[Hinds' Precedents, Volume 5]
[Chapter 126 - The House Rule that Amendments Must Be Germane]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
THE HOUSE RULE THAT AMENDMENTS MUST BE GERMANE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The rule. Section 5801.
2. Amendments under parliamentary law. Section 5802.
3. General principles. Sections 5803-5810.
4. Amendment should be germane to the paragraph or section.
Sections 5811-5823.
5. Decisions as to general amendments. Sections 5824, 5825.\1\
6. A bill for a specific object not to be amended by general
provisions. Sections 5826-5837.
7. A bill for general objects may be amended by specific
provision. Sections 5838-5842.
8. A private bill may not be made general by amendment.
Sections 5843-5851.
9. Decisions related to revenue subjects. Sections 5852-5868.
10. Decisions related to subject of immigration. Sections 5869-
5874.
11. Decisions related to general subjects. Sections 5875-5924.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
5801. A rule of the House requires that an amendment must be
germane.--Section 7 of Rule XVI \2\ provides:
* * * No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.
5802. A decision in the Senate that an amendment need not, under the
parliamentary law, be germane.\3\--On November 22, 1877 \4\ the Senate
were considering the following resolution:
Resolved, That the Committee on Privileges and Elections be
discharged from the consideration of the credentials of M. C. Butler,
of South Carolina.
Mr. George F. Edmunds, of Vermont, moved to strike out ``M. C.
Butler'' and insert ``William P. Kellogg,'' and to strike out ``South
Carolina'' and insert ``Louisiana.''
Mr. William A. Wallace, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane.
Mr. Edmunds said that the parliamentary law did not require an
amendment to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See also section 4375 of Volume IV.
\2\ For full form and history of this rule, see sections 5753, 5767
of this volume.
\3\ See also section 5825 of this chapter.
\4\ First session Forty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 603.
Sec. 5803
The Vice-President \1\ overruled the point of order.\2\
5803. Whether or not an amendment be germane should be judged from
the provisions of its text rather than from the purposes which
circumstances may suggest.--On January 15, 1901,\3\ the river and
harbor bill (H. R. 13189) was under consideration in Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union.
Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, proposed an amendment appropriating
a sum of money for the construction of three reservoirs at the
headwaters of the Missouri River--
For the purpose of holding back the flood waters of said stream with
a view of minimizing the formation of bars and shoals and other flood-
formed obstructions to navigation, and to aid in the maintenance of an
increased depth and uniform flow of water for navigation during the dry
season.
Mr. Theodore E. Burton, of Ohio, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill, since the means proposed could
not affect navigation, but rather related to the improvement of arid
lands.
After debate the Chairman \4\ said:
The Chair holds that as the amendment is framed it is germane to the
subject-matter of the bill and the subject-matter over which the River
and Harbor Committee has jurisdiction. Now, whether that correctly
presents the facts of the case is to be determined on the merits. But
as the amendment is presented and read by the Clerk it appears to the
Chair that it is entirely proper and germane to the bill, and therefore
the Chair will overrule the point of order.
5804. An amendment which would have changed a resolution of inquiry
to one of instruction was held to be not germane.--On February 14,
1882,\5\ Mr. Godlove S. Orth, of Indiana, from the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, reported adversely this resolution:
Resolved, That the President of the United States, if not
incompatible with the public service, be requested to communicate to
this House all correspondence with the British Government on file in
the State Department with reference to the case of D. H. O'Connor, a
citizen of the United States, now imprisoned in Ireland.
Mr. Orth's motion to lay this resolution on the table having been
decided in the negative, Mr. S. S. Cox, of New York, submitted the
following amendment in the nature of a substitute:
That the President be, and he is hereby, requested to obtain for D.
H. O'Connor and other American citizens now imprisoned under a
suspension of the habeas corpus by the British Government in Ireland,
without trial, conviction, or sentence, a speedy and fair trial or a
prompt release.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ William A. Wheeler, of New York, Vice-President.
\2\ The Senate formerly had no rule in regard to amendments being
germane, and a Senator might offer an amendment on any subject. (See
decision of the Presiding Officer, Feb. 24, 1853, second session
Thirty-second Congress, Globe, p. 820.) The Senate now has a rule
requiring amendments to general appropriation bills to be germane.
Section 3 of Rule XVI:
``No amendment which proposes general legislation shall be received
to any general appropriation bill, nor shall any amendment not germane
or relevant to the subject-matter contained in the bill be received;
nor shall any amendment to any item or clause of such bill be received
which does not directly relate thereto; and all questions of relevancy
of amendments under this rule, when raised, shall be submitted to the
Senate and be decided without debate.''
\3\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1052-1054.
\4\ Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, Chairman.
\5\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 577; Record, p.
1133.
Sec. 5805
Mr. Thaddeus C. Pound, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Speaker said:
The Chair \1\ is of the opinion that the amendment is one covering a
matter which is hardly competent to be introduced as an original House
resolution. It is perhaps unnecessary for the Chair to decide whether
it is within the power of either House of Congress by resolution to
instruct the President as to his duty. The Chair would be inclined to
think that would not be within the power of the House.
Mr. Randall having suggested that this would be for the House to
determine, not the Chair, the Speaker continued:
The Chair is not called upon to decide that question, and only refers
to it incidentally in determining whether this amendment is in order to
a resolution of inquiry which has certain privileges under the rules of
the House. The amendment proposed is to change the whole character of
the pending resolution, which is a simple resolution of inquiry, and
make it a resolution of instruction to the President of the United
States. The Chair thinks it is not germane and not in order.
5805. An amendment simply striking out words already in a bill may
not be held not germane.
Where a paragraph which changes existing law has been by general
consent allowed to remain it may be perfected by any germane amendment.
On March 31, 1904,\2\ the sundry civil appropriation bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
when the Clerk read this paragraph:
Expenses of judges of the circuit courts of appeals, not to exceed
$10 per day; of meals and lodgings for jurors in United States cases,
and of bailiffs in attendance upon the same, when ordered by the court;
and of compensation for jury commissioners, $5 per day, not exceeding
three days for any one term of court, $165,000.
Mr. Charles E. Littlefield, of Maine, moved to strike out the words
``in United States cases.''
Mr. James A. Hemenway, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
amendment would change law and would not be germane. He stated that the
effect of the amendment would be to pay for meals and lodgings of
jurors in civil cases.
It appeared from the debate that there was no general law providing
for meals and lodgings of jurors in any cases.
The Chairman \3\ held:
The Chair would call attention to the fact that on Monday a similar
question arose here in which the rules and decisions were referred to.
A precedent seems to have been established in the Committee of the
Whole that where a paragraph which changes existing law has been by
general consent allowed to remain it may be perfected by any germane
amendment.
If that rule is to be followed, this amendment is in order, and the
Chair overrules the point of order. The Chair also thinks the rule to
be that an amendment striking out a portion of a paragraph is not
subject to a point of order. Form, and not effect, should be
considered. Germaneness refers to words added rather than to those
taken away. The Chair would further suggest that this question of
whether payment should be made for meals and lodgings for jurors in
cases other than United States cases is rather a question for the
Committee to decide; a question of policy rather than a question for
the Chair to decide on a point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 4059, 4060.
\3\ Theodore E. Burton, of Ohio, Chairman.
Sec. 5806
Mr. Hemenway thereupon said:
Mr. Chairman, here is a case where we provide for the payment for
meals and lodging of jurors in United States cases where the Government
is a party to the case. Now, then, is it germane to say that we shall
also pay for meals when the Government is not a party to the case,
where it is a question purely between individuals?
The Chairman said:
The Chair would state that that is merely a question for the
Committee to consider. It is to be noted that this amendment consists
not in adding to the language of the paragraph, but in striking out
certain words which constitute a portion of the paragraph.
5806. To a bill amendatory of an existing law as to one specific
particular, an amendment relating to the terms of the law rather than
to those of the bill was held not to be germane.
The rule that amendments shall be germane applies to amendments
reported by committees.
On April 24, 1900,\1\ Mr. Henry A. Cooper, of Wisconsin, from the
Committee on Insular Affairs, reported a joint resolution (S. R. 116)
``to provide for the administration of civil affairs in Porto Rico
pending the appointment and qualification of civil officers provided
for in the act approved April 12, 1900, entitled,'' etc., with
amendments in relation to the granting of franchises proposed by the
Committee on Insular Affairs.
Mr. Ebenezer J. Hill, of Connecticut, rising to a point of order,
said:
I make the point of order, in the first place, that the amendments
are not germane to the resolution; in the second place, that the joint
resolution cannot be so amended; in the third place, that if so amended
it must be considered in Committee of the Whole, and in the fourth
place, that the joint resolution is temporary in its character and that
the amendments are permanent.
In the debate it was urged that the amendments relating to franchises
were in order because they were germane to the law which it was
proposed to amend, if not the particular resolution under
consideration.
The Speaker \2\ said that he should overrule all the points of order
except that relating to germaneness. After citing on this point the
decision of February 6, 1891,\3\ he said:
The Chair thinks that much of the difficulty in the minds of Members
comes from the fact that the joint resolution sent from the Senate and
the amendments added by the Committee on Insular Affairs all refer to
the same statute, the Porto Rican bill, that became a law some time
ago. The question as to whether these sections are germane can not be
determined by the title alone, as has been suggested, because an act
amending an act will always describe the title amended, although it may
only touch one feature or part of the law; but the whole resolution has
to be considered and the amendments to the resolution. If this was not
clear, possibly the title would be brought into consideration. But
there is not a particle of doubt as to the purpose of this resolution
or as to the purpose of the amendments.
The resolution is for the sole purpose of extending the time in
regard to the putting in operation of the new government of Porto Rico.
The amendments are entirely outside of that question and enter upon
amendments of the law in respect to matters entirely outside of that
question. They have no relation in any shape or form to the proposition
of the joint resolution. It will not be contended, if the Committee on
Rules brought in a report to amend one rule, that thereby, by an
amendment, you would open up for consideration of the House all the
rules. A suggestion has been made by one gentleman as to the authority
cited, and it is seldom within the power of the Chair to find an
authority so completely on all
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4615; Journal, pp.
500-501.
\2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\3\ See section 5807 of this chapter.
Sec. 5807
fours like this. In that case the bill treated on the forefeiture of
land grants, and the amendment was a regulation as to the forfeiture of
lands, bearing upon the same subject, and that therefore they are not
similar.
The case that the Chair has cited shows clearly that it was an
amendment on the subject of the time when certain regulations went into
operation. This joint resolution is for the same purpose. The
amendments here are for wholly another purpose; and every Member of the
House must see that no one of these amendments is germane to the
original resolution. Suppose the original resolution was before the
House for consideration and a Member should move to recommit with
instructions to add these amendments. The point of order could be made
at once that they were not germane and that the motion to recommit
could not be held to be in order when it was asked to do in the House
what could not be done in the committee. The case is perfectly parallel
with the other. The Chair profoundly regrets that he has to sustain the
point of order that it is not germane.\1\
5807. On February 6, 1891,\2\ the Speaker laid before the House the
bill of the Senate (S. 4814) to amend an act to forfeit certain lands
heretofore granted for the purpose of aiding in the construction of
railroads, and for other purposes. The object of this bill was
explained by Mr. Lewis E. Payson, chairman of the Committee on the
Public Lands:
The general forfeiture bill passed in the last session of Congress
provided that as to certain characters of lands, which were in
possession of parties claiming under the settlement law, they should
have the right to perfect their entry within six months from the date
of the passage of the act. That act became a law in September last. In
order to effect the operations of the bill, it became necessary to
frame a set of instructions in the General Land Office for the guidance
of the officers of the local land offices the country over. Owing to
the pressure of business in that Department, it was impossible for the
Secretary of the Interior to prepare these instructions even down to
this time. And the six months within which the settlers were to have
the prior right of asserting their claims have now almost expired; and
to meet that point, and that point alone, the Senate bill was passed.
To this bill Mr. Thomas H. Carter, of Montana, moved an amendment
providing for a method of classification to determine the mineral or
nonmineral character of lands selected by railroads.
Mr. Payson made the point of order that the amendment was not germane
to the bill, and therefore not in order.
After debate the Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order, making the
following statement in so doing:
The Chair can only consider in determining the question whether the
amendment be germane to the bill before the House and the proposition
therein contained. The pending bill relates solely to the time when a
period named in the original act shall begin to run. The amendment
proposed relates to a reclassification of lands, a subject so remote
from that of the bill that it can be justified only by a claim that any
amendment germane to this act proposed to be altered would be germane
to this bill. But the very claim is its own answer. The test must be
the bill before the House, for that is the bill which is to be amended.
5808. On April 23, 1902,\4\ the Senate amendments to the bill (H. R.
9206) relating to oleomargarine and other imitation dairy products were
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when Mr. James R.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The point of order was overruled, however, on other grounds. On
January 10, 1884 (first session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 347,
348), Mr. Speaker Carlisle held that an amendment reported by a
committee and not germane was not in order. (See also sec. 5906.)
\2\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 219; Record, pp.
2254, 2255.
\3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\4\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4597.
Sec. 5809
Mann, of Illinois, proposed a further amendment to a law, of which a
Senate amendment proposed to amend a certain portion.
Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, having made a point of order, the
Chairman \1\ held:
Senate amendment No. 5 reads thus:
``Section 3 of said act is hereby amended by adding thereto the
following:''
And then follows a certain proviso. The amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois is to add at the end of that proviso these
words:
``And provided further, That the artificial coloration provided for
in the preceding paragraph shall not include colored butter.''
The ``preceding paragraph'' referred to, as the Chair understands, is
section 3 of a former act of Congress, which is not now before the
Committee of the Whole.
On page 323 of the Manual the Chair finds this language:
``To a bill amending a general law on a specific point an amendment
relating to the terms of the law rather than to those of the bill was
offered and ruled not to be germane.''
That ruling was made by Speaker Reed. The Chair thinks that it covers
this case. The amendment of the gentleman from Illinois, while it may
be germane to the preceding paragraph of section 3 of the earlier act
of Congress to which it refers, is not germane to the proviso which
constitutes the Senate amendment, and therefore the Chair sustains the
point of order.
5809. It is not in order to amend a pending privileged proposition by
adding a matter not privileged and not germane to the original
proposition.--On January 22, 1884,\2\ Mr. Casey Young, of Tennessee, as
a privileged question, from the Committee on Public Buildings and
Grounds, under instructions of the House, submitted a report
accompanied by a resolution requesting the Secretary of War to provide
some suitable place for the public records in the large room in the
basement of the Capitol, and that the said room be given to the
Committee on Rivers and Harbors.
After debate Mr. Albert S. Willis, of Kentucky, submitted an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, to the effect that the
enrolling room of the House be set apart for the said committee.
Pending this Mr. William W. Rice, of Massachusetts, moved to amend
the amendment by adding thereto the following words:
And that the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds be instructed
to inquire if other and additional accommodations can not be procured
for the Library of Congress, by which the space in the Capitol now used
for the Library can be used for committee rooms, and report the same.
Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
the amendment was not in order, not being germane to the pending
amendment.
The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order on the ground that it
was not competent when a privileged matter was under consideration to
amend the pending proposition by adding instructions to a committee in
relation to a matter not privileged and not germane to the original
resolution.
5810. On February 13, 1885,\4\ Mr. Barclay Henley, of California, as
a privileged matter,\5\ reported, from the Committee on the Public
Lands, a preamble and resolution reciting that the California and
Oregon Railroad Company had failed to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
\2\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 389.
\3\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 1637; Journal,
p. 546.
\5\ Resolutions of inquiry are privileged by the rule.
Sec. 5811
earn its land grant; that a bill forfeiting that grant had passed the
House and was in the Senate; that the President, knowing these facts
and against protests, had appointed commissioners to examine the
railroad and report, and requesting the President to inform the House
of his reasons for the appointment of the commission.
Mr. William C. Oates, of Alabama, offered the following amendment:
Resolved, That the President of the United States is hereby
respectfully requested not to confirm any favorable report which may be
made by the commissioners recently appointed by him to inspect a
section or sections lately completed of the California and Oregon
Railroad, nor order patents to issue, until the Senate of the United
States acts upon H. R. 5897, being a bill to forfeit certain lands
granted to aid in the construction of said railroad, and which passed
this House June 6, 1884, or until after the adjournment of the present
Congress.
Mr. J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, made the point of order that the
amendment was not in order, for the reason that it was not a resolution
of inquiry or germane to such a resolution nor within the terms of
Clause I of Rule XXIV.\1\
The Speaker pro tempore \2\ sustained the point of order on the
ground that a privileged question on motion could not be amended by
adding thereto matter not privileged or germane to the original
resolution.
