interested in a bill coming from the Senate, as this bill came, has not
requested the Chair to hold the bill upon the Speaker's table until it
could be disposed of by unanimous consent or otherwise.
It was just as easy to make this special rule applicable to the bill
in the Committee of the Whole as on the Speaker's table. It was
absolutely within the right of the Committee on Rules to provide for
discharging the Committee on Military Affairs from the consideration of
the bill and taking it up in the House for consideration. But the bill
was not with that committee.
There is another point to which the Chair desires to invite the
attention of the House. No Member of this House has lost any rights by
reason of the bill remaining upon the Speaker's table. No one is
injured. If it had gone to the Committee on Military Affairs the
special rule would have been differently drafted. * * * The point of
order is overruled, * * * because the bill is on the Speaker's table.
That being the fact nothing more need have been said in deciding the
point of order. Whatever else the Chair may have said in this ruling
was designed to show that he has been acting in the line set by his
predecessors and in accordance with the practice of this House.
Mr. Richardson having called the attention of the Chair to a decision
of Mr. Speaker Reed,\1\ wherein the language ``should be'' referred,
not ``may be,'' had been used, the Speaker said:
That is true as to ultimate action; but nowhere in the rules or the
decisions can be found any notation, decision, or ruling saying just
when a bill shall be referred. This course is pursued-and the Chair
invites the attention of the gentleman-in the interest of the public
business, to facilitate and expedite the work of the House. It is the
course that has been repeatedly and in fact daily pursued, and the
Chair thinks it has been for the good of the public service, no one
being damaged.
3112. The rule governing the disposal of unfinished business.
Form and history of section 3 of Rule XXIV.
Section 3 of Rule XXIV provides:
The consideration of the unfinished business in which the House may
be engaged at an adjournment, except business in the morning hour,
shall be resumed as soon as the business on the Speaker's table is
finished, and at the same time each day thereafter until disposed of,
and the consideration of all other unfinished business shall be resumed
whenever the class of business to which it belongs shall be in order
under the rules.
This is the form adopted in the revision of 1890,\2\ and in its
general features is the form of the 1880 revision.\3\ But in 1880
unfinished business was placed after the morning hour for the call of
committees; and when, five years later, in the Forty-ninth Congress,
the second morning hour was instituted for the consideration of bills
brought up by committees,\4\ the unfinished business came so late that
bills on its list were reached only with great difficulty.
In 1890 the present rule restored it to a privileged position which
it had occupied prior to 1880.
The early rule relating to unfinished business was framed November
13, 1794: \5\
The unfinished business in which the House was engaged at the last
preceding adjournment shall have the preference in the orders of the
day; and no motion on any other business shall be received, without
special leave of the House, until the former is disposed of.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 3093 of this work.
\2\ First session Fifty-first Congress, House Report No. 23; also
Record, p. 1171 and following pages.
\3\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Congressional Record, p.
207.
\4\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 171, 337.
\5\ Third and Fourth Congresses, Journal, p. 228 (Gales and Seaton
ed.).
Sec. 3113
The practice of the House in regard to this rule had so grown up that
at the time of the revision of 1860 a bill pending at the time of
adjournment, and ready to be acted on, went to the Speaker's table
unless the previous question was ordered or a motion to recommit was
pending. In the order of business at that time the Speaker's table was
so encumbered and so far down on the list that in not one case in a
thousand could an unfinished bill be reached.\1\ Therefore in 1860 the
House adopted a rule which contained, in somewhat different form, the
principles of the present rule:
The consideration of the unfinished business in which the House may
be engaged at an adjournment shall be resumed as soon as the Journal of
the next day is read, and at the same time each day thereafter until
disposed of; and if, from any cause, other business shall intervene, it
shall be resumed as soon as such other business is disposed of. And the
consideration of all other unfinished business shall be resumed
whenever the class of business to which it belongs shall be in order
under the rules.
In the Fifty-second and Fifty-third Congresses the morning hour was
put back again to the place it occupied in the Fiftieth Congress, prior
to 1890, but unfinished business was again restored to its place of
privilege in the Fifty-fourth and succeeding Congresses.
3113. A bill brought up in the morning hour and undisposed of,
remains as unfinished business during call of committees only.--On
March 9, 1906,\2\ a Friday set apart under the rules for consideration
of pension bills, and after the consideration of such bills had been
concluded, Mr. Robert W. Bonynge, of Colorado, pursuant to an order of
the House made on March 5, moved that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the
consideration of the bill (H. R. 15442) to establish a bureau of
immigration and naturalization and to provide for a uniform rule for
the naturalization of aliens throughout the United States.
The order of March 5 provided that this bill should have the
privilege belonging to bills reported from committees having leave to
report at any time.
Mr. George W. Prince, of Illinois, called for the regular order,
claiming that the bill (H. R. 15744) to abolish the office of
Lieutenant-General of the Army of the United States, which had been
called up under call of committees on a preceding day, and on which the
House was dividing on the question of consideration at the adjournment
on that day, was the regular order, as unfinished business.
The Speaker pro tempore \3\ held:
The Chair will state that is unfinished business, the Chair is
informed, under the call of committees; and the Chair will state that
the call of committees would be in order at this time were it not for
the privileged motion which has been presented by the gentleman from
Colorado. The gentleman from Colorado moves that the House resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
for the consideration of the bill H. R. 15442, the title of which the
Clerk will read.\4\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See statement of Mr. Israel Washburn, of Maine. (First session
Thirty-sixth Congress, Globe, p. 1180.)
\2\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 3639, 3640.
\3\ Adin B. Capron, of Rhode Island, Speaker pro tempore.
\4\ Of course the House might have controlled the matter by voting
down the motion to go into Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 3114
3114. A motion relating to the order of business does not recur as
unfinished business on a succeeding day, even though the yeas and nays
may have been ordered on it before adjournment.--On September 15,
1893,\1\ the Speaker proceeded to call the committees for reports,\2\
whereupon Mr. Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, made the point that when
the House adjourned on the previous day the pending question was on his
motion to dispense with the morning hour,\3\ on which question the yeas
and nays had been ordered, and no quorum having voted thereon, that the
business first in order to-day was the motion submitted by himself, on
which the yeas and nays had been so ordered on the day before.
The Speaker \4\ overruled the point of order, holding that the motion
made by Mr. Burrows on the previous day, to dispense with the morning
hour, expired with the adjournment, as in case of a motion for a recess
or other motions incidental to the order of business, and that the
practice ordinarily prevailing where the yeas and nays have been
ordered did not apply to such questions; also, that if the motion of
Mr. Burrows could by any construction be considered as unfinished
business it would still not be in order until after the morning hour on
this day.\5\
3115. Bills reported from committees are distributed to three
Calendars, there to await action by the House.
Description of the House, Union, and Private Calendars.
Form and history of section 1 of Rule XIII.
The three Calendars, on which are classified the business reported
from committees, are established by section 1 of Rule XIII.
There shall be three Calendars of business reported from committees,
viz:
First. A Calendar of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, to which shall be referred bills raising revenue, general
appropriation bills, and bills of a public character directly or
indirectly appropriating money or property.
Second. A House Calendar, to which shall be referred all bills of a
public character not raising revenue nor directly or indirectly
appropriating money or property.
Third. A Calendar of the Committee of the Whole House, to which shall
be referred all bills of a private character.
This rule is in the form adopted in the revision of 1880.\6\ While
the Calendars may be said to have been established at that time, yet
two of them had existed for many years as indispensable to the orderly
procedure with bills referred to the Committee of the Whole House and
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. On March
25, 1820,\7\ Mr. Joseph W. Taylor, of New York, proposed a rule, which
was agreed to on March 28, directing the Clerk under direction of the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 88.
\2\ Under the present rules committees are not called for reports.
\3\ Rule XXIV, section 3, of the Fifty-third Congress provided for
dispensing with the morning hour by a two-thirds vote. There is no
provision of this kind in the present rule. See section 3112.
\4\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
\5\ In the Fifty-third Congress the morning hour came before
unfinished business. This is not the case now. See section 3056.
\6\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 205.
\7\ First session Sixteenth Congress, Journal, pp. 335, 344 (Gales
and Seaton ed.); Annals, p. 1675 The above rule was temporary, and we
find it proposed again at the next session. (Second session Sixteenth
Congress, Journal, p. 190 (Gales and Seaton ed.); Annals, p. 1000.)
Sec. 3116
Speaker to arrange the business referred ``to the Committee of the
Whole House'' in the following order: (1) Private Senate bills
favorably reported by a House committee; (2) private House bills
reported by a committee; (3) bills of a public nature; (4) Senate bills
unfavorably reported by a House committee; (5) reports unfavorable to
petitions. In those days nearly all business was referred to Committee
of the Whole, whether it required an appropriation or not. And from
that time onward there were orderly lists of business before the
Committees of the Whole.\1\ The old rule No. 129, dating from January
25, 1839,\2\ referred to a Calendar of the private bills committed to
the Committee of the Whole House, and old rule No. 114, dating from
July 27, 1848,\3\ in the same way referred to a Calendar for bills sent
to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. In 1880
the House Calendar was established for a class of bills which did not
belong in either of the Committees of the Whole. Such bills had
formerly been considered during the hour for reports of committees,
thereby seriously interfering with that order of business and making it
impossible to report many important measures from committees.\4\ To
reform that abuse the House Calendar was created.
3116. Nonprivileged reports are delivered to the Clerk for reference
to the Calendars under direction of the Speaker.
The record of reports filed with the Clerk is entered in the Journal
and printed in the Record.
Adverse reports do not go to the Calendars except by direction of a
committee or request of a Member.
Form and history of section 2 of Rule XIII.
Section 2 of Rule XIII prescribes the method of making nonprivileged
reports from committees.
Before 1890 all reports were made in open House from the floor; and
the system of discriminating in favor of the more important business
had been established by giving certain committees leave to report at
any time. These favored committees still report from the floor; but
their privilege is valuable only in that it gives their bills a
privileged status for consideration. See section 4621 of this volume.
All reports of committees, except as provided in clause 61 of Rule
XI, together with the views of the minority, shall be delivered to the
Clerk for printing and reference to the proper Calendar under the
direction of the Speaker, in accordance with the foregoing clause, and
the titles or subjects thereof shall be entered on the Journal and
printed in the Record.
Provided, That bills reported adversely shall be laid on the table
unless the committee reporting a bill, at the time, or any Member
within three days thereafter, shall request its reference to the
Calendar, when it shall be referred as provided in clause 1 of this
rule.
This rule dates from the revision of 1890.\5\ Previous to that time
reports of committees were made in open House during what was called
the morning hour for
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On January 30, 1829 (Second session Twentieth Congress, Debates,
pp. 296-298), we find complaint that adverse reports from the Committee
on Claims went to the foot of the docket, and could not be reached by
the House until favorable reports had been acted on. Of 2,000 committee
reports in the first session of the Twentieth Congress about three-
fourths were adverse.
\2\ Third session Twenty-fifth Congress, Globe, p. 146.
\3\ First session Thirtieth Congress, Globe, p. 1006.
\4\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Congressional Record, p.
200.
\5\ First session Fifty-first Congress, House Report No. 23; Record,
pp. 1284, 1340.
Sec. 3117
reports, and were referred to the proper Calendars in accordance with
the rule unless a vote should be demanded, when the House decided the
reference without debate. The old rule was restored in a modified form
in the Fifty-second and Fifty-third Congress, but in the Fifty-fourth
the revision of 1890 was restored.
3117. A bill improperly reported from a committee is not entitled to
its place on the Calendar.--On January 17, 1899,\1\ Mr. James T.
McCleary, of Minnesota, made the following statement:
It has been found that the vote by which the bill No. 10289 (a bill
to provide for strengthening the public credit, for the relief of the
United States Treasury, and for the amendment of the laws relating to
national banking associations) was reported to the House from the
Committee on Banking and Currency was not taken in due form. I am
therefore authorized and directed by the committee to ask that the bill
be recommitted.
The Speaker \2\ said:
The Chair desires to say that if the vote in committee was improperly
taken the bill would not be properly on the files of the House. The
easiest way, therefore, to reach the matter would be to ask unanimous
consent, which proposition the Chair will regard as agreed to if there
be no objection, that the bill be recommitted. The Chair hears no
objection.
On January 20, 1899,\3\ Mr. Marriott Brosius, of Pennsylvania, made
this statement:
I have been authorized by the Committee on Reform in the Civil
Service to ask to recommit to that committee the bill (S. 3256) in
reference to the civil service and appointments thereunder, which was
reported to the House and went upon the Calendar some time ago in an
irregular manner. I ask to have it recommitted.
The bill was recommitted by unanimous consent.
3118. The rule for consideration of bills on the House Calendar on
call of committees.
Form and history of section 4 of Rule XXIV.
Section 4 of Rule XXIV is the rule of the morning hour:
After the unfinished business has been disposed of, the Speaker shall
call each standing committee in regular order and then select
committees, and each committee when named may call up for consideration
any bill reported by it on a previous day and on the House Calendar,
and if the Speaker shall not complete the call of the committees before
the House passes to other business he shall resume the next call where
he left off, giving preference to the last bill under consideration:
Provided, That whenever any committee shall have occupied the morning
hour on two days it shall not be in order to call up any other bill
until the other committees have been called in their turn.