The Speaker pro tempore said:
The Chair does not think that it is competent by way of amendment to
submit to the House for its action that which is not privileged in its
character in lieu of that which has the right of privilege, and which
besides is not germane to the matter which is submitted as a privileged
report. The Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from
Ohio and holds that it is not competent to bring in, in the nature of
an amendment to the resolution of inquiry, which is privileged under
the rule, a resolution such as that suggested by the gentleman from
Alabama. * * * This is not a resolution of inquiry as submitted by the
gentleman from Alabama and would not have been in order as a privileged
matter unless it had been a resolution of inquiry reported back, as the
resolution comes from the gentleman from California.
5811. Under the later decisions the principle has been established
that an amendment should be germane to the particular paragraph or
section to which it is offered.--On June 5, 1878,\3\ the House was
considering the bill (H. R. 4414) to amend the laws relating to
internal revenue, and had reached the paragraph which defined a
manufacturer of tobacco and established the requirement that he should
pay a special tax.
To this paragraph Mr. James W. Covert, of New York, proposed an
amendment, placing a certain internal-revenue tax on snuff, cigars, and
smoking and chewing tobacco.
Mr. Omar D. Conger, of Michigan, made the point of order that the
amendment was not in order, not being germane to the pending paragraph.
The Speaker pro tempore \4\ overruled the point of order on the
ground that it was not necessary that it should be germane to the
pending paragraph, but to the general provisions of the bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This was the old numbering of the rule relating to resolutions of
inquiry. It is now section 5 of Rule XXII.
\2\ Joseph C. S. Blackburn, of Kentucky, Speaker pro tempore.
\3\ Second session Forty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 1230; Record,
pp. 4161, 4162.
\4\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky. Speaker pro tempore.
Sec. 5812
The record of debate shows that Mr. Conger, who made the point of
order, said:
I make the point of order because, if there be a place in this bill
where the amendment would be germane, it would be better to have the
amendment come in its proper place, and not mix up one branch of the
subject with another which is evidently not germane to it. My point of
order is, that under the rules of the House this amendment can not come
in at this place. If there be a place where the Chair shall hold that
it would be germane, then it can be offered at that place.
The Speaker pro tempore said:
The Chair believes it has always been held that in determining
whether or not an amendment is germane the Presiding Officer must look
to the general subject to which the bill relates, and not merely to the
particular provisions of the bill. Now the general subject to which
this bill relates is the internal revenue system of the country. It
contains a provision which is intended to increase the tax on
spirituous liquors in one respect, by imposing that tax upon the
fractional gallon. It also contains another provision, if the Chair
remembers correctly, which is intended to diminish the tax on
spirituous liquors in one respect, by exempting from a certain part of
the tax distilleries which distill not exceeding a certain quantity in
a certain time. It relates generally in all its provisions to the
internal-revenue system; and the Chair is therefore of opinion that any
amendment relating alone to that system is in order, while an amendment
relating to that system and also to something else would not be in
order.
5812. On March 26, 1897,\1\ the tariff bill was under consideration
in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and the
Clerk had read the first paragraph, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That on and after the
1st day of May, 1897, unless otherwise specially provided for in this
act, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon all articles
imported from foreign countries or withdrawn for consumption, and
mentioned in the schedules herein contained, the rates of duty which
are by the schedules and paragraphs respectively prescribed, namely:
To this Mr. Alexander M. Dockery, of Missouri, proposed this
amendment:
Provided, That when it is shown to the satisfaction of the Secretary
of the Treasury that such articles are manufactured, controlled, or
produced in the United States by a trust or trusts, the importation of
such articles from foreign countries shall be free of duty until such
manufacture, control, or production shall have ceased, in the opinion
of the Secretary of the Treasury.
Mr. Nelson Dingley, of Maine, made a point of order against the
amendment, saying:
An amendment placing on the free list, under certain conditions,
articles that are now on the dutiable list is not germane to that
portion of the bill which provides for the imposition of duties. Now,
Mr. Chairman, it has been suggested that there has been a ruling in a
former House, and attention has been called to it, to the effect that
it does not necessarily follow--and please bear in mind the effect of
that language that it does not necessarily follow--that an amendment
proposed must be germane to the particular paragraph provided that it
is germane to another part of the bill. But under what conditions was
that ruling made? It was on an internal-revenue bill, a bill which
provided for the imposition of duties on tobacco and certain other
products of the country. It was entirely devoted to that particular
subject. It was an internal tax, every section of which dealt with that
particular subject and that only, and the one subject running through
it all--that of the imposition of the tax. It did not necessarily
follow that the amendment, therefore, should apply to any particular
paragraph more than to another. It was applicable to any portion of the
bill. But we have a different condition presented now. When a bill is
before the House containing two or three very distinct subjects, one
imposing a duty, the other placing certain articles upon the free list,
and another imposing certain conditions, then, for the orderly pro
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p, 353.
Sec. 5813
cedure of the business of the House and the orderly transaction of its
business, it is incumbent upon the Chair to hold that each amendment
shall be germane to that particular part of the bill to which it is
proposed to apply it.
The Chairman\1\ ruled as follows:
The pending bill is a bill to provide revenue for the Government and
to encourage the industries of the United States.
Section 2 of the bill, on page 123, provides that after the 1st day
of May the articles thereafter enumerated, when imported, shall be
exempt from duty.
To the first paragraph the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Dockery]
offers an amendment providing that under certain conditions all
articles upon the dutiable list shall be transferred to the free list.
To that amendment the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Dingley] raises the
point of order that it is not in order at that point in the bill. The
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bailey] cites a decision of the then Speaker
in the Forty-fifth Congress, referred to upon page 271 of the Digest.
That was a decision rendered by the distinguished gentleman from
Kentucky, Mr. Carlisle, acting as Speaker pro tempore. The decision, as
shown by the Congressional Record, does not carry out the statement
upon page 271 of the Digest. That decision held that any amendment must
be germane to the general provision of a bill. It did not hold that
being germane to the provisions of a bill it was permissible at any
point. It did hold that the amendment then presented to the bill at the
point was admissible.
The question before the Chair here and now is not whether the
committee is liable to reach page 123 of the bill. The Chair can not
take into consideration that probability, as suggested by the gentleman
from Missouri [Mr. Dockery], but must rule upon the question as it is
now presented, to wit, Is the amendment presented germane to this
provision? The Chair holds that the amendment is not germane, and
therefore sustains the point of order.
Mr. Dockery having appealed from the decision, the committee
sustained the Chair by a vote of 158 ayes to 104 noes.
5813. On March 30, 1897 \2\ while the tariff bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, offered to the appropriate
paragraph an amendment relating to aniline and certain derivatives used
in the making of coal-tar colors.
To this amendment Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, offered an
amendment, as follows:
It shall be lawful to import into this country free of all duty
foreign commodities that may be purchased or paid for by the avails of
agricultural products of the United States exported and sold in foreign
countries.
That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and required
to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry this
provision into effect.
Mr. Payne made the point of order that the amendment was not germane.
The Chair \1\ sustained the point of order.
5814. On March 31, 1897,\1\ the tariff bill being under consideration
in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, Mr. Charles
H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, presented an amendment providing that in certain
cases the duties named in the bill should be retroactive.
To this amendment Mr. Alexander M. Dockery, of Missouri, offered as
an amendment a provision that articles manufactured, produced, or
controlled by trusts should be admitted free of duty.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
\2\ First session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 474.
\3\ First session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 529.
Sec. 5815
Mr. Dingley made the point of order that the amendment to the
amendment was not germane.
The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order.
5815. On April 1, 1898,\2\ the naval appropriation bill was under
consideration by paragraphs in the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, and the Clerk had read the paragraph:
For the installation of electric plants in gunboats numbered 10, 11,
12, and 13, $40,000.
To this Mr. Levin I. Handy, of Delaware, offered this amendment:
No money appropriated in this act shall, after the next vacancy
occurs on the active list in his grade, be paid any officer on the
retired list under the regular retiring age and not having the legal
forty years' service, whom the Navy Department may deem able
physically, mentally, and morally to resume on the active list the
duties of his existing commission, and may order back to duty in the
said active-list vacancy.
Mr. Charles A. Boutelle, of Maine, made a point of order against the
amendment.
The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order on the ground that the
amendment was not germane to the section.
5816. On April 29, 1898,\3\ the House was in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union considering the bill (H. R. 10100) to
provide ways and means to meet war expenditures.
The Clerk read section 27 of the bill, which gave authority to the
Secretary of the Treasury to borrow $500,000,000, issuing therefor
certain described bonds, under certain conditions.
To this section Mr. James Hamilton Lewis, of Washington, proposed an
amendment levying a tax upon the franchises of all corporations.
Mr. Nelson Dingley, of Maine, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the section.
The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order.
5817. On December 5, 1900 \4\ the bill (S. 4300) ``An act increasing
the efficiency of the military establishment of the United States'' was
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, and the Clerk had read the paragraph fixing the size and form of
organization of the Army.
Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, proposed an amendment providing for
filling vacancies in certain departments by appointments from civil
life.
Mr. John A. T. Hull, of Iowa, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to this paragraph, but would be in order in
another portion of the bill.
The Chairman \5\ sustained the point of order.
5818. On March 10, 1902,\6\ while the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 11728) relating
to the rural free-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 3483.
\3\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4449.
\4\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 82, 83.
\5\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Chairman
\6\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2580.
Sec. 5819
delivery service in the Post-Office Department, Mr. George W. Smith, of
Illinois, offered an amendment to a certain paragraph of the bill.
Mr. Claude A. Swanson, of Virginia, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to this portion of the bill, but would be
germane to the fourth paragraph.
The Chairman \1\ said:
The Chair is clearly of the opinion that inasmuch as the bill is now
being considered by paragraphs, and inasmuch as the amendment offered
by the gentleman is expressly covered by paragraph 4, toward the close
of the bill, this amendment is germane to that paragraph and not to the
paragraph now under consideration. * * * It seems to the Chair that the
admission which the gentleman has made would indicate quite clearly
that this amendment is in order, not to the pending paragraph, but to
paragraph 4, because the gentleman says that paragraph would have to be
stricken out if this were adopted. The Chair rules that it is not now
in order, but that it would be in order when paragraph 4 is reached.
5819. On May 26, 1902,\2\ the House was considering the bill (S. 493)
to amend an act entitled ``An act to establish a code of law for the
District of Columbia,'' when the following paragraph was read:
Amend section 3 by adding at the end of said section the words: ``No
justice of the peace during his term of office shall engage in the
practice of the law, subject to the penalty of removal from his
office.''
Thereupon Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, proposed an amendment to
another portion of the section of the code so as to change the number
of the justices.
The Speaker \3\ said:
If the Chair can have the attention of the gentleman from Illinois a
moment, the Chair sees what the gentleman from Illinois is seeking to
accomplish. There have been a number of decisions bearing upon this
question, some by the Chair in the last Congress, and others before
that. It seems to the Chair that the gentleman can reach the matter
that he seeks to reach by an amendment to this bill in section 3, where
the justices of the peace are treated of, by a proviso that there shall
not be more than eight, or whatever number he wishes, so long as the
amendment is aimed at the pending bill. Of course, the House can revise
the code if it wants to; but it has here simply the amendments of the
Senate. Those amendments are the subject-matter now before the House.
5820. On March 25,1904, \4\ the Post-Office appropriation bill was
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when Mr. Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, proposed an
amendment relating to the duties of carriers in the rural free-delivery
service.
Mr. Jesse Overstreet made the point of order that the amendment was
not germane.
The Chairman \5\ held:
The Chair thinks that on the question of germaneness the question of
comparison as arising in the arrangement of a bill comes in; that if an
amendment is more appropriate to one paragraph than to another it is
not to be considered germane to t1re paragraph to which it is less
appropriate. Section 3 relates to securing revenue from the rural
delivery service. The amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Olmsted] refers to soliciting which may be done by
the carrier. The Chair feels quite clear that this amendment would more
properly come in as an amendment to the paragraph relating to the
privileges of free-delivery carriers. Therefore the point of order is
sustained.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
\2\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 5938, 5939.
\3\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 3710, 3711.
\5\ H. S. Boutell, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 5821
5821. A bill being considered under exceptional circumstances, an
amendment germane to the bill, but not strictly germane to the section,
was admitted.
Forms of special orders.
On June 25, 1906,\1\ Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, from the
Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution, which was agreed
to by the House, ayes 151, noes 59.
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this order the House
shall resolve-itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union for consideration of the bill (S. 4403) ``To amend an act
entitled `An act to regulate the immigration of aliens into the United
States,' approved March 3, 1903,'' and in the Committee of the Whole
the amendment in the nature of a substitute reported by the Committee
on Immigration and Naturalization shall be read through, after which
section I of the said amendment shall be considered for not longer than
one hour under the five minute rule for amendments; and at the end of
the consideration of section I section 38 shall in the same way be
considered for not longer than two hours, with the provision that
amendments pending at the end of the two hours shall be voted on by the
committee; and immediately after the vote on the said specified
amendments to section 38 the Committee of the Whole shall rise and the
Chairman shall report the bill and substitute amendment, whereupon a
vote shall be taken on the substitute and bill to the final passage,
without intervening motion or repeal. General leave is given to print,
to be confined to a discussion of the bill, within five legislative
days from to-day.
During the consideration of the said section 38, which provided for
an educational test in the admission of immigrants, Mr. Charles H.
Grosvenor, of Ohio, proposed an amendment to strike out the section and
insert a new section providing that there be created a commission to
study the whole subject of immigration.
Mr. Augustus P. Gardner, of Massachusetts, made the point of order
that the amendment was not germane to the section.
The Chairman \2\ held:
The Chair will state that, in the opinion of the present occupant of
the chair, the amendment is in order. There is not a uniformity of
decisions on this question. In times past it has been held that an
amendment of this character must be germane to the section and at other
times it has been held that it is in order if it be germane to any
portion of the bill. Under the circumstances which exist, because of
the adoption of the rule by the House under which this bill is being
considered in the Committee of the Whole and by reason of the fact that
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Littauer] was
not strictly in order, for, at least, it was a question whether or not
it was in order, and the committee did not see fit to make a point of
order, and itself fixed the rule in this instance, the Chair believes
that the amendment is in order, and therefore overrules the point of
order made by the gentleman from Massachusetts. The Chair will further
state that this being in the nature of a substitute, it is not in order
until the section shall have been perfected by amendment, and not in
order for voting, and therefore will not rise until the expiration of
the two hours given for the consideration of this section.
5822. An amendment inserting an additional section should be germane
to the portion of the bill where it is offered.--On August 11, 1852,\3\
during consideration of the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill in
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, Mr. Edward
Stanly offered as an additional section a provision for the completion
of the hospital at Cleveland, Ohio.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 9152-9166.
\2\ James E. Watson, of Indiana, Chairman.
\3\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, p. 2191.
Sec. 5823
Mr. George S. Houston, of Alabama, made the point of order that the
amendment was not in order at this portion of the bill.
The Chairman \1\ said:
The Chair decides that we have passed the point in the bill at which
it might have been offered. We shall never finish the bill unless some
rule of this kind be observed. There is a provision in the bill for the
completion of marine hospitals, and after that clause of the bill was
passed, the Chair ruled that amendments properly applicable to that
clause of the bill at the time it was under consideration could not be
received or entertained by the committee afterwards. The Chair so ruled
upon an amendment which was offered, proposing to amend the first
clause of this bill, in relation to appropriations for the pay of the
legislative department of the Government, but that amendment was
received by universal consent.
5823. An amendment germane to a bill as a whole but hardly germane to
any one section may be offered at an appropriate place with notice of
motions to strike out following sections which it would supersede.--On
January 26, 1901,\2\ the bill (H. R. 13423) for the codification of the
postal laws, was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union, when the Clerk read the section authorizing
positions and salaries for a Superintendent of the railway mail
service, a chief clerk, and certain division superintendents and
assistant division superintendents in the same service.
To this Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, offered an amendment,
striking out the section as read and inserting a comprehensive scheme
of classification for the railway mail service, dealing not only with
the superintendent and his assistants, but with all the personnel of
the service.
Mr. Eugene F. Loud, of California, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the section under consideration, although
he admitted that it was germane to the bill.