The morning hour is one of the older institutions of the House, but
its use has varied greatly. For many years, and until 1885, the morning
hour meant the time during which committees were called for reports.
In 1885 \4\ a second morning hour was instituted, to follow the
morning hour for reports, and to be devoted to bills on the House or
Union Calendars; that is, public bills called up by committees. This
second morning hour was of sixty minutes, length, and whenever any bill
had occupied two hours it went to the Calendar of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 705.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\3\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 851.
\4\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 171, 337.
Sec. 3119
unfinished business,\1\ at that time an order reached with difficulty.
In 1890 \2\ the present form of rule was adopted and the first morning
hour for reports of committees was abolished, reports instead being
filed with the Clerk.\3\ This rule relates only to such bills as are on
the House Calendar and the hour is not limited to sixty minutes, thus
enabling a bill once taken up to be concluded, and obviating the great
disadvantage of the morning hour created in 1885. Previous to the
revision of 1880 \4\ public bills not appropriating money were
considered during the morning hour for the call of committees. As this
arrangement often obstructed reports, this class of bills were given a
Calendar which was in order so near the end of the day (coming after
morning hour, unfinished business, and business of the Speaker's table)
as to make it very difficult to reach it. So in 1885 the second morning
hour was instituted for public bills of both kinds, and placed before
unfinished business. In 1890, the old morning hour being abolished, the
term came to mean the time for considering bills on the House Calendar.
The Fifty-second and Fifty-third Congresses returned to the system of
two morning hours, in use previous to 1890, but the Fifty-fourth
Congress restored the rule of 1890.
3119. The call of committees in the morning hour does not necessarily
end in sixty minutes.--On March 24, 1896,\5\ the House was considering
in the morning hour for the call of committees the bill (S. 1179)
relating to the appointment of officers in the Army and Navy.
During the consideration Mr. Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, made the
point of order that the morning hour had expired.
The Speaker \6\ held:
Under the rules of the House any Member is at liberty to make a
motion which will close the morning hour, but the morning hour does not
expire of itself.
3120. A bill once brought up on call of committees continues before
the House in that order of business until finally disposed of.--On July
1, 1898,\7\ while the bill (H. R. 10807) relating to the International
American Bank was pending in the morning hour, a question arose as to
the length of time during which the bill would be entitled to
consideration.
Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, suggested that after a bill had been
considered in the morning hour during two sessions of the House it then
lost its privilege.
The Speaker \6\ said that this was an error, the rule being intended
to allow business to be finished. The language of the rule was intended
to prevent a committee that had used the morning hour for two days from
calling up any new bill until other committees had been called; but a
bill once taken up might be continued in the morning hour until
concluded.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Rules Fiftieth Congress, section 5 of Rule XXIV.
\2\ Home Report No. 23, first session Fifty-first Congress.
\3\ See section 3166.
\4\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 200.
\5\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 3156.
\6\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\7\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 6593, 6594.
Sec. 3121
3121. Interpretation of the rule of the call of committees in the
form existing prior to 1890.--On October 25, 1893,\1\ the House
proceeded to business in the second morning hour,\2\ the call resting
on the Committee on the Public Lands, and the question being on the
point of order submitted by Mr. Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, on the
23d instant, to wit, that it was not in order during the consideration
hour for a committee to present for consideration a proposition which
had previously occupied the hour on two successive days.
The Speaker \3\ overruled the point of order, holding as follows:
The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. McRae], chairman of the Committee on
the Public Lands, calls up for consideration a bill (H. R. 119) which
had heretofore been called up under the morning hour, and had its
consideration for two hours under the rule. The question is raised
against the bill that under the rule providing the second morning hour,
or consideration hour, it is not the privilege of a committee to call
up in this hour any bill which has been reported by the committee and
which has already had the two hours' consideration specified by the
rule. The Chair will read the rule:
``4. After the morning hour shall have been devoted to reports from
committees (or the call completed), the Speaker shall again call the
committees in regular order for one hour, upon which call each
committee, on being named, shall have the right to call up for
consideration any bill reported by it on a previous day. And whenever
any committee shall have occupied the said hour for one day, it shall
not be in order for such committee to designate any other proposition
for consideration until all the other committees shall have been called
in their turn; and when any proposition shall have occupied two hours
on this call it shall thereafter remain on the Calendar as unfinished
business and be taken up in its order.''
The Chair has had some difficulty in determining exactly what was the
proper construction of that rule, but, after such examination as the
Chair has been able to give to it, is of opinion that the power of the
committee to call up any bill reported by it on a previous day is not
limited or taken away by the fact that they have once called it up and
that it has had its consideration for the two hours specified in the
rule. The practice, as the Chair understands it, is expressed in the
Digest for the second session of the last Congress, on page 384:
``A bill having been considered in this hour on two days takes
precedence on the calendars as unfinished business, according to
provisions of clause 5 of Rule XXIV, or, if the committee presenting it
so elect, they may again present it for consideration during the
consideration hour when that committee is again called in its turn.''
Now the suggestion is made that this construction of the rule may
operate badly. Of course that suggestion would have force, and does
have force, when a rule is subject to two constructions; and the Chair
is frank to say that this rule is not perfectly clear. Yet it seems to
the Chair that the practice just stated is more consistent with the
language of the rule than any other; and the Chair does not see that
this practice, as thus suggested, could ever interfere with the right
of the committee or the orderly business of the House.
3122. A bill must be actually on the House Calendar, and properly
there also, in order to be considered in the morning hour.--On December
10, 1896,\4\ during the call of committees, Mr. H. Henry Powers, of
Vermont, from the Committee on Pacific Railroads, called up the bill
(H. R. 6398) relating to the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 154.
\2\ The first morning hour was for the call of committees for
reports. (See sec. 3118.) This precedent has no application to the
present rule of the morning hour. The present rule was adopted in 1890
and readopted in 1895. From 1892 to 1895 the old rule, which had
existed before 1890, was temporarily restored.
\3\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 83.
Sec. 3123
Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company, stating that the bill had
inadvertently been referred to the calendar of the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union, but that it properly belonged on
the House Calendar, as it involved no appropriation.
Mr. Thomas C. McRae, of Arkansas, made the point of order that the
bill was not in order for consideration.
The Speaker \1\ held:
The point of order is that the bill is not in order at the present
time, because the rule expressly provides that only bills recommended
by the committees, and on the House Calendar, shall be considered in
this order. This bill is not on the House Calendar, but on the Union
Calendar. * * * The placing of a bill on the House Calendar is intended
for two purposes--first, that it shall not carry an appropriation or
the equivalent of it, and that there shall be notice to the House that
it is liable to be taken up. Not being on the House Calendar, even if
it ought to have been, there is no notice. * * * Therefore if the point
of order is insisted on it must be sustained on that ground.