The Chairman \3\ said:
This is one of the embarrassments in the consideration of a
codification bill. It covers very much territory. If it is germane to
the bill and in some degree germane to the section also, as well as to
other sections of the bill, the gentleman offering the amendment, the
Chair thinks, would have the privilege of attaching it to any one of
the particular sections to which it is in part germane and would then
have an opportunity, or should have an opportunity, of moving to strike
out the other sections which the amendment supplants. * * * The Chair
overrules the point of order.
5824. To a bill amending a general law in several particulars an
amendment providing for the repeal of the whole law was held to be
germane.--On June 17, 1902,\4\ the House was considering the bill (H.
R. 13679) to amend an act entitled ``An act to establish a uniform
system of bankruptcy throughout the United States,'' approved July 1,
1898, when Mr. David A. De Armond, of Missouri, offered the following
amendment:
Amend by striking out all after the enacting clause and insert the
following in lieu thereof:
``That the act approved July 1, 1898, entitled `An act to establish a
uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States,' be, and the
same is hereby, repealed: Provided, That nothing herein shall in any
way affect proceedings under said act begun prior to the taking effect
of this act, and this act shall take effect ninety days after the
approval thereof.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John S. Phelps, of Missouri, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1532, 1533.
\3\ John F. Lacey, of Iowa, Chairman.
\4\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 818, 819;
Record, pp. 6948-6952.
Sec. 5824
Mr. George W. Ray, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Speaker pro tempore \1\ ruled:
The bill before the House is a bill ``to amend an act entitled `An
act to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United
States,' approved July 1, 1898.'' To that bill the gentleman from
Missouri offers an amendment * * *. To this proposed amendment the
point is made that it is not germane.
It is apparent from even a casual examination of the bill that it is
a general amendatory bill. Section 1 relates to clause 15 of section 1
of the existing bankruptcy law; section 2 relates to clause 5 of
section 2 of the existing bankruptcy law; section 3 relates to clause 4
of subdivision A of section 3 of the bankruptcy law; section 6 relates
to section 17, and section 10 relates to section 40, and so on,
skipping from section to section throughout the entire law, without
regard to the particular relation of these sections to each other. In
other words, 16 sections in all of the 70 sections of the bankruptcy
law are here sought to be amended, or more than one-fourth of the
entire law.
While the Chair has been unable to find any precedents on this
question, it has deduced some general principles from former decisions
that throw some light upon it. In the Fifty-first Congress it was held
that to a bill amending a general law on a specific point an amendment
relating to the terms of the law rather than to those of the bill was
not germane.\2\ The bill in question was an amendment to a general
land-forfeiture bill fixing the time when the original act should take
effect, and the amendment offered was an amendment providing for the
method of classification of the lands described in the original act, so
as to determine the character of the land selected by the railroad. The
decision, which was made by Speaker Reed, was upon the ground that the
bill related only to one certain specific point and did not involve the
general features of the bill sought to be amended.
Substantially the same principle was recognized by Speaker Henderson
in a case \3\ where amendments were offered of a general character to
the Senate joint resolution providing for the administration of civil
affairs in Porto Rico pending the appointment and qualification of the
civil officers provided for in the act approved April 24, 1900. The
same distinction was there drawn between the germaneness of an
amendment which was offered to a bill having a single purpose and an
amendment to a bill covering several purposes or one general subject.
On the other hand, but illustrating the same general principle,
recently in the discussion on the omnibus statehood bill it was held by
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hemenway], the chairman of the
Committee of the Whole, that an amendment offered to include the Indian
Territory was germane, because the pending bill related not to one
particular Territory but was a general statehood bill, including
Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona.\4\
Had the bill been to admit a State the amendment would not have been
in order, but it being a bill to admit States the subject of admission
generally made the amendment competent. In the light of the principles
thus announced, the Chair is inclined to think that any amendment that
would be germane to the law sought to be amended would be germane to
the pending bill.
It needs no argument to show that it would be competent to amend the
pending bill, disposing of it section by section. For example, section
1 may be amended by striking out the words ``amended so as to read as
follows'' and by substituting the word ``repealed;'' so that the
section would read: ``That clause 15 of section 1 of an act entitled
`An act to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the
United States,' approved July 1, 1898, be, and the same is hereby,
repealed.''
The same method may be followed in the case of each and all of the
sections of the bill in their order. And this process, in the opinion
of the Chair, may be made to reach to other paragraphs of the
bankruptcy law than those specifically referred to in the pending
amendatory bill, because all the sections of the bankruptcy law are
germane to each other.
For example, it would be in order to amend the bill by adding
additional sections amendatory of sections of the bankruptcy law not
referred to in the bill.
If this be so, then it would be equally in order to amend the bill by
adding additional sections repealing sections of the bankruptcy law not
referred to in this bill. If this process of reasoning be correct,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Speaker pro tempore.
\2\ See section 5807 of this chapter.
\3\ See section 5806 of this chapter.
\4\ See section 5838 of this chapter.
Sec. 5825
then it is clear that by resort to the methods suggested the entire
bankruptcy law may be repealed by indirection. As it is, one of the
purposes of parliamentary rules is to provide for the most direct
method of disposing of legislation, and as by the process described the
effect intended by this amendment can be reached, the Chair is of the
opinion that the amendment must be germane, and therefore overrules the
point of order.
5825. To a bill making deficiency appropriations for the Government
Printing Office, among which was none relating to the salary of the
Public Printer, an amendment legislating in relation to the selection
of that official was held not to be germane.
While a committee may report a bill embracing different subjects, it
is not in order during consideration in the House to introduce a new
subject by way of amendment.
Review of the history of the rule requiring amendments to be germane.
Under the common parliamentary law amendments need not be germane.\1\
On March 17, 1880,\2\ the House was considering ``a bill making
appropriations to supply certain deficiencies in the appropriations for
the service of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880,
and for other purposes,'' when Mr. Otho R. Singleton, of Mississippi,
offered an amendment for the purpose of repealing the law making the
Public Printer an officer appointed by the President; making the Public
Printer an elective officer of the House of Representatives, etc.
Mr. John A. McMahon, of Ohio, made a point of order against the
amendment.
After debate the Chairman \3\ ruled.
The amendment submitted by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Singleton], under instructions from the Committee on Printing, is
objected to upon two grounds: First, that it is not germane to the
subject-matter of the bill under consideration; and, secondly, that it
is in substance the same as a bill heretofore reported by the Committee
on Printing and now pending before the House.
Notice of this amendment was given several days since, and during the
general debate in the Committee of the Whole the Chair was advised that
a point of order would be raised against it; so that a reasonable
opportunity has been afforded to examine the subject, and the Chair
will now state the conclusions at which he has arrived.
In the absence of an express rule, the amendment would not be liable
to a point of order upon the ground that it was inconsistent with or
not germane to the subject under consideration, for, according to the
common parliamentary law of this country and of England, a legislative
assembly might by an amendment, in the ordinary form or in the form of
a substitute, change the entire character of any bill or other
proposition pending. It might entirely displace the original subject
under consideration, and in its stead adopt one wholly foreign to it,
both in form and in substance.
But ever since the 4th of March, 1789, this House has had a rule
which changed the common parliamentary law in this respect, at least as
to substitutes, and ever since 1822 as to amendments in any form. The
Congress of the Confederation, in 1781, adopted a rule in the following
words:
``No new motion or proposition shall be admitted under color of
amendment as a substitute for a question or proposition under debate
until it is postponed or disagreed to.''
The House of Representatives of the First Congress, on the 4th of
March, 1789, adopted the following rule upon this subject:
``No new motion or proposition shall be admitted under color of
amendment as a substitute for the motion or proposition under debate.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See also section 5802 of this chapter.
\2\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1651.
\3\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Chairman.
Sec. 5825
It will be observed that each of these rules admitted amendments
introducing new motions or propositions, if they were not offered as
substitutes for the motion or proposition under debate. But in March,
1822, the House changed the rule of 1789 so as to make it read as
follows:
``No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
And in this form the rule has stood ever since, and now constitutes a
part of the seventh clause of Rule XVI in the recent revision. The rule
does not prohibit a committee reporting a bill from embracing in it as
many different subjects as it may choose; but after the bill has been
reported to the House no different subject can be introduced into it by
amendment, whether as a substitute or otherwise.
When, therefore, it is objected that a proposed amendment is not in
order because it is not germane, the meaning of the objection is simply
that it (the proposed amendment) is a motion or proposition on a
subject different from that under consideration. This is the test of
admissibility prescribed by the express language of the rule; and if
the Chair, upon an examination of the bill under consideration and the
proposed amendment, shall be of the opinion that they do not relate to
the same subject, he is bound to sustain the objection and exclude the
amendment, subject, of course, to the revisory power of the Committee
of the Whole on appeal.
It is not always easy to determine whether or not a proposed
amendment relates to a subject different from that under consideration,
within the meaning of the rule; and it is especially difficult to do so
when, as in the present instance, the amendment may, by reason of the
terms it employs, appear to have a remote relation to, the original
subject.
The subject to which the bill now under consideration relates is very
clearly set forth in its title. It is ``a bill making appropriations to
supply certain deficiencies in the appropriations for the service of
the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, and for other
purposes.'' The appropriations ``for other purposes'' contained in the
bill do not relate at all to any of the subjects embraced in the
amendment, and therefore need not be noticed. The words ``for other
purposes'' are used here, as they usually are, to embrace subjects
outside of the main subjects to which the bill relates, and which are
reported by the committee itself.
The bill relates to no other subjects than appropriations of money
for the purpose stated, ``to supply deficiencies in the appropriations
for the service of the Government.'' One of the deficiencies which the
bill provides for is the Government Printing Office. But the bill
carefully enumerates the items for which the appropriation is to be
made, and the salary of the Public Printer is not among them.
The proposed amendment has no relation to the appropriation of money
for any purpose. It neither increases nor diminishes the amount
proposed to be appropriated by the bill; nor does it in any manner
affect the expenditure of the money proposed to be appropriated by the
bill. The salary of the Public Printer for the current fiscal year has
already been provided for in full, and it does not appear that there is
any deficiency on that account.
The amendment relates solely to the method of choosing a Public
Printer; to the nature of the duties to be performed by him, and to the
amount of his salary. As already stated, the original bill embraces
none of these matters; and consequently none of these subjects are now
under consideration. It seems quite clear, therefore, that the proposed
amendment, if admitted, would introduce for consideration one or more
new subjects, and is for that reason prohibited by the express language
of the rule.
Under the rule as it stood prior to 1822 the amendment, although on a
subject different from that under consideration, would be in order, for
it is not offered as a substitute for the bill or for the clause under
consideration. But as already noticed, the prohibition applies now as
well to ordinary amendments as to substitutes.
Since the adoption of the rule in its present form there have been
several decisions under it; and so far as the Chair has been able to
discover, in every instance where an amendment proposed to introduce an
entirely new subject it has been excluded. The Chair refers to the
Journal of the House, Twenty-seventh Congress, first session, page 223,
for a decision by Mr. Speaker White; Journal of the House, Thirtieth
Congress, first session, page 737, a decision by Mr. Speaker Winthrop;
Journal of the House, Thirtieth Congress, second session, page 645
(Speaker Winthrop overruled); Journal of the House, Thirty-first
Congress, first session, pages 1509 and 1510, a decision by Mr. Speaker
Cobb.
Sec. 5826
Having disposed of the point of order upon the first ground presented
it is unnecessary to express an opinion upon the second ground, and the
Chair prefers not to do so.
The fourth clause of Rule XXI provides that ``no bill or resolution
shall at any time be amended by annexing thereto or incorporating
therewith the substance of any other bill or resolution pending before
the House.'' \1\ Where a proposed amendment differs in any respect from
a bill or resolution pending before the House, it will always be more
or less difficult to determine whether or not they are substantially
the same; and the Chair thinks he ought not to attempt to decide such a
question unless it be absolutely necessary to do so.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is excluded.
5826. To a bill for the relief of one individual an amendment
providing a similar relief for another individual is not germane.--On
February 18, 1886,\2\ the previous question had been ordered on the
passage of the bill for the relief of Fitz-John Porter by appointing
him to a certain rank in the Army and placing him on the retired list,
when Mr. William Warner, of Missouri, moved to recommit the bill to the
Committee on Military Affairs with instruction to add a second section,
authorizing the President to appoint Andrew J. Smith a brigadier-
general in the Army of the United States and place him upon the retired
list.
Mr. Bragg, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that this
proposition was not germane to the subject of the bill.
After debate the Speaker \3\ ruled:
The bill under consideration is a private bill, the title of which is
``An act for the relief of Fitz-John Porter.'' So far as the Chair
knows, it has always been held in the House that a bill for the benefit
of one private individual could not be amended so as to extend its
provisions to another by an amendment offered upon the floor, and the
present occupant of the chair has had occasion to decide very
frequently that it is not competent to do indirectly, by recommitting a
bill with instructions, that which could not be done directly by an
amendment.
5827. On March 3, 1853,\4\ Mr. Albert G. Brown, of Mississippi,
submitted by unanimous consent this resolution:
Resolved, That the Clerk of the House, in executing so much of the
resolution passed this day as relates to John Lewis Hickman, shall only
compute the number of days that said Hickman has been actually employed
during the sittings of Congress.
Thereupon Mr. Thomas Y. Walsh, of Maryland, moved to amend the same
by adding thereto a provision for the increase of the compensation paid
to Francis Reilly for his services as a laborer in the Clerk's office.
Mr. James L. Orr, of South Carolina, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane and consequently not in order.
The Speaker pro tempore \5\ sustained the point of order and decided
the amendment to be out of order.
On an appeal the Chair was sustained.
5828. On April 17, 1896,\6\ Mr. Andrew R. Kiefer, of Minnesota, by
unanimous consent, presented the following bill:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This is no longer a rule of the House.
\2\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 1619, 1620;
Journal, pp. 702, 703.
\3\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, p. 414.
\5\ Isham G. Harris, of Tennessee, Speaker pro tempore.
\6\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 4096.
Sec. 5829
Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Navy be, and he is
hereby, authorized and directed to donate one condemned cannon and four
pyramids of condemned cannon balls to the cemetery association in the
city of St. Paul, Minn., for the purpose of placing the same at or near
the monument erected to the memory of Union soldiers who are buried in
the said cemetery.
To this Mr. William A. Stone, of Pennsylvania, proposed the following
amendment:
And also three condemned cannon for the Grand Army of the Republic
Post, No. 121 (Col. John M. Patterson Post), for the purpose of
decorating the soldiers' plat in the South Side Cemetery, Pittsburg,
Pa.
Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, made a point of order against
this amendment.
The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order.
5829. On July 27, 1894,\2\ by unanimous consent, on motion of Mr.
William J. Bryan, of Nebraska, the Committee of the Whole House was
discharged from the consideration of the bill (S. 463) to reimburse the
State of Nebraska the expenses incurred by that State in repelling a
threatened invasion and raid by the Sioux in 1890 and 1891, and the
same was considered and was read twice.
Mr. John A. Pickler, of South Dakota, submitted the following
amendment:
Add to the bill the following: ``And also audit and report as to like
expenditures for the same time incurred by the State of South Dakota.''
Mr. Joseph D. Sayers, of Texas, made the point that the amendment was
not germane to the bill.
The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order, holding that it was not
in order to ingraft upon a bill for the relief of one individual or
State a provision for the relief of another.
5830. To a provision for an additional judge in one Territory an
amendment providing for an additional judge in another Territory was
held not to be germane.--On April 22, 1897,\4\ the House was
considering, in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
the Senate amendments to the Indian appropriation bill, the particular
amendment before the Committee being one to provide for the appointment
of two additional judges for Indian Territory.
Mr. H. B. Fergusson, of New Mexico, moved to concur in this
amendment, with an amendment providing for an additional judge for the
Territory of New Mexico.
Mr. Nelson Dingley made the point of order that the amendment was not
germane.
The Chairman \5\ held:
The amendment of the Senate provides for additional judges for the
Indian Territory. The amendment of the gentleman from New Mexico
proposes, as the Chair understands, to authorize a new judge for the
Territory of New Mexico. That would not be germane to the amendment of
the Senate. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 514, 515;
Record, pp. 7940, 7941.
\3\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
\4\ First session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 814.
\5\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 5831
5831. For a time a different principle prevailed in rulings of this
class.--On March 4, 1852,\1\ the House was considering a bill (H. R.
214) granting land to the State of Wisconsin to aid in the construction
of a railroad and granting a right of way.
Mr. Ben Edwards Grey, of Kentucky, moved to amend the same by adding
thereto a provision for a grant of lands to Kentucky in aid of certain
railroads.
Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill under consideration.
The Speaker \2\ stated that, inasmuch as the bill provided for a
donation of lands to a State for railroads therein, it was competent to
amend it by a provision for a donation to other States for similar
purposes. He therefore overruled the point of order.
Mr. Cyrus L. Dunham, of Indiana, having appealed, the appeal was laid
on the table.
Again, on July 29, 1852,\3\ Mr. Speaker Boyd, in a case involving the
same conditions, reaffirmed the principles of this ruling.
On March 2, 1857, Mr. Speaker Banks decided that, to a bill granting
land to Minnesota for railroad purposes, an amendment granting land to
Alabama was germane.\4\
5832. To a bill providing for extermination of the cotton boll weevil
an amendment including the gypsy moth was held not to be germane.--On
January 8, 1904,\5\ the House was considering a proposition to make
available for combating the ravages of the boll weevil and other
insects destructive to the cotton plant an appropriation hitherto made
for combating the foot-and-mouth disease among cattle.
Mr. Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, proposed an amendment
authorizing the use of a further sum for combating the gypsy moth.
Mr. James W. Wadsworth, of New York, made the point of order that the
proposed amendment was not germane.
After debate the Speaker \6\ said:
The effect of this bill is to make an appropriation which was made by
the act of March 3, 1903, to stamp out the foot-and-mouth disease, also
available to stamp out the boll weevil, and for that purpose only--a
single purpose. Now, the point of order is made that this proposed
amendment to the bill, to add the gypsy moth, is not germane.
The Chair is not without precedents touching this point of order. On
page 324 of the Manual the following decisions are found:
``To a bill providing for the admission of one Territory an amendment
providing also for the admission of several other Territories was
offered, and held not to be in order.\7\
``To a bill admitting one Territory into the Union an amendment
relating to the statehood of another Territory is not germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, p. 427; Globe, p.
673.
\2\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\3\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, p. 967.
\4\ Third session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 621.
\5\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 575; Journal, p.
118.
\6\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\7\ See section 5837 of this chapter.
Sec. 5833
``It is not in order to ingraft upon a bill for the relief of one
State a provision for the relief of another.'' \1\
And various others along the same line. It has frequently been held
that a bill to pension A is not amendable by a provision to pension B.
Now, when you apply the former practice of the House and the decisions
made by the Chair and concurred in by the House, it is evident that
this amendment is not germane under the precedents; and the Chair
sustains the point of order.
5833. To a paragraph appropriating for a clerk to one committee an
amendment providing for a clerk to another committee was held not to be
germane.--On April 16, 1904,\2\ the general deficiency appropriation
bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, when the Clerk read:
For clerk to the Committee on Industrial Arts and Expositions during
the fiscal year 1905, $2,000.
Mr. George W. Smith proposed to amend the paragraph by adding a
provision so that it would read as follows:
For clerk to the Committee on Industrial Arts and Expositions and for
clerk to the Committee on Private Land Claims during the fiscal year
1905, $2,000 each, in all, $4,000.
Mr. James A. Hemenway, of Indiana, having made a point of order, the
Chairman \3\ held:
The Chair is of opinion that the point of order must be sustained.
The amendment has no kind of relation to the paragraph, although it is
the same kind of a proposition. If a bill were pending before the
committee providing for the payment of a private pension to one
individual, an amendment providing for a pension for another individual
also would not be germane, although it would be of the same class of
legislation. So here we have a proposition to pay a clerk for one
designated committee, and an amendment to include another committee is
not germane. The rule may be otherwise if the paragraph sought to be
amended embraced a number of committees.
5834. A resolution from the Committee on Rules providing for the
consideration of a bill relating to a certain subject may not be
amended by a proposition providing for the consideration of another and
not germane subject.
It is not in order to do indirectly by a motion to recommit with
instructions what may not be done directly by way of amendment.
On May 6, 1897,\4\ the House was considering a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules providing that ``from and after this day
the House shall meet only on Monday and Thursday of each week until the
further order of the House.''
Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, moved to recommit the resolution,
with instruction to report as a substitute a resolution providing a
time for the consideration of the bankruptcy bill (S. 1035).
Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, made a point of order against this
motion.
The Speaker \5\ ruled:
The point of order being raised, the Chair thinks the amendment is
not germane. * * * Here is a proposition that the House shall meet on
Mondays and Thursdays. Here is an amendment requesting that a
particular bill shall be considered under certain conditions and
formalities. Now,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 5829 of this chapter.
\2\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p 4951.
\3\ Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, Chairman.
\4\ First session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 939.
\5\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
Sec. 5835
if that is germane to the other, it would be difficult to limit the
range of germaneness anywhere on earth, it seems to the Chair. It has
been decided by one of the predecessors of the present Speaker that
this motion was not in order at all; but the present Speaker has
decided otherwise, and, he believes, with the approval of the House,
giving the House more complete control over such matters; but it has
been decided by all his predecessors that no proposition can be offered
as an instruction to a committee that would not have been admissible as
an amendment if it had been offered at the proper time. Now, will any
gentleman of the House say that this would be a proper amendment to the
original resolution? The Chair thinks that it could not be.
5835. On January 21, 1891,\1\ Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, from
the Committee on Rules, reported a resolution providing for the
immediate consideration of the District of Columbia appropriation bill.
Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, moved that the resolution be
recommitted to the Committee on Rules with instructions to report back
a resolution providing for the consideration of the bill (S. 4675) to
provide a unit of value and for the coinage of gold and silver, etc.
Mr. Cannon made the point of order that the proposed instructions,
not being germane to the resolution, were not now in order.
The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order, holding that the
instructions were not germane to the subject-matter of the resolution.
Mr. Bland appealed from the decision of the Chair. Mr. Cannon moved
to lay the appeal on the table, and the question being put, it was
decided in the affirmative, yeas 146, nays 122.
5836. On February 24, 1891,\3\ Mr. William McKinley, jr., of Ohio,
from the Committee on Rules, reported a resolution providing for the
consideration of the bill (S. 172) to credit and pay to the several
States and Territories and District of Columbia all moneys collected
under the direct tax levied by the act of Congress approved August 5,
1861.
Mr. Nelson Dingley, jr., of Maine, offered an amendment to provide
that immediately after the consideration of that bill the House should
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union for the consideration of the bill (S. 3738) ``to place the
American merchant marine engaged in the foreign trade upon an equality
with that of other nations.''
Mr. James H. Blount, of Georgia, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the subject-matter of the resolution.
The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order.
5837. To a bill for the admission of one Territory an amendment
providing also for the admission of several other Territories was held
not to be germane.--On January 17, 1889,\4\ the House was considering a
bill of the Senate providing for the admission of the Territory of
Dakota into the Union. The consideration of the bill was governed by a
special order, which specified that the bill of the House (H. R. 8466)
might be offered as a substitute. Instead of this bill, however, there
was offered by Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, a substitute
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 165; Record, p.
1638.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 295; Record, p.
3215.
\4\ Second session Fiftieth Congress, Journal, pp. 270, 293; Record,
pp. 905, 907.
Sec. 5838
different in form and containing, with a provision relating to Dakota,
other provisions providing for the admission of Montana, Washington,
and New Mexico.
Mr. Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, made the point of order that the
proposed amendment was not germane.\1\
After debate the Speaker \2\ held:
When the gentleman from Michigan made the point of order, the Chair
supposed that the gentleman from Illinois had offered as a substitute
the bill H. R. 8466, which is the bill mentioned in the order made by
the House. Of course, if the gentleman has not offered that bill, the
question which the Chair proposed to submit to the House has not yet
arisen. The Chair supposes that a mere technical difference between the
two bills would not be material--for instance, a correction of a mere
clerical error, or something of that sort. But it seems that the
proposed substitute now offered by the gentleman from Illinois contains
provisions of a substantial character and not contained in the original
House bill. The Chair thinks, therefore, that the order does not apply
to it, and believes that in accordance with the practice of the House
and its rules, ever since the House overruled its own decision in the
case of California,\3\ that this substitute is not in order under the
rules. The Chair holds, therefore, that the substitute sent to the desk
by the gentleman from Illinois does not come within the terms of the
order made by the House, and hence is not in order under the rules and
practice of the House.
5838. To a bill admitting several Territories into the Union an
amendment adding another Territory is germane.--On May 8, 1902,\4\ the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union was considering
the bill (H. R. 12543) providing for the admission into the Union of
the Territories of Oklahoma, Arizona, and New Mexico.
Mr. Thomas C. McRae, of Arkansas, proposed an amendment providing for
the addition of the Indian Territory to Oklahoma.
Mr. James T. Lloyd, of Missouri, raised the question of order that
the proposed amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \5\ held:
The Chair is ready to rule. If this were a bill for the admission of
Oklahoma Territory alone as a State, there would be no doubt as to the
position taken by the gentleman from Missouri being correct. An
amendment to admit some other Territory as a State would not be in
order. But this is a general bill covering three different Territories,
and an amendment as suggested by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Underwood] to admit Alaska as a State would be in order on this bill.
For instance, a private claim bill for the allowance of a single
claim would not be subject to an amendment allowing some other claim,
but a general claims bill, such as often comes before this House, can
be amended by adding another claim. So with public building bills. A
bill to erect a public building at Birmingham, Ala., could not be
amended by a proposition to erect a public building at Indianapolis,
Ind.; but a bill providing for a number of public buildings could be
amended by adding another public building. One is a general bill, the
other is a bill for a single object: and as the Chair said, if this
were a bill to admit Oklahoma alone as a State, this amendment would
not be in order. On the other hand, it is a general bill proposing to
admit three Territories as States.
In the Thirty-fourth Congress a decision was made by the Speaker that
covers this point clearly.\6\ On July 17, 1856, Mr. Elihu B. Washburne,
of Illinois, reported from the Committee on Commerce a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mr. Burrows gave an interesting citation of early precedents.
(Second session Fiftieth Congress, Record, p. 906.)
\2\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\3\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 1415, 1417;
Speaker Cobb overruled. (See footnote of sec. 5859 of this chapter.)
\4\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 5187-5189.
\5\ James A. Hemenway, of Indiana, Chairman.
\6\ See section 5840 of this chapter.
Sec. 5839
resolution of the Senate for enlarging the custom-house and post-office
and court-house at Milwaukee, Wis., and at Detroit, Mich., and for the
construction of a public building for the same purpose at Dubuque,
Iowa, with an amendment providing for some public buildings at Toledo,
Ohio, Ogdensburg, N. Y., Ellsworth, Me., Chicago, Ill., Nashville,
Tenn., and other points.
Mr. James L. Orr, of South Carolina, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the original resolution, inasmuch as it
provided for the construction and enlargement of public buildings in
different cities and States from those mentioned in the resolution to
which the amendment was offered. The Speaker overruled the point of
order. There was the exact question. There was a public-building bill
providing for two or more buildings. An amendment was offered to add
another building in another State.
The point of order was made, and the Speaker of the House, Nathaniel
P. Banks, jr., of Massachusetts, overruled the point of order. There is
no doubt, in the opinion of the Chair, that the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. McRae] is in order on this bill, this
being a general bill for the admission of Territories. The Chair
therefore overrules the point of order.
5839. To a resolution embodying two distinct phases of international
relationship an amendment embodying a third was held to be germane.--On
January 27, 1896,\1\ the House was considering a concurrent resolution
of the Senate, which, after a recital in the preamble, was as follows:
Resolved by the Senate of the United States (the House of
Representatives concurring), That it is an imperative duty, in the
interest of humanity, to express the earnest hope that the European
concert brought about by the treaty referred to may speedily be given
its just effect in such decisive measures as shall stay the hand of
fanaticism and lawless violence, and as shall secure to the unoffending
Christians of the Turkish Empire all the rights belonging to them, both
as men and Christians and as beneficiaries of the explicit provisions
of the treaty above recited.
Resolved, That the President be requested to communicate these
resolutions to the Governments of Great Britain, Germany, Austria,
France, Italy, and Russia.
Resolved further, That the Senate of the United States, the House of
Representatives concurring, will support the President in the most
vigorous action he may take for the protection and security of American
citizens in Turkey, and to obtain redress for injuries committed upon
the persons or property of such citizens.
To this Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, offered the following
amendment:
That for the purpose of emphasizing our protest against the murders
and outrages above recited the President is directed to furnish the
Turkish minister his dismissal as a representative of the Sultan at
this capital, and to at once terminate all diplomatic relations with
the Government of Turkey.
Mr. James B. McCreary, of Kentucky, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
The Speaker \2\ said:
While the matter is not free from doubt, the Chair overrules the
point of order.
5840. To a bill providing for the construction of a building in each
of two cities an amendment providing for similar buildings in several
other cities was held to be germane.--On July 7, 1856,\3\ Mr. Elihu B.
Washburne, of Illinois, reported from the Committee on Commerce the
resolution of the Senate (S. R. 17) ``for enlarging the custom-house,
post-office, and court-house at Milwaukee, Wis., and at Detroit, Mich.,
and for the construction of a building for the same purposes at
Dubuque, Iowa,'' with an amendment providing for similar public
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 1000, 1008,
1009.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\3\ First session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 1168, 1169,
1171, 1173; Globe, pp. 1555, 1557.
Sec. 5841
buildings at Toledo, Ohio, Ogdensburg, N. Y., Galena, Ill., Ellsworth,
Me., Chicago, Ill., Nashville, Tenn., and Perth Amboy, N.J.
Mr. James L. Orr, of South Carolina, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the original resolution, inasmuch as it
provided for the construction and enlargement of public buildings in
different cities and States from those in the resolution to which it
was an amendment.
The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order.
Mr. Orr having appealed, on the succeeding day the appeal was laid on
the table, yeas 136, nays 49.
5841. To a bill relating to commerce between the States an amendment
relating to commerce within the several States was offered and held not
to be germane.--On September 13, 1888,\2\ the House was considering the
bill (S. 2851) to amend an act entitled ``An act to regulate commerce''
approved February 4, 1887, and Mr. Knute Nelson, of Minnesota, offered
this amendment:
Provided further, That any railroad company or other common carrier
heretofore or hereafter created or incorporated under the laws of the
United States shall, as to the transportation of passengers or property
from one place or station to another place or station in the same
State, over a route wholly in that State, be subject and amenable to
the laws of such State relating to the transportation of passengers and
property, the same as though it were a railroad company or common
carrier created or incorporated under the laws of that State.
Mr. Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order upon the grounds that
the bill under consideration was one relating solely to commerce
between the States, while the proposed amendment related solely to
commerce within the States severally, and was, therefore, not germane
to the bill.
5842. To a bill relating to corporations engaged in interstate
commerce an amendment relating to all corporations was held not to be
germane.--On February 7, 1903,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 17) requiring
all corporations engaged in interstate commerce to file returns with
the Secretary of the Treasury, disclosing their true financial
condition, and of their capital stock, and imposing a tax upon such as
have outstanding capital stock unpaid in whole or in part.
Mr. Henry D. Clayton, of Alabama, offered an amendment:
Sec.--There is hereby levied and shall be assessed and collected
annually the following taxes on all corporations, whether domestic or
foreign, doing business in the United States for profit or gain and
having a capital stock of $200,000 or more, at the rate of 10 per cent
on its capital stock. The amount of the capital stock of any taxable
corporation for the purposes of taxation shall be estimated according
to its par value fixed by the charter, or by resolution of its board of
stockholders or directors, and shall include all assets owned by such
corporation which are reserved or funded or set aside for the benefit
of its stockholders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nathaniel P. Banks, jr., of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\2\ First session Fiftieth Congress, Journal, p. 2772; Record, p.
8584.
\3\ The Journal indicates that this ruling was made by Mr. Speaker
Carlisle. The Record indicates that it was by Speaker pro tempore James
B. McCreary, of Kentucky.
\4\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 1913.
Sec. 5843
Mr. Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane, saying:
The original bill proposes a tax upon corporations engaged in
interstate commerce having unpaid capital stock outstanding. This bill
relates entirely to corporations engaged in interstate commerce, and
prohibits them from making unlawful discriminations or entering into
unlawful or injurious combinations to control prices, etc. That is all
right. It is also proper to control such corporations or trusts by way
of taxation. But the gentleman from Alabama introduces an entirely new
subject. This proposed amendment imposes a tax of 10 per cent on the
entire capital stock of every corporation, big and little, in the
United States, whether engaged in interstate commerce or not.
The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order.