3123. On January 18, 1897,\2\ during the call of committees, Mr.
Joseph A. Scranton, of Pennsylvania, called up the bill (S. 2555) to
authorize the issuance of leases of certain islands in Alaska.
The bill not being on the House Calendar, the Speaker \1\ said:
It must be on the Calendar to be in order under this call. * * * The
idea of this committee hour, so called, is to bring up bills which are
on the Calendar of the House and which do not involve an appropriation.
The bill is required to be on the Calendar, so that the House may have
some notice of its existence as a bill.
3124. On February 9, 1897,\3\ during the morning hour for the call of
committees, Mr. W. C. Anderson, of Tennessee, called up the bill (H. R.
7539) to facilitate the payment of pensions, which was on the House
Calendar.
Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, made the point of order that the
bill was improperly on the House Calendar.
The Speaker \1\ ruled:
The Chair sustains the point of order. The bill has been placed on
the House Calendar, but there is a rule of the House which provides
that a point of order may be made as to the reference of a bill at any
time before consideration; and, while the charge upon the Treasury made
by the bill is a small one, nevertheless it is a charge, and the
question is not one of amount, but of principle.
3125. On March 1, 1900,\4\ during the call of committees in the
morning hour Mr. H. Henry Powers, of Vermont, from the Committee on
Pacific Railroads, asked leave to call up the bill (H. R. 2864), which
in full was as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury, the
Secretary of the Interior, and the Attorney General of the United
States are hereby authorized and empowered to make settlement and
adjustment with the Sioux City and Pacific Railroad Company of its
indebtedness to the Government of the United States, and when such
settlement is approved by the President it shall become operative, and
the Attorney-General shall make the necessary acquittances to said
railroad company.
This bill being on the Union Calendar, Mr. Powers asked that it be
transferred to the House Calendar, as properly belonging there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 903.
\3\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1686.
\4\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2455.
Sec. 3126
After debate the Speaker \1\ said:
The Chair is of opinion, after examining the authorities, that the
bill ought to be on the House Calendar, and will make the change of
reference. He must state, however, that the bill can not be again
called up on the same day without unanimous consent, as it is due to
the House that the bill, when called up, should be on the printed
Calendar, so that members shall be duly notified, shall have timely
warning, that a bill is liable to be brought up on this call.
3126. On December 7, 1906,\2\ the Committee on Insular Affairs was
called on the call of committees, and Mr. Henry A. Cooper, of
Wisconsin, called up the bill (H. R. 17661) providing that the
inhabitants of Puerto Rico shall be citizens of the United States.
A question arising as to the position of the bill, the Speakers \3\
said:
The gentleman from Wisconsin seeks to call up the bill (H. R. 17661)
reported from the Committee on Insular Affairs, with an amendment,
providing that the inhabitants of Puerto Rico shall be citizens of the
United States. This bill is on the Union Calendar and not upon the
House Calendar. Being upon the Union Calendar, it is, therefore, not
within the rule. The gentleman, however, makes the point that the bill
should not be upon the Union Calendar, but ought to be upon the House
Calendar. The Chair, upon examination of the bill, is inclined to the
opinion that the bill ought to be upon the House and not upon the Union
Calendar. The bill, however, is upon the Union Calendar.
The Speaker thereupon directed that the bill be transferred to the
House Calendar.
Mr. Cooper thereupon proceeded to call up the bill for consideration.
A question of order having been raised by Mr. Champ. Clark, of
Missouri, the Speaker held:
Now, then, upon that motion it has been held that a bill must be
actually on the House Calendar, and properly so also, in order to be
considered in the morning hour. The idea is, as the Chair understands
the ruling and the rule, that the House should have notice of what is
liable to be called upon the House Calendar in the morning hour. Now,
the House did not have that notice upon the Calendar when the gentleman
called the bill, and the gentleman then elected to make the point of
order that the bill should be upon the House Calendar and not upon the
Union Calendar. In the opinion of the Chair, as the gentleman from
Missouri objects, the bill is not subject to call to-day in the morning
hour.
3127. On the call of committees each bill must be called on
authorization of the committee; but in case of dispute as to the
authorization the Speaker can not decide as to the fact.--On December
8, 1886,\4\ in the morning hour, when the Committee on Naval Affairs
had been called, Mr. Hilary A. Herbert, of Alabama, proposed to bring
before the House a resolution fixing a time for the consideration of
the bill (H. R. 7635) to consolidate certain bureaus of the Navy
Department.
Mr. Charles A. Boutelle, of Maine, having made the point of order
that the gentleman from Alabama was not authorized by the committee to
bring up the proposition under the call of committees, and a difference
of opinion having arisen as to whether or not the committee had given
an authorization, the Speaker \5\ held:
The Chair decides that under the rule a measure must be called up by
the committee having it in charge, which means that the committee must
authorize it to be called up, just as a committee author
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 172.
\3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 43.
\5\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
Sec. 3128
izes a report to be made, or as a committee is required to authorize a
motion to suspend the rules when committees are called for that
purpose. But whether the committee did or did not authorize its
chairman to call up a particular measure is a question of fact which,
of course, the Chair can not decide. * * * That is a question of fact
which must be decided by the committee itself, and the Chair must
depend, of course, upon the good faith of Members in regard to that
matter. Where there is a difference of opinion upon a question of that
sort, it is impossible for the Chair to decide it.
3128. The Speaker may, upon statements from the chairman and other
members of a committee, rule that the calling up of a bill has been
authorized by a committee.--On December 15, 1898,\1\ Mr. Ebenezer J.
Hill, of Connecticut, called up the bill (H. R. 10807) relating to the
incorporation of the International American Bank, which had come over
from the preceding session of Congress with a point of order pending.
This point of order was presented anew by Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of
Texas, who contended that Mr. Hill was not authorized by the Committee
on Banking and Currency to call up this bill, but had in fact been
authorized to call up a Senate bill relating to the same subject.
Mr. Joseph H. Walker, of Massachusetts, chairman of the committee,
having been recognized, stated that the committee had authorized Mr.
Hill to call up the House bill; but that by an error the records of the
committee had been made up to show that the authorization was given for
the Senate bill. This error the committee had corrected at its earliest
opportunity, which was at its meeting of the previous day, December 14.
After further debate the Speaker \2\ decided:
The Chair desires to say that the point of order which was made by
the gentleman from Texas was amply justified by the record of the
committee as it stood at that time. But the committee has since
corrected the record, presumably, necessarily, and we have got to look
at the point of order now in accordance with the facts which are now
before us, which seem to indicate, in fact indicate absolutely, that
the gentleman was authorized to bring up the bill. If that be the case,
the Chair does not see how he can do anything but overrule the point of
order.
3129. A bill taken up during the call of committees may be withdrawn
by the committee at any time before amendment or other action which
puts it into possession of the House.--On January 12, 1897,\3\ during
the call of committees in the morning hour, Mr. James D. Richardson, of
Tennessee, for the Committee on Printing, called up the bill (H. R.
9601) relating to the franking privilege.
After consideration of the bill and after an amendment had been
offered, the previous question was demanded. On this question there
were yeas 37, nays 73.
Mr. Richardson then proposed to withdraw the bill from consideration.
Mr. Charles A. Boutelle, of Maine, raised a question of order as to
the right of the gentleman to withdraw the bill at this stage.
The Speaker,\2\ after having raised a question as to whether or not
amendments had been voted on by the House, and it having been stated
that an amendment had been informally suggested and accepted without a
vote on the part of the House, decided that with the authority of the
committee the bill might be withdrawn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 221, 222;
Journal, p. 34.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 740, 764;
Journal, p. 77.
Sec. 3130
3130. The Speaker has declined to allow the call of committees to be
interrupted by a request for unanimous consent.--On December 12,
1904,\1\ a call for the regular order having been made, the House
proceeded to the call of committees, and during that call Mr. William
Richardson, of Alabama, asked unanimous consent for the present
consideration of the bill (H. R. 2510) for the construction of a steam
revenue cutter. This bill, being on the Union Calendar, was not in
order under the call of committees, and the Speaker \2\ said:
Under the rule, being on the Union Calendar, it cannot be considered
in the morning hour. * * * I think unanimous consent is universally
refused on the call. The Chair would be compelled to exercise his right
as a Member if nobody else appeared to make objection. * * * The Chair
will state, as the Chair's recollection, it has been the practice of
the Speaker on his own motion as presiding officer not to allow this
order of business to be interrupted to consider matters in the morning
hour on the Union Calendar.
3131. The call of committees may be interrupted at the end of sixty
minutes by a privileged report as well as by a motion to go into
Committee of the Whole.
A report which is privileged to be reported at any time is also
privileged for consideration at any time, irrespective of the rule for
the order of business.
On August 19, 1890,\3\ the House was proceeding in the morning hour
with the consideration of a bill (H. R. 4654) relating to alien
landowners. At the expiration of sixty minutes, and while Mr. Thomas H.
Carter, of Montana, had the floor, Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois,
interrupted to make a privileged report from the Committee on Rules.
Mr. W. C. P. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, made the point of order that
the morning hour did not expire at the expiration of sixty minutes.
The Speaker pro tempore \4\ overruled the point of order as to the
termination of the morning hour, and held that it might be terminated
by the presentation of privileged reports as well as by a motion to go
into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, as
provided by clause 5 of Rule XXIV; \5\ and as clause 51,\6\ Rule XI,
gave the Committee on Rules the right to report at any time
propositions relating to the daily order of business, the right to
consider such report when made followed under the established practice
of the House, subject, of course, to the ``question of consideration,''
as provided in clause 3, Rule XVI.\7\
3132. On December 17, 1902,\8\ Mr. Speaker Henderson declined to
allow the call of committees to be interrupted by a privileged report
from the Committee on Ways and Means before the expiration of sixty
minutes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 163.
\2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\3\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 969; Record, p.
8819.
\4\ Lewis E. Payson, of Illinois, Speaker pro tempore.
\5\ See section 3134.
\6\ Now clause 61 of Rule XI.
\7\ See section 4936 of Vol. V of this work.
\8\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 420.
Sec. 3133
3133. The House having completed the order of business and not being
ready to adjourn, the Speaker directed the call of committees to be
resumed.--On February 13, 1902,\1\ after the House had proceeded with
the call of committees for sixty minutes, a motion was made and carried
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (S. 88) for
the relief of persons for property taken from them by military forces
of the United States.
After some time the committee rose and reported the bill favorably,
and it was passed by the House.
Then, a call being made for the regular order and no further motion
to go into Committee of the Whole being made, the Speaker\2\ directed
that the Call of committees be resumed.\3\
3134. The rule for interrupting a call of committees at the end of
sixty minutes.
Conditions under which motions may be made to go into Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union to consider nonprivileged
bills.
Form and history of section 5 of Rule XXIV.
Section 5 of Rule XXIV is:
After one hour shall have been devoted to the consideration of bills
called up by committees, it shall be in order, pending consideration or
discussion thereof, to entertain a motion to go into Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union, or, when authorized by a
committee, to go into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union to consider a particular bill, to which motion one amendment
only, designating another bill, may be made; and if either motion be
determined in the negative, it shall not be in order to make either
motion again until the disposal of the matter under consideration or
discussion.
This rule dates from 1890,\4\ and has been in use in the Fifty-first,
Fifty-fourth, and succeeding Congresses. It places motions to go into
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union very nearly at
the end of the order of business, which has been its position for many
years. But the shortening of the order in 1890 has rendered it possible
to reach this class of business early in the day if no privileged
matters intervene to consume the time.\5\
3135. The motion to go into Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union may be made after sixty minutes of morning hour, or sooner
if that order fails.
An instance wherein the House, by recess, remained for two calendar
days at the stage of business wherein the motion under Rule XXIV,
section 5, was in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 1716, 1719.
\2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\3\ This is a rare instance of a day wherein the House has gone
entirely through with the order of business. Often privileged matters
intervene to such an extent as to prevent the House from reaching even
the call of committees for days at a time.
\4\ House Report No. 23, first session Fifty-first Congress.
\5\ See section 3072 for the rule which gives precedence to motions
for going into Committee of the Whole to consider revenue and
appropriation bills.
Sec. 3136
An instance wherein the House came to the end of its order of
business.
On January 19, 1904,\1\ in the regular order of business the Speaker
directed the Clerk to call the committees for consideration of bills
called up from the House Calendar. The call proceeding, and Mr. William
P. Hepburn, of Iowa, having the floor, a question arose as to the next
order of business, when the Speaker \2\ said:
If the call of committees is proceeded with, the Chair is of opinion
that at the end of sixty minutes the gentleman can be recognized to
make any motion that he may desire, or if the call expires before sixty
minutes, and the committees have all been called, the gentleman's
motion will be in order if he desires to reach the Union Calendar. When
the call of committees is completed, even though sixty minutes be not
used, it would be in order, the Chair thinks, and at the end of sixty
minutes whatever may be under consideration.