5843. To a bill for the benefit of a single individual or
corporation, an amendment embodying general provisions applicable to
the class represented by the individual is not germane.--On March 7,
1884,\2\ the previous question had been demanded on a bill to appoint
and retire Alfred Pleasanton as a major-general. Pending this demand,
Mr. George W. Steele, of Indiana, moved to recommit the bill to the
Committee on Military Affairs with instructions to report a bill to
place upon the retired list of the Army all officers and soldiers who
served in the late civil war and were honorably discharged, who are
suffering from total disabilities from wounds received in the line of
duty with the rank of colonel, together with the bill restoring Alfred
Pleasanton as colonel on the retired list of the Army.
On which motion Mr. Martin Maginnis, of Montana, made the point of
order that the same was not in order, for the reason that it converted
a private into a public bill.
The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order on the ground that the
motion of Mr. Steele could not have been in order as an amendment to
the bill, and also on the ground that it was not in order to convert a
private into a public bill.\4\
5844. On April 23, 1894,\5\ the House was considering the bill (H. R.
6171) to authorize the Metropolitan Railroad Company to change its
motive power for the propulsion of cars.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and was read a third time.
Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, moved to recommit the bill to
the Committee on the District of Columbia with instructions to report a
general bill applicable to all street-railway corporations seeking
franchises, renewal of franchises, extension of franchises, increase of
franchises, or amendment of charters, providing for the sale at public
auction, for terms of years to the highest bidders, after due
advertisement, of all such street-railway franchises to be hereafter
exercised within the District, subject to provisions for existing
equities.
Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, made the point of order that
the instruction proposed by Mr. Williams, of Mississippi, was not in
order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Henry S. Boutell, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 761.
\3\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\4\ So also in a case where it was proposed to recommit a private
pension bill with instructions to inquire whether a general pension
bill should be reported. (Second session Forty-eighth Congress,
Journal, p. 621.)
\5\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 350, 351
Record, p. 4011.
Sec. 5845
The Speaker pro tempore \1\ sustained the point of order, for the
reason that it was not in order to amend a bill for the benefit of an
individual by inserting therein general provisions of law.
5845. On April 12, 1850,\2\ the bill from the Senate (No. 128) for
the relief of Margaret L. Worth, widow of the late General Worth, of
the Army of the United States, having been read a first and second
time, Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, moved to amend the same by
adding thereto the following:
Be it further enacted, That all pensions which have been granted, or
which shall hereafter be granted, to the widow of any officer,
noncommissioned officer, musician, or private, in consequence of the
death of the husband of such widow while in the military service of the
United States, or in consequence of the death of the husband of any
such widow in consequence of wounds received or of disease contracted
while in the military service of the United States, shall be for and
during the natural life of the widow to whom granted, to commence on
the day of the death of the husband.
Be it further enacted, That the widow of every officer,
noncommississioned officer, musician, or private, whose husband has
heretofore or shall hereafter die while in the military service of the
United States, shall be entitled to a pension of half the monthly pay
to which her husband was entitled at the time of his death, for and
during her natural life, from the date of the death of her husband.
The Speaker \3\ decided that the amendment was out of order, on the
ground that the bill provided for the relief of a single individual,
and the amendment sought to establish a general provision of law.
From this decision of the Chair Mr. Jones appealed; and the question
being put, ``Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of
the House?'' it was decided in the affirmative.
5846. On February 23, 1894,\4\ the pending question was the motion of
Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, to discharge Mr. Robert Adams, jr., of
Pennsylvania, from custody.
Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, offered the following substitute
for the motion of Mr. Reed:
That all Members who have been arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms by
authority of the resolution of the House adopted on the 19th instant
be, and they are hereby, discharged from arrest.
Mr. Reed made the point of order that it was not in order to move as
a substitute for a proposition excusing one Member a proposition to
excuse several Members.
The Speaker pro tempore \5\ expressed the opinion that the point was
well taken; whereupon Mr. Bland withdrew the amendment.
5847. To a bill establishing a standard of time for the District of
Columbia an amendment for distributing the benefits to the nation at
large was held to be not germane.--On March 10, 1884,\6\ the House was
considering the bill (S. 616) to establish a standard of time in the
District of Columbia.
Mr. John D. White, of Kentucky, proposed an amendment appropriating a
sum of money for transmitting standard time from Washington to various
portions of the country.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Alexander M. Dockery, of Missouri, Speaker pro tempore.
\2\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 784; Globe, p.
714.
\3\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 194; Record, p.
2377.
\5\ James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, Speaker pro tempore.
\6\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 793; Record, p.
1763.
Sec. 5848
Mr. William. M. Springer, of Illinois, made the point of order that
the amendment changed the character of the bill, making a general one
out of a local one intended for the District of Columbia.
The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order on the ground that the
pending bill was simply to establish a standard of time for this
District, while the amendment proposed would make it a general law and
would appropriate $25,000 for the purpose; which amendment under the
rule would send the bill to the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union.
5848. To a resolution authorizing a class of employees in the
service of the House an amendment providing for the employment of a
specified individual was held not to be germane.--On March 1, 1890,\2\
Mr. Henry J. Spooner, of Rhode Island, reported this resolution from
the Committee on Accounts:
Resolved, That the Doorkeeper of the House be, and he is hereby,
authorized to employ ten additional laborers in the folding room of the
House for the purpose of folding public documents, at a compensation at
the rate of $60 each per month, to be paid out of the contingent fund
of the House: Provided, That all such employees shall be dropped from
the rolls of the Doorkeeper at a period not later than one month from
the expiration of the present session of Congress.
Mr. John M. Brower, of North Carolina, moved to amend the resolution
by adding thereto the following:
That Henry G. Williams be appointed second assistant superintendent
of the House document room, and shall receive the same salary as the
assistant superintendent of said room.
Mr. Spooner made the point of order that the amendment was not
germane to the resolution; which point of order was sustained by the
Speaker.\3\
5849. On January 7, 1896,\4\ Mr. J. Frank Aldrich, of Illinois, from
the Committee on Accounts, submitted this resolution:
Resolved, That the Chairmen of Committees on Military Affairs, Naval
Affairs, and Interstate and Foreign Commerce be, and they are hereby,
authorized to each appoint an assistant clerk for their respective
committees.
Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, offered this amendment:
Resolved, That the Doorkeeper of the House be, and he is hereby,
authorized and directed to appoint Lauritz Olson a messenger to the
House gallery, at a salary of $1,200 per annum.
Mr. Aldrich made the point of order that the amendment was not
germane.
The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order.
5850. To a bill authorizing the Court of Claims to adjudicate a
claim an amendment providing for paying the claim outright was held not
to be germane.--On January 14, 1898,\5\ the House was in Committee of
the Whole House, considering the bill (S. 629) to confer jurisdiction
on the Court of Claims in the case of The Book Agents of the Methodist
Episcopal Church South against the United States. This bill directed
that the claim with the accompanying petitions and papers should be
referred to the Court of Claims; that the court should render
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\2\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 293.
\3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\4\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 513.
\5\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 627, 638, 842.
Sec. 5850
judgment against the United States and in favor of said corporation for
whatever sum might be found due; that in the trial the affidavits on
file before Congress should be admitted as competent evidence, etc.
To this bill Mr. S. B. Cooper, of Texas, proposed as an amendment in
the nature of a substitute a bill authorizing and requiring the
Secretary of the Treasury to pay the sum of $288,000 in full
satisfaction of the claim.
Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that this
amendment was not germane.
On January 21, after debate, the Chairman \1\ decided:
Prior to the adoption of any rules upon the subject it was in order
to offer any amendment to the bill, whether it was germane or not, by
way of substituting another bill or by way of an amendment. In March,
1789, the House made a rule which changed general parliamentary law
upon the subject, and that rule was in these words:
``No new motion or proposition shall be admitted under color of
amendment as a substitute for the question or proposition under debate
until it has been postponed or disagreed to.''
That simply went to the substitute, and not to the amendment of the
proposition; and I suppose that under that, until the adoption of a new
rule by the House of Representatives, an amendment which was not in the
nature of a substitute would have been in order. In 1822 the House
adopted this rule:
``No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
And that rule has been the rule of the House of Representatives from
that day to this, and is now clause 7 of Rule XVI, under which this
point of order is raised.
The bill before the House is an act to confer jurisdiction on the
Court of Claims in the case of The Book Agents of the Methodist
Episcopal Church South against The United States; and the act provides
not only to confer jurisdiction, but gives the court authority to
render judgment for any amount, and further provides that either party
may appeal from the judgment that is so rendered. That is the whole
scope of the bill which is now before the Committee. The substitute
offered is, briefly, an appropriation of some $288,000--the Chair does
not recollect the precise amount--to be paid to The Book Agents of the
Methodist Episcopal Church South. That is the whole scope of the
substitute that is offered as an amendment. The question is whether,
under the language of the rule, this is a proposition on a subject
different from that under consideration. If it is, it can not be
admitted as an amendment. If it is not, of course it would be in order
as an amendment. * * * There is one precedent \2\ that seems to bear
almost exactly upon the ease before the Committee, and that was the
precedent cited the other day by the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Dingley]
in the Forty-eighth Congress. A bill was before the House restoring
General Pleasonton to the Army and putting him on the retired list, in
order that he might draw the pay of a retired officer. It might have
been a bill entitled ``For the relief of General Pleasonton,'' but it
was entitled a bill to restore him to the Army and place his name on
the retired list.
When that bill was before the Committee of the Whole House, the
gentleman from New York, the late Mr. Cox, an able parliamentarian, was
in the chair. During the progress of the bill the gentleman from
Indiana, the late Mr. Browne, offered an amendment striking out all
after the enacting clause and authorizing the Secretary of the Interior
to place his name on the pension list and pay him a pension at the rate
of $100 a month. That question was debat*COM008*ed somewhat in
Committee of the Whole, and the Chairman of the Committee [Mr. Cox],
the point of order having been raised by the late Mr. Bayne, of
Pennsylvania--and the House will observe the controversy was between
two Republicans, Mr. Browne and Mr. Bayne, while the Chairman was of
opposite politics, so that it would seem that no politics could enter
into that question at that time--the Chair stated that he felt
compelled to sustain the point of order, as it changed the whole
character of the bill.
That, of course, defeated the amendment in Committee of the Whole.
The bill was finally reported to the House, and the gentleman from
Indiana again obtained the floor and moved to recommit the bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
\2\ See section 5843 of this chapter.
Sec. 5851
with directions to report back the bill with the same amendments that
he had submitted. It was again debated in the House, and Mr. Carlisle
in the chair held that it was obnoxious to clause 7 of Rule XVI and not
germane to the original bill, and he sustained the point of order.
Now, what is the proposition before the Committee? The title to the
bill is to give the Court of Claims jurisdiction for the trial of this
claim, with the further provision that an appeal may be taken by either
party to the Supreme Court. The offer is to substitute for this a bill
appropriating money to the Methodist Book Concern. It changes the whole
character of the bill, and, as was well said by Mr. Cox of the bill
before the Committee at that time, it is an entirely different bill,
and to hold that it was germane and could be offered as an amendment to
this bill, in the opinion of the Chair, would almost, if not entirely,
abrogate clause 7 of Rule XVI. Therefore the Chair sustains the point
of order.
5851. To a proposition to pay a claim an amendment proposing to send
the claim to the Court of Claims was held not to be germane.--On March
8, 1904,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House were considering this
bill:
Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is
hereby, directed to pay to N. F. Palmer, jr., & Co., the sum of
$63,620.59, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, in full of their claim for damages and losses incurred in
the construction of the armored cruiser Maine, that being the amount
recommended to be paid by the Secretary of the Navy.
Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, proposed this amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
``That the bill (S. 334) entitled `A bill for the relief of N. F.
Palmer, jr., & Co.,' together with all the accompanying papers, be, and
the same is hereby, referred to the Court of Claims, in pursuance of
the provisions of an act entitled `An act to provide for the bringing
of suits against the Government of the United States,' approved March
3, 1887; and the said court shall proceed with the same in accordance
with the provisions of such act, and report to the House of
Representatives in accordance therewith.''
Mr. Jack Beall, of Texas, made a point of order against the
amendment.
The Chairman \2\ held:
The amendment proposed by the gentleman from New York provides for
sending the whole matter to the Court of Claims for adjudication. The
Chair is of the opinion that the point of order against the amendment
is well taken. The Chair bases his judgment upon a decision \3\ made by
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Payne] in the second session of the
Fifty-fifth Congress, where a bill was pending referring a claim to the
Court of Claims and an amendment was offered providing for the payment
of the claim outright, and the gentleman from New York, as Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole, held that the amendment was not germane and
sustained the point of order. Upon that precedent the Chair sustains
the point of order.
5852. A revenue amendment is not germane to an appropriation bill.--
On January 28, 1851,\4\ the House was in Committee of the Whole House
on, the state of the Union considering the deficiency appropriation
bill, when the Chairman \5\ rendered the following decision on a point
of order which had been raised when the committee was last in session:
When the committee last rose the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
William Strong], had moved an amendment as a separate clause--to modify
the existing tariff law--to come in at the end of the bill, and on that
amendment the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. George W. Jones], had
raised a point
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3007.
\2\ Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, Chairman.
\3\ See section 5850 of this chapter.
\4\ Second session Thirty-first Congress, Globe, p. 366.
\5\ Richard K. Meade, of Virginia, Chairman.
Sec. 5853
of order. The Chair decides that the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania is out of order. The amendment is in violation of the
common law of Parliament. * * * The bill that was referred to the
Committee of the Whole had for its object the appropriation of money to
supply deficiencies. That was the subject referred to the Committee of
the Whole. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania has
not only a different object but quite an opposite one; it being in part
to levy a tax, and in part to take off a tax. Hence, the Chair is of
the opinion that it is entirely irrelevant, and can not be entertained
by this committee. The Fifty-fifth rule \1\ of the House reads thus:
``No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.'' The Chair
can not conceive a proposition more irrelevant or more opposite to the
one under consideration than that in the amendment of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania to the bill pending before the committee.
The Constitution of the United States is very careful in throwing
guards around the tax-imposing power; and hence it requires that all
bills imposing taxes shall originate in the House of Representatives.
The one hundred and thirty-second rule \2\ of the House, in pursuance
of this jealous policy of the Constitution, declares, that ``no
increase of tax shall be voted by the House until it has been discussed
and voted in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union;'' the
object being to secure full discussion upon every question involving
the taxing power. The Chair, therefore, is of opinion that the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is contrary to the
parliamentary law, irrelevant to the question under consideration, and
opposed to the general policy of the Constitution, and the rules made
in pursuance of it, and must be ruled to be out of order.
Mr. Strong having appealed, the decision of the Chair was sustained,
yeas 102, nays 87.
5853. To a proposition giving a committee power to investigate tariff
subjects an amendment commending tariff revision was held not to be
germane.--On December 31, 1827,\3\ Mr. Rollin C. Mallary, of Vermont,
presented this resolution from the Committee on Manufactures:
Resolved, That the Committee on Manufactures be vested with the power
to send for persons and papers.
It was explained that the committee wished this power in order to
acquire information to be used in framing a tariff bill.
Mr. Andrew Stewart, of Pennsylvania, proposed an amendment to strike
out all after the word ``Resolved'' and insert, ``That it is expedient
to amend the present existing tariff by increasing the duties on the
following importations, raw wool and woolens, bar iron, etc.''
Mr. John Floyd, of Virginia, made a point of order against the
amendment.
The Speaker \4\ decided that the amendment was not in order, inasmuch
as the proposition was on a subject different from that under
consideration, and consequently inadmissible, under color of amendment,
by the rules and practice of the House.
5854. To a bill relating to the classification for customs purposes
of worsted goods as woolens, an amendment relating to duties on wools
and woolens and worsted cloths was held not to be germane.--On April
29, 1890,\5\ the House being in Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 5767 of this volume for this rule.
\2\ See section 4792 of Vol. IV for changes in this rule.
\3\ First session Twentieth Congress, Journal, p. 1037; Debates, p.
865.
\4\ Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, Speaker.
\5\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, pp. 3996, 3997.
Sec. 5855
considering a bill (H. R. 9548) relating to the classification of
worsted goods as woolens,
Mr. W. C. P. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, offered an amendment
providing:
That all wools, hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like animals,
wool on the skin, woolen rags, mungo, waste, and flax shall be
admitted, when imported, free of duty. That on and after the 1st day of
October, 1890, in lieu of the duties now imposed on the articles
hereinafter mentioned, there shall be levied, collected, and paid on
woolen and worsted cloths and all manufactures of wool of every
description made wholly or in part of wool 35 per cent ad valorem.