The call of committees proceeding and being exhausted before the end
of sixty minutes, Mr. Hepburn was recognized and moved that the House
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 6295) for preventing
the adulteration, misbranding, and imitation of foods, beverages,
candies, drugs, and condiments in the District of Columbia and the
Territories, and for regulating interstate traffic therein, and for
other purposes.
This motion was agreed to, and after some time spent in Committee of
the Whole, the committee rose and the Chairman reported that it had
come to no resolution on the pending bill.
Then, after the transaction of sundry matters of business, the House,
on motion of Mr. Hepburn, took a recess until 11:55 a. m. the next
calendar day.
When the House met at 11:55 a. m. on the calendar day of January
20,\3\ Mr. Hepburn was at once recognized and moved that the House
resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union for the consideration of the said bill (H. R. 6295) for
preventing the adulteration of foods, etc. The motion was agreed to,
and after some time the Committee of the Whole rose and reported the
bill with sundry amendments and a favorable recommendation.
The amendments were voted on by the House, and the bill as amended
was engrossed, read a third time, and passed.
3136. The motion to go into Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union under section 5 of Rule XXIV may be repeated, although the
committee may have risen after having considered a bill under that
order of business.--On April 30, 1900,\4\ after sixty minutes under the
call of committees, a motion was made under section 5 of Rule XXIV, to
go into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to
consider the bill (H. R. 6634) to enlarge the powers of the Department
of Agriculture in relation to transportation of game, etc. The
committee having risen and reported this bill, and the same having been
passed, the Speaker entertained another motion to go into Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union, to consider the bill (S.
1939) authorizing the appointment of a commission to study commercial
and industrial conditions in China and Japan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 877, 878, 900,
901.
\2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\3\ Record, pp. 924, 940.
\4\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 4875, 4876;
Journal, pp. 522, 524.
Sec. 3137
3137. At the end of one hour of the call of committees the House may
on motion resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union one or several times.--On March 14, 1902,\1\ in the
regular order of business, there was a call of committees for the
consideration of bills on the House Calendar. After this call had
proceeded for sixty minus Mr. Llewellyn Powers, of Maine, moved, under
the rule, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.
R. 11997) granting to the Hawaii Ditch Company (Limited) right of way,
etc. This motion was agreed to, and after some time the Committee of
the Whole rose and the bill was reported favorably. Thereupon it was
passed by the House.
Then, on motion of Mr. De Alva S. Alexander, of New York, the House
resolved itself again into Committee of the Whole House (no particular
bill being mentioned). In committee motions were successively made and
carried to take up several bills, which were successively considered
and laid aside with favorable recommendations.
Then the committee rose and reported the bills, which were acted on
by the House.
3138. The motion to go into Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union to consider a particular bill must be authorized by a
committee, but the individual Member may move to go in generally.
The House, at the end of the morning hour, having gone into Committee
of the Whole generally, the committee may determine the order of
considering business on its Calendar.
The amendment referred to in section 5 of Rule XXIV does not refer to
motions to take up bills after the House has gone into Committee of the
Whole.
On December 12, 1904, after the House had spent an hour in the call
of committees, Mr. Ebenezer J. Hill, of Connecticut, moved that the
House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union for consideration of the bill (H. R. 4831) ``to improve
currency conditions,''
Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, after reading section 5 of Rule
XXIV, called attention to the fact that Mr. Hill was not a member of
the committee which had reported the bill, and questioned whether or
not Mr. Hill had been ``authorized by a committee'' to specify this
``particular bill'' in his motion.
Mr. Hill being unable to show his authority when interrogated by the
Speaker, the Speaker \3\ said:
Any Member has a right to make a motion to go into Committtee of the
Whole, but to designate a particular bill it seems to the Chair, the
gentleman must first have the authorization of that committee.
Thereupon Mr. Hill moved that the House resolve itself into Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
Mr. Bartlett, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, said:
I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry as to whether, if we go into
the Committee of the Whole generally, the Union Calendar will then be
taken up in the order in which we find the bills reported on the
Calendar.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 2805, 2809,
2811, 2813.
\2\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 167, 168.
\3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 3139
The Speaker said:
The Chair understands that this particular bill (meaning H. R. 4831)
is upon the Calendar. * * * The Chair understands that it is quite
within the power of the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Hill], if the
House should resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union, to move to take up this particular bill. * * *
It is for the committee to regulate its own order of business. The
question is on the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut that the
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union.
Mr. Bartlett having inquired if the motion was debatable, the Speaker
said, ``No; it is not.''
Thereupon the motion was agreed to.
In the committee, Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, having made
an inquiry as to the order of business, the Chairman \1\ said:
It is within the power of the committee to designate what bill it
shall consider.
Mr. Hill having moved to take up the bill (H. R. 4831), Mr. Williams
moved as a substitute to this motion ``that the committee proceed to
consider the bills upon the Union Calendar in the order of their
priority.''
Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, made the point of order that Mr.
Hill's motion might be amended only by a motion to take up another
bill.
The Chairman said:
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Payne] has in mind another rule,
which applies to a motion made before the House resolves itself into
the Committee of the Whole, which is section 5 of Rule XXIV. The Chair
considers that the rule applicable now is section 4 of Rule XXIII.
3139. The motion to go into Committee of the Whole to consider a
particular bill after a call of committees may be amended only by
substituting another bill on the Union Calendar.--On May 17, 1898,\2\
after an hour had been consumed in the consideration of bills called up
by committees, Mr. John J. Gardner, of New Jersey, moved that the House
resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union for the purpose of considering the bill (H. R. 4073) authorizing
the appointment of a nonpartisan labor commission.
Mr. William H. Moody, of Massachusetts, proposed an amendment: ``And
also to consider House bill No. 369,'' which was a private claim bill
on the Calendar of the Committee of the Whole House.
Points of order having been made against this motion, the Speaker pro
tempore \3\ held that under the rule the amendment extended only to the
substitution of another bill, not to the addition of one; and that only
bills on the Calendar of the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union were intended.\4\
3140. When, by authority of a committee, a motion is made to go into
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to consider a
particular bill (not a revenue or appropriation bill) an amendment
designating another bill may be offered by a Member individually.--On
January, 6, 1891,\5\ after one hour devoted to the consideration of
bills called up by commit-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4988.
\3\ Sereno, E. Payne, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
\4\ See section 3134 for the rule.
\5\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 103: Record, p.
961.
Sec. 3141
tees, Mr. John M. Farquhar, of New York, by direction of the Committee
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, moved that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the
consideration of the bill of the Senate (S. 3738) to place American
merchant marine engaged in the foreign trade upon an equality with that
of other nations.
Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, moved to amend the motion, so
as to provide that the said committee proceed to the consideration of
the bill of the House (H. R. 5353), defining ``options'' and
``futures'' and imposing special taxes upon dealers therein, and for
other purposes.
Mr. Nelson Dingley, jr., of Maine, made the point of order that Mr.
Springer was not authorized by any committee to make the motion, and,
therefore, the motion was not in order.
The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order.
3141. It is not in order, before the expiration of sixty minutes of
the call of committees, to move to go into Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union to consider a bill that is not privileged.--
On December 19, 1906,\2\ after the reading of the Journal and before
there had been a call of committees in accordance with the rule for the
order of business, Mr. Charles E. Littlefield, of Maine, moved that the
House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 2) requiring all
corporations engaged in interstate commerce to make returns, and for
other purposes.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made a point of order that the motion
was not in order.
The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order, on the ground that the
morning hour had not expired.
3142. The right of a committee to report at any time carries with it
the right to have the matter reported considered.--On January 12,
1852,\4\ Mr. Willis A. Gorman, of Indiana, from the Committee on
Printing, reported a resolution for the printing of copies of the Coast
Survey Report. Debate having arisen thereon, Mr. Joshua R. Giddings, of
Ohio, made the point of order that under the twenty-sixth rule \5\ this
day was set apart for the introduction, upon a call of the States, of
resolutions which should give rise to no debate, and that the pending
resolution must consequently be passed over.
The Speaker \6\ decided that, inasmuch as the twenty-first joint rule
permitted the Committee on Printing to report at any time, he was of
the impression that the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 555.
\3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\4\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, p. 195; Globe, p.
253.
\5\ The twenty-sixth rule provided ``All States and Territories shall
be called for resolutions on each alternate Monday during each session
of Congress,'' etc. This rule is no longer in existence.
\6\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\7\ The twenty-first joint rule was: ``It shall be in order for the
Committee on Printing to report at any time.'' The House and Senate
have not had joint rules since 1875, when the Forty-fourth Congress did
not adopt them. There had been such rules from the First Congress until
that time. The House rule giving the Committee on Printing leave to
report at any time was not adopted until 1860.
Sec. 3143
authority to report carried with it the authority to dispose of the
matter reported; he therefore overruled the point of order.
Mr. Giddings appealing, the decision of the Chair was sustained.
3143. On August 4, 1852,\1\ the Speaker announced as the business
first in order the bill of the House (No. 146) to regulate the fees and
costs to be allowed clerks, marshals, and attorneys of the circuit and
district courts of the United States, and for other purposes.
Mr. Charles E. Stuart, of Michigan, made the point of order that this
bill, not having been made a special order, was not entitled to
precedence over bills previously reported and which had not yet been
disposed of.
The Speaker \2\ decided:
On last Monday, after a suspension of the rules by a two-thirds vote,
it was ordered by the House that the Committee on the Judiciary should
report this particular bill. The order having been given thus to report
it, the Chair thinks it carries with it the right to consider; and that
you can not separate the right to report and the right to consider when
it is reported. There is difficulty about the matter, the Chair admits,
but that is his opinion with regard to the point of order.
On an appeal the decision of the Chair was sustained.\3\
3144. On June 8, 1860,\4\ Mr. John Hickman, of Pennsylvania, called
up the report of the Committee on the Judiciary on the message of the
President protesting against certain proceedings of the House.
Mr. Martin J. Crawford, of Georgia, made a point of order against the
consideration of the report.
The Speaker \5\ overruled the point of order on the ground that the
committee had authority to report at any time, which, under the
precedents, carried with it the right to consider at any time the
report when made.
Mr. Crawford having appealed, the decision of the Chair was
sustained.
3145. A bill reported by a committee under its right to report at any
time remains privileged for consideration until disposed of.--On July
27, 1886,\6\ Mr. Lewis E. Payson, of Illinois, moved that the House
proceed to the further consideration of the bill of the Senate
restoring certain railroad lands, reported from the Committee on Public
Lands on the preceding day with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute, and pending when the House adjourned.
Mr. Horace B. Strait, of Minnesota, made the point of order that the
motion was not in order at the present time, for the reason that the
bill and amendment, though in order for consideration on the day
reported, did not retain their privileged character beyond that day.
Not being disposed of at the adjournment, the bill and amendment had
gone to the Calendar of Unfinished Business, and their consideration
was not now in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, p. 1009; Globe, p.
2065.
\2\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\3\ For similar ruling see also second session Forty-seventh
Congress, Journal, pp. 162, 163; Record, p. 860.
\4\ First session Thirty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 1039; Globe, p.
2774.
\5\ William Pennington, of New Jersey, Speaker.
\6\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 2360; Record, p.
7602.
Sec. 3146
The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order on the ground that the
bill was a privileged matter, under clause 49, Rule XI,\2\ and there
being no restriction in the rule as to its privileged character, it
remained a privileged matter until disposed of, subject to the question
of consideration and matters of higher privilege.
3146. Bills from a committee having leave to report at any time must
be reported from the floor of the House and not by filing them with the
Clerk.
Although a privileged matter may lose its privilege by an informal
manner of making the report, the injury may be repaired by a new
report.
On March 26, 1890,\3\ Mr. Byron M. Cutcheon, of Michigan, moved that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for the consideration of general appropriation
bills, the object being to reach the Army bill.
Mr. Mark S. Brewer, of Michigan, made the point of order that the
bill was not properly referred to the Committee of the Whole, having
been filed with the Clerk under clause 2, Rule XIII, instead of under
clause 51, Rule XI.\4\
The Speaker \5\ sustained the point of order, but said that the
report could be made to the House then.
This was done, and the bill was at once referred to the Committee of
the Whole, Mr. Brewer reserving points of order.
3147. The report of a select committee appointed ``to examine and
report'' on a certain subject is not privileged.--On February 24,
1897,\6\ Mr. William W. Grout, of Vermont, from the select committee on
the investigation of the Leavenworth Soldiers' Home, submitted a
report, accompanied by a bill. This committee had been authorized at
the preceding session, and had been ``empowered to examine and report
to the House'' and ``recommend by bill or otherwise'' such action as
should seem proper.\7\
Mr. Grout, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked whether or not the
report was privileged.
The Speaker \5\ said:
The Chair does not think it is privileged in such sense that the
measure comes before the House for consideration. It is privileged to
be reported.
3148. The highly privileged character of general appropriation bills
continues at all stages, including the period after they are returned
with Senate amendments.--On Friday, August 1, 1890,\8\ Mr. Benjamin A.
Enloe, of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\2\ Now section 61 of Rule XI. This rule enumerates the committees
which have leave to report at any time.
\3\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 392; Record, p.
2713.