Mr. Nelson Dingley, jr., of Maine, made the point of order that the
amendment related to a subject different from that with which the bill
dealt.
The Chairman \1\ ruled as follows:
The latter part of clause 7 of Rule XVI, provides:
``And no motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
The subject under consideration in this bill is the classification of
worsted cloths as woolen cloths. That is the subject. The proposition
of the gentleman from Kentucky is to put wool on the free list as an
amendment. It seems to the Chair that that is a different subject. The
Chair remembers, in the last Congress, when a proposition was made on a
bill for the admission of Dakota to amend it by adding the Territory of
New Mexico, and the point was made that that was on a subject different
from the one under consideration, the then Speaker of the House (Mr.
Carlisle), decided \2\ that it was a different subject, although
relating to the same general subject. The Chair therefore sustains the
point of order and rules the amendment out of order.
On a vote by tellers an appeal having been taken this decision was
sustained-74 ayes to 36 noes.
5855. On the question being submitted the House admitted a provision
relating to duties as an amendment to an internal-revenue bill although
the point of order that it was not germane had been made.
Instance wherein the Speaker submitted a question of order to the
decision of the House.
On June 3, 1870,\3\ the House resumed the consideration of the bill
of the House (H.R. 2045) to reduce internal taxes, and for other
purposes, the pending question being on the forty-fifth section of the
same.
Mr. James Brooks, of New York, proposed to submit the following
amendment:
Add to the section the following proviso:
``Provided further, That on and after the first day of January next
the duties levied upon the articles hereafter named, imported from
foreign countries, shall be reduced as follows:
``On sirup of cane juice, or melado, or molasses from sugar-cane, and
on all sugars, and on salt, thirty-three and a third per cent.
``On coffee and on tea, twenty percent; and on pig and scrap iron,
twenty-two and a half percent.
``And all imported goods, wares, and merchandise here described,
which may be in the public stores or bonded warehouses on the day of
the year this act shall take effect, shall be subjected to no other
duty upon the entry thereof for consumption than if the same were
imported, respectively, after that date .\3\
The same having been read,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, Chairman.
\2\ See section 5837 of this chapter.
\3\ Second session Forty-first Congress, Journal, p. 907; Globe, pp.
4072, 4073.
Sec. 5856
Mr. Charles A. Eldredge, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that
the amendment was not in order, because it was an independent and new
proposition for a tax upon the people, and must be first discussed in
Committee of the Whole, and also because the amendment was not germane
to the bill.
The Speaker \1\ stated that the House had given unanimous consent for
the consideration of this bill in the House, that would cover all
amendments considered germane, and hence that the only question at
issue is, whether the amendment be germane. In his judgment the
amendment was germane, from the very necessities of the case; for it
might be of the utmost importance, in determining the internal revenue
to be derived from any article, to determine also what the external
revenue shall be from the same article. He would, however, submit to
the House the question, ``Will the House entertain an amendment of the
kind proposed as germane to the bill under consideration?''
And the question being put, it was decided in the affirmative.
5856. To a bill relating to reciprocal trade relations between the
United States and Cuba, the Committee of the Whole, overruling the
Chair, added an amendment relating to the duties on sugar generally;
but sustained the Chair in holding not germane amendments relating to
the general duties on hides and iron manufactures.--On April 18,
1902,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union was
considering the bill (H. R. 12765) ``to provide for reciprocal trade
relations with Cuba,'' when Mr. Page Morris, of Minnesota, offered the
following amendment:
Insert after ``countries,'' line 22, page 2, the following:
``And upon the making of the said agreement, and the issuance of said
proclamation, and while said agreement shall remain in force, there
shall be levied, collected, and paid, in lieu of the duties thereon now
provided by law on all sugars above No. 16 Dutch standard in color, and
on all sugar which has gone through a process of refining, imported
into the United States, 1 cent and eight hundred and twenty-five one-
thousandths of 1 cent per pound.''
Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
The point of order was debated at length, especial stress being laid
on the intimation of Mr. Speaker Blaine, on June 3, 1870, on the bill
to reduce the internal taxes.\3\ Mr. Charles E. Little-field, of Maine,
further argued that the customs regulations concerning sugar were
peculiar, and because of this peculiarity the ordinary principles of
germaneness would in this case be modified. He said:
Any legislation that tends to disturb the tariff equilibrium in
connection with this sugar schedule by disturbing the differential or
otherwise, destroys the equilibrium and makes the consideration of the
other branch of the proposition absolutely necessary in order to
preserve and maintain the equilibrium. Unrefined sugar has one tariff,
refined sugar another, to-day. If you shorten or diminish the
unrefined-sugar tariff, you shorten one of the legs upon which the
proposition stands; and if you increase it, you lengthen the leg upon
which the proposition stands, and either process destroys alike the
legislative equilibrium which ought to and economically must exist
between the two tariffs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James G. Blaine, of Maine, Speaker.
\2\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 4405-4414,
4415, 4416.
\3\ See section 5855.
Sec. 5856
At the close of the debate the Chairman \1\ ruled:
The closing portion of section 7 of Rule XVI, which has been already
read in the debate in the committee, reads:
``No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
The bill now before us is entitled ``A bill to provide for reciprocal
trade relations with Cuba.'' It authorizes the President to enter into
negotiations with the government of Cuba when established for the
purpose of securing reciprocal trade relations with Cuba, and when an
agreement is made that, in his judgment, is reciprocal and equivalent,
to proclaim the fact, ``and thereafter until December 1, 1903, the
imposition of the duties now imposed by law on all articles imported
from Cuba, the products thereof, shall be suspended, and in lieu
thereof 80 per cent of the duty imposed upon such articles coming from
other countries shall be collected.''
Clearly this is simply and solely a bill to provide for reciprocal
relations with Cuba, and Cuba only. An amendment can then be in order
only if it relates to trade between Cuba and the United States. In
other words, it must be germane. A long line of decisions, covering a
period of three-quarters of a century--because the present rule is
worded precisely as it was adopted in 1822--made by distinguished
Speakers of the House, from various sections of this country, have all
emphasized the real intent and meaning of the rule above quoted.
These decisions have been based upon its literal construction. Except
a decision of Speaker Cobb, in the Thirty-first Congress, later in the
same Congress reversed by the House,\2\ seemingly by the Speaker's
acquiescence, these decisions are all in one direction. Speaker Blaine
made no decision upon this question. He did emphatically express his
judgment upon a like proposition, and after expressing his judgment, he
referred the matter to the committee for decision. So that he made no
decision overruling the long line preceding.
Mr. Blackburn, presiding in Committee of the Whole, or Speaker pro
tempore, I think, did not make the ruling that the gentleman from
Tennessee says that he made. The gentleman is mistaken in the
statement. He decided that the point of order was raised too late for
consideration. Here is the exact wording of Speaker Blackburn's ruling:
``The Chair will state to the gentleman from Michigan that he is not
prepared to say that he would not have sustained his point of order and
ruled the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee out of order as not
being germane to the subject-matter of the bill, if it had been made in
time.''
Speaker Blackburn held that the point of order was not raised in
time. He expressly states that he does not hold that he would not have
excluded it as not germane had it been raised in time.
If the Chair might be permitted to make a brief citation of very many
decisions made by former Speakers--and the Chair will refer in the main
to the decisions made by Speakers, and not by chairmen of the Committee
of the Whole--Ithink the committee will see that practically an
unbroken line of precedents is in favor of the literal construction of
the rule of germaneness.
In the Thirtieth Congress, the resolution providing for an
investigation to obtain information upon which to frame a tariff bill,
an amendment was offered striking out all after the resolving clause
and inserting ``that it is expedient to amend the present existing
tariff by increasing the duties'' on certain commodities. Speaker
Stevenson, of Virginia, held the amendment to be inadmissible because
on a subject different from that under consideration.\3\
In the Twenty-seventh Congress to a bill under consideration
authorizing the issue of Treasury notes, an amendment was offered
providing that so much of the act of September 4, 1841, as provided for
the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of public land among
States and Territories be suspended, and the said fund be applied to
the payment of outstanding Treasury notes, outstanding as well as those
issued under the act, Mr. Hopkins, of Virginia, decidedly a clear and
strong parliamentarian, held that the amendment was not germane.\4\
In the Thirtieth Congress, during the pendency of a bill locating
military land warrants in Virginia, it was proposed to amend by
providing that these land warrants might be located on any public land
subject to entry. Speaker Winthrop, of Massachusetts, held this
amendment not to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
\2\ See footnote to section 5859.
\3\ See section 5853 of this volume.
\4\ See section 5883 of this volume.
Sec. 5856
And in the same Congress the same Speaker held an amendment to a
resolution to ascertain and equalize the salaries of United States
district judges so as to include marshals and district attorneys not in
order, and upon an appeal the Chair was sustained.
In the Thirty-fifth Congress, while a bill was pending granting
preemption to settlers upon public lands, an amendment was offered
donating 160 acres free, upon certain conditions as to occupancy and
cultivation. Speaker Orr, from South Carolina, held the amendment not
to be germane.\1\
In the Fiftieth Congress, to the bill for the admission of Dakota as
a State, an amendment was offered to include New Mexico, Montana, and
Washington. The question was discussed at considerable length. The
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Burrows, now a Senator from that State, a
gentleman justly famed as a parliamentarian, in arguing in support of
the point of order that the amendment was not germane, fully reviewed
the history of the rule and its application. Speaker Carlisle, an able
parliamentarian, to whose great ability and fairness I gladly testify,
held the amendment not to be germane and sustained the point of
order.\2\
On the 7th of this month, only the other day, while we were
considering the Chinese-exclusion bill in the Committee of the Whole,
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moody] in the chair, an amendment
prohibiting the employment of Chinese labor on American ships was held
not to be germane to a bill regulating the admission of Chinese into
this country.\3\
These are but a few of the decisions which all are on one side, all
covering a period of more than seventy-five years.
It has been said that the Speaker, on the day this bill was taken up
for consideration, held that this was a revenue bill. The Speaker did
not so hold. The Speaker did, in reply to a parliamentary inquiry, say
that this was a bill affecting the revenue, and stated that it has been
the custom of this House to consider bills affecting the revenue as
privileged matters, and this holding of the Speaker is sustained by a
direct holding upon that very proposition by Speaker Reed in the Fifty-
first Congress, and by many other decisions made at prior dates.
The argument of the gentleman from Maine that we must maintain the
``equilibrium,'' and that to maintain the ``equilibrium'' this
amendment is in order, is not, as it seems to the Chair, tenable. As
well might he say that when a bill to appropriate $50,000,000 for
rivers and harbors is under consideration we must, in order to maintain
the ``equilibrium,'' attach to it a provision to raise revenue, to
bring money into the Treasury, to provide for that which is going out;
and that proposition has been distinctly held in this House in the
Thirty-first Congress not to be in order.
The argument of the gentleman from Maine might and probably would and
probably does affect the judgment of members of the committee, so far
as the merits of the proposition are concerned, but with the merits of
any proposition the Chair has not to do in applying the rules to a
question of order which is raised for him to dispose of.
Applying the rule, applying the precedents, applying to it the
construction it has received for more than seventy-five years, it seems
to the Chair just as clear as the hands of the clock before him are
distinct, that this amendment, which relates to the duties upon sugar
from the entire world, is not germane to a bill providing for
reciprocal trade relations with Cuba, and is not in order as an
amendment to the bill, and therefore the Chair sustains the point of
order.
Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, having appealed, the Chairman put
the question, ``Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment
of the committee?''
And there appeared on a vote by tellers, ayes 130, noes 171. So the
decision of the Chair was overruled.
Very soon thereafter Mr. Earnest W. Roberts, of Massachusetts,
offered the following amendment:
Add a new section, as follows:
``Sec. 2. On and after the passage of this act the raw or uncured
hides of cattle, whether the same be dry, salted, or pickled, shall,
when imported, be exempt from duty.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 5877 of this chapter.
\2\ See section 5837 of this chapter.
\3\ See section 5874 of this chapter.
Sec. 5857
``Paragraph 437, Schedule N, of the act entitled `An act to provide
revenue for the Government and to encourage the industries of the
United States,' approved July 24, 1897, is hereby repealed.''
Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not gername.
The Chairman said:
The Chair desires to say that under the ruling of the committee
overruling the Chair a few moments ago quite likely that would be in
order; but the Chair's views have not been modified by the action of
the committee, and the Chair holds the amendment not germane and out of
order.
Mr. Roberts having appealed, the decision of the Chair was sustained,
yeas 183, nays 70.
Soon thereafter Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, offered an
amendment proposing a general reduction of duties on manufactures of
iron.
Mr. William H. Graham, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane.
The Chairman said:
The Chair thinks the point of order is well taken. Enough has been
read to convince the Chair that, in line with his first ruling of to-
day, the amendment is not in order, as not being germane to the bill.
Mr. Richardson announced that he would not appeal.
5857. To a bill relating to the tariff between the United States and
the Philippine Islands an amendment relating to the tariff between the
United States and all other countries was held not to be germane.--On
January 16, 1906,\1\ the Philippine Tariff bill was under consideration
in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, when Mr.
Champ Clark, of Missouri, proposed an amendment as follows:
Amend by inserting in line 6, page 2, after the word ``aforesaid,''
the following: ``Except on Philippine sugar there shall, after the
approval of this bill by the President of the United States, be levied,
collected, and paid in lieu of the duties now provided by law on all
sugar above No. 16 Dutch standard and on all sugar which has gone
through a process of refining, imported into the United States 1 cent
and eight hundred and twenty-five one-thousandths of 1 cent per
pound.''
Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate at length, the Chairman \2\ ruled:
A rule of this House provides that ``no motion or proposition on a
subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under
color of an amendment.'' The question for the Chair to decide in the
first instance, and possibly afterwards the committee, is not as to the
wisdom of that rule nor whether it shall be changed, but whether this
amendment is obnoxious to that rule. The Chair first will call
attention to the antiquity of the rule, which has existed in its
present form under every Administration in power since 1822, and will
take occasion to refer very briefly to a few decisions showing the
strictness with which it has been interpreted. The Chair will not refer
to decisions by Chairmen of the Committee of the Whole, but to Speakers
of this House. In the Fifty-first Congress there was a bill before the
House called a ``pure-food bill,'' regulating lard and its products or
compound lard. An amendment was offered relating to all food products,
just as this bill relates to certain products and the amendment seeks
to extend it over a general class, and yet the Speaker, Thomas B. Reed,
ruled that the amendment was not germane.\3\ In the Fifty-third
Congress a proposition was made to discharge a Member of the House from
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 1156-1161.
\2\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
\3\ See section 5866 of this chapter.
Sec. 5857
the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. An amendment was offered
discharging another Member or other Members. It was ruled not to be
germane.\1\ That ruling, it is true, was by the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole, but a most distinguished parliamentarian, Mr.
Richardson, of Tennessee, who subsequently received the vote of his
party for the office of Speaker.
Again, Speaker Reed ruled that to a paragraph providing for annual
clerks to Senators an amendment providing clerks for Members was not in
order.\2\ And it has been held that to a bill relating to one Territory
an amendment relating to another Territory was not germane. That was
ruled, not by a Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, but by no less
a distinguished parliamentarian than Speaker Carlisle. And, again, it
was ruled in the Fifty-third Congress that to a bill admitting one
Territory into the Union an amendment relating to the admission of
another Territory was not germane. That was not ruled by a Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole, but by the last Speaker who came from the
minority side of the House, Mr. Crisp. He made two rulings upon that
subject in the same session. Mr. William Jennings Bryan having offered
a bill for the relief of the State of Nebraska to reimburse it for
expenditures incurred in repelling an invasion of the Sioux Indians, an
amendment was offered extending the provisions to the State of South
Dakota, which had suffered in precisely the same way and from the same
cause. Mr. Bryan argued that it would be as well to put all the bills
on the Calendar into one bill as to accept that amendment as germane.
His point of order was sustained by Speaker Crisp.\3\ It was held by
Speaker Reed that, to a bill to protect trade and commerce against
trusts, an amendment authorizing the suspension of duties upon articles
handled by trusts was not germane.
For instance, Speaker Reed also ruled that to a provision excluding
all immigrants who could not read and write an amendment excluding all
foreign-born laborers was not germane.\4\ And so the Chair might go
through a long list of similar rulings. But it is said that in the
Fifty-seventh Congress a ruling was made, and upon appeal overruled,5
and that the action of the House in the Committee of the Whole on that
occasion ought to be binding upon the present occupant of the chair.
It is true that when there was pending a bill providing for
reciprocal duties with Cuba, not only upon sugar, but also upon hides,
and, indeed, including all products of that island, an amendment was
offered touching the duties upon sugar from all the countries of the
world. And it is true that that amendment having been held not germane
by the very distinguished parliamentarian who then occupied the chair,
Mr. Sherman of New York, his ruling was upon appeal reversed by the
committee. But the Chair finds that immediately afterwards an amendment
touching hides was offered, whereupon the same point of order was again
made, when the same Chairman said:
``The Chair desires to say that under the ruling of the committee
overruling the Chair a few moments ago quite likely that would be in
order, but the Chair's views have not been modified by the action of
the committee, and the Chair holds the amendment not germane and out of
order.''
Thereupon, an appeal having been taken, the committee sustained the
Chair by a vote of 183 to 70, or more than 2 to 1, distinctly
overruling its previous action.
Then, again, this very morning, upon the appeal of the gentleman from
Massachusetts, this committee sustained the Chair in a ruling entirely
in line with the ruling then sustained as to the duty on hides. So that
if the present occupant of the chair felt bound by rulings of the
committee he would feel bound by the last two, rather than by the one
which the committee itself seems to have reversed. But the Chair
desires to call attention distinctly to the fact that the amendment now
pending, offered by the gentleman from Missouri, is by no means on a
par with the amendment concerning which the reversal occurred in the
previous Congress. That, as the Chair has stated, was a bill providing
for reciprocal duties with Cuba. It provided for a certain proclamation
to be made by the President, and the amendment was ingeniously worded
so as to provide that ``upon the making of said agreement and the
issuance of said proclamation, and while said agreement shall remain in
force, there shall be levied, collected, and paid, in lieu of the
duties on sugar,'' certain other duties.
It was ingeniously interwoven and connected with, had relation to,
and included some matters in the original bill to which it was offered
as an amendment.
But the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clark]
and now pending is surely upon a different subject-matter from the
bill, because it by exception clearly excludes everything that is
touched by the bill. The Chair will call attention to the wording of
the amendment:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 5846 of this chapter.
\2\ See section 5900 of this chapter.
\3\ See section 5829 of this chapter.
\4\ See section 5870 of this chapter.
\5\ See section 5856 of this chapter.
Sec. 5860
``Amend by inserting the following: `Except on Philippine sugar there
shall, after the approval of this bill by the President of the United
States, be levied, collected, and paid''
Certain duties on all sugars.
It does not even touch sugar coming from the Philippines or any of
the products of the Philippines, which are the only subjects of the
bill to which it is offered as an amendment. This amendment relates
only to sugar which does not come from the Philippine Islands. Clearly
it is a different subject-matter from that in the bill, which relates
only to sugar and other products coming from the Philippine Islands.
Mr. Clark having appealed, the decision of the Chair was sustained,
ayes 220, noes 120.
5858. On January 16,1906,\1\ the Philippine tariff bill (H. R. 3) was
und4r consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when Mr. Edward W. Pou, of North Carolina, proposed an amendment
as follows:
Amend by adding to end of section 1: ``And provided further, That
whenever the President of the United States shall ascertain to his
satisfaction that any article manufactured in the United States and
enumerated in the act of July 24, 1897, being chapter 11, Acts of the
Fifty-fifth Congress, first session, and acts amendatory thereto, is
sold in any foreign country at a price less than the same article is
sold within the United States, the President, in such event, is hereby
authorized and empowered to order a reduction of the import duty now
collected upon similar articles brought into the United States from
abroad, equal, as nearly as possible, to the difference in price
ascertained by the President to exist between the aforesaid article
sold abroad and the same article sold within the United States.''
Mr. Sereno, E. Payne, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
The Chairman \2\ held:
The Chair would not feel like violating the rules even to serve the
most worthy purpose. The bill before the House is confined in its
provisions strictly to the tariff relations between the Philippines and
the United States. The amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina relates to the tariff laws generally between the United States
and all countries. It introduces a very different and much broader
proposition. The Chair thinks it necessary to refer to but one ruling
in the Fifty-eighth Congress, where an amendment limiting immigration
generally was held not to be germane to a proposition to prevent the
immigration of Chinese alone.\3\ Here is a bill relating to the
Philippines and an amendment relating to the tariff generally. The
ruling to which the Chair refers was made by the present Attorney
General of the United States. The Chair sustains the point of order.
5859. To a proposition relating to the sale of internal-revenue
stamps in Porto Rico a proposition relating to posting lists of persons
paying special taxes in the United States was held not germane.--On
April 23, 1906,\4\ the House was considering the following bill:
A bill (H. R. 15071) to provide means for the sale of internal-revenue
stamps in the island of Porto Rico.
Be it enacted, etc., That all United States internal-revenue taxes
now imposed by law on articles of Porto Rican manufacture coming into
the United States for consumption or sale may hereafter be paid by
affixing to such articles before shipment thereof a proper United
States internal-revenue stamp denoting such payment, and for the
purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this act the
Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to grant to such collector of
internal revenue as may be recommended by the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, and approved by the Secretary, an allowance for the salary
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 1151.
\2\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
\3\ See section 5869 of this chapter.
\4\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 5743, 5744.
Sec. 5860
and expenses of a deputy collector of internal revenue, to be stationed
at San Juan, P. R., and the appointment of this deputy to be approved
by the Secretary.
The collector will place in the hands of such deputy all stamps
necessary for the payment of the proper tax on articles produced in
Porto Rico and shipped to the United States, and the said deputy, upon
proper payment made for said stamps, shall issue them to manufacturers
in Porto Rico. All such stamps so issued or transferred to said deputy
collector shall be charged to the collector and be accounted for by him
as in the case of other tax-paid stamps.
The deputy collector assigned to this duty shall perform such other
work in connection with the inspection and stamping of such articles,
and shall make such returns as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
may, by regulations approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, direct,
and all provisions of existing law relative to the appointment, duties,
and compensation of deputy collectors of internal revenue, including
office rent and other necessary expenses, shall, so far as applicable,
apply to the deputy collector of internal revenue assigned to duty
under the provisions of this act.
Sec. 2. That before entering upon the duties of his office such
deputy collector shall execute a bond, payable to the collector of
internal revenue appointing him, in such amount and with such
securities as he may determine.
When Mr. Benjamin G. Humphreys, of Mississippi, proposed this
amendment:
Insert as section 3:
``Each collector of internal revenue shall, under regulations of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, place and keep conspicuously in his
office, for public inspection, an alphabetical list of the names of all
persons who shall have paid special taxes within his district, and
shall state thereon the time, place, and business for which such
special taxes have been paid, and shall make and preserve a duplicate
of the tax receipt or receipts issued to any person, company, or
corporation, and upon application of any person he shall furnish a
certified copy thereof, as of a public record, for which a fee of $1
for each 100 words or fraction thereof in the copy or copies so
requested may be charged.''
Mr. Ebenezer J. Hill, of Connecticut, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order.\2\
5860. To a bill relating to the tariff between the United States and
the Philippine Islands an amendment declaratory as to the future
sovereignty over those islands was held not germane.--On January 16,
1906,\3\ the Philippine tariff bill (H. R. 3) was under consideration
in Committee of the Whole
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Charles E. Littlefield, of Maine, Chairman.
\2\ As an instance of the latitude permitted occasionally by Speakers
in construction of the rule requiring amendments to be germane,
reference may be made to a precedent of August 28, 1850, when the House
was considering the Senate bill providing for the adjustment of the
northern and northwestern boundaries of Texas, and the relinquishment
by Texas of territory exterior to those boundaries, and of claims
against the United States. To this bill, which was short and confined
simply to these adjustments, an amendment was offered in the form of a
long bill providing systems of territorial governments for the
Territories of New Mexico and Utah. This amendment Mr. Speaker Cobb
held to be in order on the ground that the bill brought before the
House the question of the territory acquired from Mexico, and that
propositions affecting that Territory were germane to the bill, New
Mexico and Utah being in that territory. On appeal this decision was
sustained, yeas 122, nays 84. (First session Thirty First Congress,
Journal, p. 1333; Globe, pp. 1682-1686.)
But on September 7, 1850, when Mr. Speaker Cobb, for the same reason,
ruled an amendment providing a territorial government for Utah in order
on a bill for the admission of California to the Union, the House
overruled the Speaker, yeas 87, nays 115. The Speaker based his ruling
on the fact that both bill and proposed amendment disposed of territory
acquired from Mexico. (Journal, p. 1415; Globe, p. 1769.)
\3\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 1144, 1145, 1146,
1150.
Sec. 5860
House on the state of the Union, when Mr. Samuel W. McCall, of
Massachusetts, proposed the following amendment:
Amend by adding at the end of line 23, page 4, the following:
``And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall be
construed to mean that it is the purpose of the Congress that the
United States should permanently retain sovereignty over the Philippine
Islands, but it is hereby solemnly declared to be the settled purpose
of the Congress to fit the people of the said islands for self-
government at the earliest practicable moment, and, when that result
shall have been accomplished, to leave the government and control of
the said islands to the people thereof, to the end that they shall be
recognized by the United States as a free and independent nation, as
was done in the case of Cuba.
Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \1\ ruled:
The requirement that an amendment must be germane to the bill or
proposition to which it is offered has obtained since the beginning of
the American Congress. It was adopted in the very first set of rules of
this House, in 1789, and even before that had an important place among
the rules governing the Continental Congress. In 1822 it was slightly
modified in form and adopted in the following language:
``No motion or proposition upon a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
In that precise form it has been firmly embedded in our rules from
that time down to the present moment and exists to-day in the last
clause of section 7 of Rule XVI.
It is a great safeguard against hasty and ill-considered action. It
prevents unexpected and diverse objects from being suddenly thrust
forward for the instant consideration of the House without the benefit
and assistance of previous consideration and report by the appropriate
committee; protects the minority from the sudden springing and
enactment by the majority of new propositions of which the minority has
had no notice and no opportunity to prepare for discussion, and
protects the majority from having to accept the responsibility of
immediate action upon matters unexpectedly brought forward without
previous committee consideration or report or opportunity for full
information. It is for many reasons highly essential to the orderly and
rational transaction of the business of this House. Without this rule
as to germaneness new propositions of the utmost magnitude, deserving
many days of discussion, as this bill has had, might, after the closing
of general debate, be brought forward, as now, under color of amendment
and debate thereon limited to five minutes on either side.
The five-minute rule itself, under which we are now proceeding, would
hardly exist to-day except upon the assumption that the earlier rule as
to germaneness will be strictly construed and faithfully adhered to.
The Speakers and Presiding Officers in Committee of the Whole House
have almost uniformly interpreted and enforced it with great
strictness. Perhaps the only exception was in the Thirty-fifth
Congress, when Speaker Howell Cobb relaxed it somewhat, but soon
thereafter, with his own tacit consent, it has been suggested, the
House overruled him.\2\
Speaker Reed, in the Fifty-first Congress, in a very elaborate
discussion of it, said:
``It is very desirable that this rule should be preserved in its
entirety, and whatever might be the wish of the Chair on this question
now before him for decision, he must decide with reference to all like
matters and with reference to the general preservation of good order in
the business of the House of Representatives.'' \3\
And Mr. Carlisle, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole in the
Forty-sixth Congress, and afterwards Speaker, said:
``After a bill has been reported to the House, no different subject
can be introduced into it by amendment, whether as a substitute or
otherwise. When, therefore, it is objected that a proposed amendment is
not in order because it is not germane, the meaning of the objection is
merely that it (the proposed amendment) is a motion or proposition on a
subject different from that under consider-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
\2\ See footnote of section 5859 of this chapter.
\3\ See section 5866 of this chapter.
Sec. 5860
ation. This is the test of admissibility prescribed by the express
language of the rule, and if the Chair upon an examination of the bill
under consideration and the proposed amendment shall be of the opinion
that they do not relate to the same subject, he is bound to sustain the
objection and exclude the amendment.'' \1\
Now, applying the test suggested by Speaker Carlisle, and, indeed, by
the rule itself, the question is, Does this amendment contain a subject
different from the subject-matter of the bill? The object of the bill
as expressed in its title is, ``To amend an act entitled `An act
temporarily to provide revenue for the Philippine Islands, and for
other purposes,' approved March 8, 1902.''
Nowhere in the bill is there reference to or any attempt to legislate
upon anything except the tariff upon articles coming from the
Philippine Islands into the United States or going from the United
States into the Philippine Islands.
Now, this proposed amendment declares that ``it is the settled
purpose of this Congress to fit the people of these islands for self-
government at the earliest practicable moment.''
That seems to the Chair to be a different proposition from the
question of tariff upon articles coming from the Philippines.
The amendment further proposes, ``when that result (their education)
shall have been accomplished, to leave the government and control of
said islands to the people thereof.''
The people of the Philippines are at present governed, in part at
least, by or subject to laws enacted by the Congress of the United
States. There is nothing in the pending bill in any way touching the
subject of their control, certainly not looking to any change therein.
That seems to the Chair to be a different subject, introduced by the
amendment. Then the amendment proceeds:
``To the end that they shall be recognized by the United States as a
free and independent nation, as was done in the case of Cuba.''
The pending bill deals with them entirely as belonging to the United
States. The amendment, on the other hand, proposes to give them
independence. It seems to the Chair to be as plain as plain can be that
there are at least two subjects in the amendment which are entirely
different from anything in the bill itself.
Now, the Chair will call attention to one or two rulings which seem
in point. In the first session of the Fifty-seventh Congress there was
before the House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union a bill to provide for reciprocal trade relations with Cuba. An
amendment was offered to form a new section, providing for extending to
the people of Cuba, through their duly authorized Government, an
invitation to apply for annexation of that island to the United States.
Mr. Payne, of New York, made the point of order that it was not
germane, and after argument it was sustained by so distinguished a
parliamentarian as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Sherman]. That
seems to be almost directly in point.\2\
In the second session of the Fifty-first Congress the House was
considering a bill appropriating $50,000 out of any money in the
Treasury for the relief of destitute persons in the island of Cuba. Mr.
Bailey, of Texas, moved to recommit the bill, with instructions to
amend thus:
``That a condition of public war exists between the Government of
Spain and the government proclaimed and for some time maintained by
force of arms by the people of Cuba, and that the United States of
America shall maintain a strict neutrality between the contending
powers, according to each all the rights of belligerents.''
After argument Speaker Reed declared that amendment to be not
germane,\3\ and upon an appeal from his ruling it was sustained by the
House by a vote of 114 to 83. That seems to the Chair to be directly in
point.
In the succeeding year a bill was before the House making
appropriations for the diplomatic and consular service, and Mr. Bailey
again offered practically the same amendment, which the Speaker again
ruled to be not germane.
There are two instances in which Speaker Reed ruled that an amendment
according belligerent rights to the Cubans was not germane to other
measures pending for their relief or in some way concerning them. Now,
the only difference between that amendment which Speaker Reed ruled out
and this proposed amendment to this bill is that this amendment
proposes to go further and give them absolute
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 5825 of this chapter.
\2\ See section 5867 of this chapter.
\3\ See section 5897 of this chapter.
Sec. 5861
independence. The Chair is clearly of opinion that the amendment is not
germane, and therefore sustains the point of order.
Mr. McCall having appealed, the decision of the Chair was sustained,
yeas 198, nays 123.
On the same day, and very soon thereafter, Mr. James L. Slayden, of
Texas, proposed this amendment:
Nothing herein contained shall be held to mean that the United States
intends to incorporate the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands into
citizenship of the United States, nor is it intended to retain
permanently said islands as an integral part of the United States; but
it is the intention of the United States to establish on said islands a
government suitable to the wants and conditions of the inhabitants
thereof to prepare them for independence, and thereafter to collect on
the products of the Philippine Islands the same customs dues collected
on the products of other foreign countries when imported into the
United States.
Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, having made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane, the Chairman held:
The gentleman from New York makes the point of order that the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas is not germane. The
pending bill relates entirely to the tariff upon articles coming from
the Philippine Islands into the United States or going from the United
States to the Philippine Islands, while the amendment relates to the
permanent retention of those islands by the United States, and provides
also for the establishment of a certain form of government on the
islands, matters entirely different from those contained in the bill.
The Chair thinks the amendment is not germane and sustains the point of
order.
5861. To a bill for the regulation of corporations engaged in
interstate commerce an amendment relating to tariff duties was held not
to be germane.--On February 7, 1903,\1\ the House in Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union was considering the bill (H.R.