\4\ Now section 61 of Rule XI.
\5\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\6\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 2211.
\7\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 5066.
\8\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 910; Record, p.
8027.
Sec. 3149
Tennessee, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of
the Whole House for the consideration of business on the Private
Calendar.
Pending this, Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, as a privileged
question, called up the amendments of the Senate to the bill of the
House (H. R. 10884), the sundry civil appropriation bill, coming over
as unfinished business from the preceding day's session.
The Speaker \1\ held that the motion submitted by Mr. Cannon took
precedence of the motion submitted by Mr. Enloe, for the reason that,
by clause 51, Rule XI,\2\ and clause 9, Rule XVI,\3\ general
appropriation bills were given a highly privileged character, and that
this privileged character attached to that class of bills at all
subsequent stages of proceedings.\4\
3149. A bill with amendments of the other House is privi1eged after
the stage of disagreement has been reached.--On January 29, 1901,\5\
Mr. John A. T. Hull, of Iowa, as a privileged matter, called up the
bill (S. 4300) to increase the efficiency of the military establishment
of the United States, which had been returned from the Senate with the
announcement that the Senate had disagreed to the report of the
committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the amendments of the Senate to the amendment of the House, had further
insisted on its amendments to the amendment of the House, asked a
further conference, and had appointed conferees thereto.
Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, made the point of order that
the matter was not privileged.
The Speaker \6\ said:
The only question before the House is, Has the gentleman from Iowa
the right to call up this bill? * * *
That is the only question now before the House--whether it is
privileged or not, so that he can call it up. In this case the point of
disagreement has been reached, and it is back here with a message from
the Senate saying that they hold to their position. Clearly after a
bill has reached the point of disagreement, as it has in this case, it
is certainly within the power of the gentleman in charge of the bill to
call the matter up. * * * It is in the stage of disagreement, which
makes it privileged to be called up. The Chair overrules the point of
order.
Mr. Hull moved that the House further insist on its disagreement to
the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
Mr. Richardson made a point of order that this motion was not in
order.
After debate the Speaker said:
It seems to the Chair that we have a very simple question before us.
A conference report, signed by managers on the part of the two Houses,
was submitted of the House. It was a complete report--a full and
complete agreement. This House, having the papers, had to act first
upon that conference report, and did so. The House agreed to the
report. Then the papers, with the action of the House thereon, had to
go to the Senate. The Senate took up the report and considered it. Had
the Senate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\2\ Now section 61 of Rule XI.
\3\ See section 3072 of this work.
\4\ A general appropriation bill returned with a Senate amendment
that provides a new and distinct object of expenditure of money or
property is privileged, but may not be taken up directly from the
Speaker's table, being subject to the requirements of section 2 of Rule
XXIV. (See sec. 3089 of this work.)
\5\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 169, 170;
Record, p. 1625.
\6\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
Sec. 3150
also agreed to the conference report that would have ended the matter,
so far as the two Houses were concerned, and the bill would have gone
to the President. But what do we find? A message from the Senate, in
which it is stated:
``Resolved, That the Senate further insists upon its amendments to
the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 4300) to
increase the efficiency of the military establishment of the United
States, and asks a further conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses thereon.
``Ordered, That Mr. Hawley, Mr. Proctor, and Mr. Cockrell be the
conferees on the part of the Senate.''
(Duly attested by the Secretary.)
That situation brings before this House two facts: First, that the
Senate did not agree to the conference report, and they have notified
the House of that fact; and second, that they ask for a further
conference with the House in respect to the disagreement. This is a
parliamentary condition which toward the last of the session, when
conference reports come in, is of almost daily occurrence; and there is
but one thing for the House now to do--that is, to say whether it
insists on its disagreement or agrees with the position taken by the
Senate. If it will not agree to the amendments and desires to insist
upon its disagreement, then it must agree to the conference. It seems
to the Chair clear that the motion made by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Hull] is the usual motion, and the Chair is therefore constrained to
overrule the point of order made by the gentleman from Tennessee.
3150. On June 20,1902,\1\ Mr. John A. T. Hull, of Iowa, called up the
army appropriation bill which had been returned from the Senate with
the message that they further insisted on their amendments, and asked a
full and free conference.
Mr. Hull was about to ask unanimous consent to take up the bill, when
the Speaker \2\ said:
This matter does not require unanimous consent. The bill has reached
the state of disagreement and is privileged. The gentleman can call it
up at once.
3151. By usage of the House requests for leaves of absence and
reports of the Committee on Enrolled Bills may be presented pending the
announcement of the vote that the House adjourn.--On March 21, 1874,\3\
immediately after the reading of the Journal, Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of
Pennsylvania, arose and said:
Mr. Speaker, on last evening, pending your statement of the vote of
the House on the motion to adjourn, I raised a controversy as to your
right to interject public business from the Speaker's table when you
had knowledge of the disposition of the House as to its adjournment. I
would ask the Speaker in perfect politeness by what rule he claims the
right to interject business under such circumstances.
The Speaker \4\ replied:
The Chair did not interject public business. He interjected what has
always been deemed to be a matter of privilege, and of very high
privilege, for the convenience of Members, the asking of leave of
absence. That was all he interjected. The motion to adjourn had been
carried obviously by the sound, but the rules especially provide that
it is not a vote until it is declared by the Chair that the motion is
carried; and even upon a yea-and-nay vote, and when the Chair holds in
his hand the record of the tally clerk showing it to be carried, it has
always been the usage of the House, and always will be unless the
present occupant of the chair shall be ordered differently by the
House, to ask leave of absence for Members. If an adjournment had been
carried by a yea-and-nay vote and the gentleman from Pennsylvania
desired leave of absence from the House for any length of time, the
Chair would recognize his right to submit that question; but it is, of
course, the right of every Member to object to the leave of absence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 7113.
\2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\3\ First session Forty-third Congress, Record, p. 2338.
\4\ James G. Blaine, of Maine, Speaker.
Sec. 3151
Mr. Randall made the further point that a number of enrolled bills
were also presented.
The Chair denied that he had presented enrolled bills on the occasion
in question, but maintained his right to do so, saying:
If enrolled bills were lying before the Chair, and were signed, and a
motion to adjourn had been made and agreed to on a yea-and-nay vote,
and the Chair held the record in his hand of that fact, before
declaring the result of the vote the Chair would consider himself
justified, not only by convenience, but also by immemorial usage of the
House, to lay enrolled bills before the House.\1\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On December 19, 1882 (second session Forty-seventh Congress,
Record, p. 438), a question was raised as to the status of leaves of
absence with reference to a privileged nature. Mr. Speaker Keifer ruled
only so far as to express the opinion that a motion to adjourn would
take precedence of them.