17) requiring all corporations engaged in interstate commerce to file
returns with the Secretary of the Treasury disclosing their true
financial condition and of their capital stock and imposing a tax upon
such as have outstanding capital stock unpaid in whole or in part, when
Mr. Robert L. Henry, of Texas, proposed the following amendment:
Sec. --. That hereafter the following articles may be imported into
the United States free of all duty:
``1. Steel rails, structural steel, tin plate, iron pipe, and other
metal tubular goods; wire nails, cut nails, horseshoe nails, barb wire,
and all other wire; cotton ties; plows, and all other agricultural
tools and implements.
``2. Borax, borate of lime, and boracic acid.
``3. Paris green.
``4. Paper and pulp for the manufacture of paper.
``5. Salt.
``6. Plate glass and window glass.''
Mr. Charles E. Littlefield, of Maine, raised the point of order that
the amendment was not germane.
The Chairman \2\ after debate held:
The Chair will first rule upon the point of order raised by the
gentleman from Maine to the new section offered by the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Henry]. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. Littlefield] makes the
point of order that the section is not germane. The test which we must
apply to determine
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 1905-1910.
\2\ Henry S. Boutell, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 5861
whether this section is or is not germane is to be found in the second
paragraph of section 7 of Rule XVI of the House:
``And no motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
Now, as the time is short, the Chair will endeavor to give the
reasons for his ruling very briefly.
The Chair understands that the two principal reasons for this rule
are, first, to secure an orderly, logical, and serious consideration of
measures pending before the committee. Second--and of still greater
importance is this reason-the mover or author of the bill is entitled
to have the subject presented in his bill considered in its logical
entirety. Without this rule, wholly irrelevant matter could be added to
a bill by way of amendment, for it would oftentimes happen that an
irrelevant amendment would be considered by members of the committee as
of even greater importance than the subject matter of the bill itself.
This rule, as the Chair understands it, was adopted originally by
parliamentary bodies especially to secure to the author or mover of a
bill the logical consideration of the one subject, and the one subject
alone, which he presents.
Now, the scope of the bill before the House is very plain and is set
forth in the title to the original bill, which is as follows:
``Requiring all corporations engaged in interstate commerce to file
returns with the Secretary of the Treasury, disclosing their true
financial condition, and of their capital stock, and imposing a tax
upon such as have outstanding capital stock unpaid in whole or in
part.''
A simple reading of the original bill and the substitute discloses
that the bill and the substitute alike deal exclusively with the
regulation of corporations engaged in interstate commerce. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas is a plain, clear
amendment of our revenue laws, having for its object the removal of the
present duties on imports.
Now, it is not for the Chair to consider reasons which are solely
argumentative in coming to a conclusion upon a question of this kind.
It is not for the Chair to determine what would or what would not be
the ultimate effect of this measure or of an amendment proposed to this
measure. It is for the Chair simply to determine whether this
amendment, repealing a portion of our revenue laws, is, under the
language of the rule, a subject differing from that under
consideration. Let us consider for a moment what would be the effect of
holding in principle that this amendment is germane. If this amendment
were germane, then any amendment adding to the import duty on any
article would be germane. An amendment placing a tax on an article now
on the free list would be germane; and in the same way the repeal of
any portion of the internal-revenue taxes would be germane. The
inclusion of other articles in the internal-revenue tax would be
germane. So if we should open up this measure, which is a measure to
regulate corporations engaged in interstate commerce, to an amendment
of this nature, there would be no end to the variety of subjects which
could be included in this bill.
The Chair is therefore of the opinion, from the general principles
applicable to the question, that this amendment is not germane. If the
Chair, however, had any doubt upon the subject, which it has not, that
doubt would be removed by a decision upon a similar question, \1\
decided in the Fifty-first Congress by the late Speaker Reed. On May 1,
1890, Mr. David B. Culberson, of Texas, from the Committee on the
Judiciary, called up and the House proceeded to the consideration of
the Senate bill (S. 1) to protect trade and commerce against unlawful
restraints and monopolies. The House having proceeded to its
consideration, Mr. Joseph D. Sayers, of Texas, moved to amend the bill
by adding as section 9 the following, which the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
``Sec. 9. That whenever the President of the United States shall be
advised that a trust has been or is about to be organized for either of
the purposes named in the first section of this act, and that a like
product or commodity covered or proposed to be covered or handled by
such trust, when produced out of the United States, is liable to an
import duty when imported into the United States, he shall be, and is
hereby, authorized and directed to suspend the operation of so much of
the laws as impose a duty upon such product, commodity, or merchandise
for such time as he may deem proper.''
It will be observed that this was an amendment giving to the
President of the United States power to suspend the import duties on
certain articles of merchandise. It will be further observed that this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 5868 of this chapter.
Sec. 5862
was an amendment to the Sherman antitrust law, so called. Mr. Ezra B.
Taylor, of Ohio, made the point of order that the amendment was not
germane to the bill, relating, as it did, to the subject of revenue.
Speaker Reed sustained the point of order, and the amendment was not
received.
In accordance with these principles, which the Chair understands to
be the fundamental principles underlying section 7 of Rule XVI, and in
accordance with this decision of the late Speaker Reed, the Chair
sustains the point of order.
5862. An amendment to repeal the duty on coal was held not to be
germane to a proposition to pay for the investigation of a strike among
coal miners.--On December 3, 1902,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 15372) to
provide for the payment of the expenses and compensation of the
Anthracite Coal Strike Commission, appointed by the President of the
United States at the request of certain coal operators and miners, when
Mr. John W. Gaines, of Tennessee, offered the following amendment:
Be it further resolved, That all import duties on anthracite coal
containing less than 90 per cent of fixed carbon be, and the same are
hereby, abolished, and on and after the passage of this resolution all
such anthracite coal imported into the United States shall be admitted
free of all duty or tax.
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \2\ ruled:
The bill under consideration provides a simple appropriation of
$50,000 to pay, under the direction of the President, the expenses of a
certain commission heretofore appointed by him to ``inquire into,
consider, and pass upon the questions in controversy in connection with
the strike in the anthracite coal region, and the causes out of which
the controversy arose.''
The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gaines] moves to amend the bill by
adding a clause repealing the duty upon anthracite coal. The Chair
takes it for granted that if there were here a proposition to
investigate, through the Medical Department of the Army, the cause of a
contagious disease it would hardly be claimed to be germane to
appropriate, in connection with that provision, money to build ships
and quarantine stations and light-houses and to regulate and control
the coming into the country of persons afflicted with contagious
diseases.
One is a question of inquiry as to the cause of a difficulty; the
other is the matter of providing a remedy for a trouble which is
understood to exist, and upon which it is expected that this commission
will at some time report. The House is asked to assume that the
commission will report that the tax on anthracite coal is one of the
causes of the strike.
In the opinion of the Chair, it would be quite as germane to provide
a great many other remedies for the causes that may be reported to
exist as for the House to assume what the report of that commission
will be, and thereupon to proceed by appropriation of money, or by
repeal of some existing statutes, or by the enacting of some other
statute to provide against the contingencies that may be reported in
that measure. The proposition is distinct in every particular from the
bill here pending.
The Chair will cite to the House two decisions which have been made
upon questions, in the opinion of the Chair, analogous in principle to
that under consideration. The first will be found \3\ by reference to
page 1097 of the book on parliamentary procedure, by Mr. Hinds. The
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lester], now a Member of this House, made
the following ruling as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole:
``The paragraph to which this amendment is offered proposes to
appropriate money for the building of a mint in the city of
Philadelphia. The amendment deals with the general question of the
coinage of money. It occurs to the Chair that the amendment is
obnoxious to paragraph 7, Rule XVI, because it is not germane to the
subject under consideration.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 32-41.
\2\ Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, Chairman.
\3\ See section 5884 of this chapter.
Sec. 5862
And the amendment was ruled out on a point of order.
There was a proposition to build a mint, and the amendment proposed
was to supply some business for the mint after it should be erected.
Later on Speaker Crisp, in the Fifty-second Congress, made the
following rule:
``To a proposition for the coinage of the silver bullion in the
Treasury an amendment providing, among other things, for the deposit of
silver bullion in the Treasury in exchange for certificates was offered
and held not to be germane.'' \1\
The policy has been under all circumstances to distinguish and keep
separate the provisions of a bill which by no means depend upon each
other or which relate to the same subject-matter. In this case the
Chair is of opinion that the proposition to repeal a clause in the
existing tariff law is wholly an independent question, a question that
may arise with equal propriety upon any economic question which may be
presented in the House and any question of national policy relating to
taxation or anything else. But the policy of the House having been to
separate and keep distinct the several matters of legislation, the
Chair is compelled to sustain the point of order.
5863. To a bill granting land to a railroad, an amendment allowing
the importation of railroad iron free of duty is not germane.--On March
9, 1852,\2\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 72) ``granting to
the State of Alabama the right of way and a donation of public lands
for making a railroad,'' etc.
Mr. Thomas L. Clingman, of North Carolina, moved to amend the same by
a provision that the iron for this and other railroads might be
imported free of duty.
The Speaker \3\ decided that this amendment was out of order, not
being relevant. The bill proposed a grant of land for railroad
purposes, and the amendment proposed to abolish the duty on iron for
railroad purposes.
Mr. James L. Orr, of South Carolina, having appealed, the appeal was
laid on the table.
5864. To a provision extending the customs and internal revenue laws
of the United States over the Hawaiian Islands an amendment for
effecting the extension of all the laws of the United States over those
islands was offered and held not to be germane.--On December 16,
1898,\4\ the House was in Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union considering the bill (H. R. 1119 1) to extend the laws
relating to customs and internal revenue over the Hawaiian Islands. The
first section of the bill having been read--
Be it enacted, etc., That the laws of the United States relating to
customs and internal revenue, including those relating to the
punishment of crimes in connection with the enforcement of said laws,
are hereby extended to and over the island of Hawaii and all adjacent
islands and waters of the islands,
Mr. Thomas C. McRae, of Arkansas, offered this amendment:
Strike out after the words ``United States \4\ the following:
``Relating to customs and internal revenue.''
Mr. Nelson Dingley, of Maine, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 5886 of this chapter.
\2\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 450, 451;
Globe, pp. 704, 705.
\3\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\4\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 267.
Sec. 5865
After debate the Chairman \1\ held:
The Chair thinks that the point of order is well taken. This bill is
to extend the laws relating to customs and internal revenue, and the
amendment seeks to open up the question of land titles and other laws
in the Territories, thus enlarging the scope and bringing in matters
not germane to the bill.
5865. To a provision relating to the duties on certain articles used
in the cotton industry an amendment providing for the free coinage of
silver was held not to be germane.--On April 8, 1892 \2\ the House was
in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union considering
the bill (H. R. 6006) to admit free of duty bagging for cotton,
machinery for manufacturing bagging, cotton ties, and cotton gins.
To this bill, as an amendment, Mr. Benjamin H. Clover, of Kansas,
offered a section providing for the free coinage of silver, repealing
provisions of the act of July 14, 1890, relating to the purchase of
bullion, and the issue of Treasury notes thereon, providing for a
change of the ratio between gold and silver coin under certain
contingencies, etc.
Mr. Henry G. Turner, of Georgia, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
The Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order.
Mr. Clover having appealed, the Committee sustained the ruling, 87
ayes to 2 noes.
5866. To a revenue bill with incidental purposes to prevent
adulteration of a certain food product, an amendment relating to
interstate commerce in adulterated food products and drugs generally
was decided not to be germane.
Reason for the rule requiring that amendments be germane.
On August 23, 1890,\4\ the House was considering the bill of the
House (H. R. 11568) defining ``lard;'' also imposing a tax upon and
regulating the manufacture and sale, importation, and exportation of
compound lard.
Mr. Walter I. Hayes, of Iowa, moved to amend the bill by striking out
all after section 1 and inserting a series of sections providing for
the organization of a food division in the Department of Agriculture
for the purpose of protecting the commerce in food products and drugs
between the several States and Territories and foreign countries,
establishing a system of inspection, penalties, etc.
Mr. Marriott Brosius, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane to the bill.
After debate the Speaker \5\ ruled:
The Chair desires to call the attention of the House to the
importance of the preservation of the rule which is expressed in the
following language:
``And no motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
Originally the very greatest latitude was allowed, so that objects
the most diverse were suddenly thrust upon the assembly. It was in
order to correct that that there was established under general
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John F. Lacey, of Iowa, Chairman.
\2\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Record, p. 3116.
\3\ James H. Blount, of Georgia, Chairman.
\4\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 980, 981;
Record, pp. 9097-9101.
\5\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
Sec. 5867
parliamentary law the doctrine that an amendment must be germane to the
original or pending bill. The rules of the House of Representatives
have embraced it in the form which the Chair has read. It is very
desirable that this rule should be preserved in its entirety, and
whatever might be the wish of the Chair on this question now before him
for decision he must decide with reference to all like matters and with
reference to the general preservation of good order in the business of
the House of Representatives.
The fact that the bill which it is proposed to offer as an amendment
has been pending under a point of order does not in any way alter the
situation, because the decision must be governed by general principles
or not be governed at all. It does not make any difference, either,
whether these various bills were correctly or incorrectly referred. If
a mistake was made at the time of reference, that can not in any way
interfere with the right of a Member to make this point now. The Chair
does not personally recollect the circumstances under which the
original bill relating to this subject was referred to the committee,
but it is his impression that it was done in open House upon indication
by the Speaker, and that indication was given from a recollection of
many votes on the part of Members in the preceding House, which,
although not strictly governing the action of the Speaker of the
present House, yet at that time might very probably have impressed him
as being a decision on the question. Subsequent references naturally
followed. The fact that both bills were referred to the same committee,
gentlemen will see, does not touch upon the question as to whether they
related to different subjects within the meaning of the rule.
An examination of the bills, it seems to the Chair, will show that
the subjects of them are different. In the first place, one is a
revenue bill in its form; as the gentleman from Mississippi has said, a
bill of double aspect, perhaps, relating directly to revenue;
incidentally to results which might follow. The other bill is one that
in form and declaration relates to commerce between the States. There
seems to be this palpable difference between the two bills as to the
subject. The one bill relates to the sale of lard and of compound lard,
the latter being in strictness an adulteration of the former, not an
injurious one within the purview of the provisions of this bill, and
providing for the manufacture and sale of both, The other relates to
commerce between the States in regard to all manner of food,
adulterated, salable, and not salable. It seems to the Chair,
therefore, that these subjects are plainly different and separate from
each other, and that the only resemblance between the two bills would
be in the remote result which some Members may think would follow them.
Upon this view of the question it seems clear to the Chair that the
point of order is well taken.
Mr. William E. Mason, of Illinois, having appealed, the decision of
the Chair was sustained.
5867. A proposition for the annexation of Cuba was held not to be
germane to a bill providing for reciprocal trade relations with that
country.--On April 18, 1902,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 12765) ``to provide
for reciprocal trade relations with Cuba,'' when Mr. Francis G.
Newlands, of Nevada, offered the following amendment:
Amend by adding a new section, as follows:
``Sec. 2. At the time of making the order reducing the duties on
Cuban products as authorized by section 1, the President shall extend
to the people of Cuba, through their duly organized government, an
invitation to apply for the annexation of the island to the United
States as a constitutional part thereof, the said island at first to
have the status of an organized Territory, and thereafter full
statehood at such time as shall seem proper to the Congress of the
United States, and after such annexation is completed the imposition of
duties upon the products of Cuba entering the United States and upon
the products of the United States entering Cuba shall cease and
determine.''
Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4417.
Sec. 5868
The Chairman \1\ held:
The bill under consideration provides for reciprocal relations with
Cuba. The amendment relates to the annexation of Cuba. The amendment is
not in order, and the Chair sustains the point of order.
5868. To a bill to protect trade and commerce against trusts an
amendment relating to duties on articles handled by trusts was held not
to be germane.--On May 1, 1890,\2\ Mr. David B. Culberson, of Texas,
from the Committee on the Judiciary, called up and the House proceeded
to the consideration of the bill of the Senate (S. 1) to protect trade
and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies.
The House having proceeded to its consideration,
Mr. Joseph D. Sayers, of Texas, moved to amend the bill by adding as
section 9 the following:
Sec. 9. That whenever the President of the United States shall be
advised that a trust has been or is about to be organized for either of
the purposes named in the first section of this act, and that a like
product or commodity covered or proposed to be covered or handled by
such trust, when produced out of the United States, is liable to an
import duty when imported into the United States, he shall be, and is
hereby, authorized and directed to suspend the operation of so much of
the laws as impose a duty upon such product, commodity, or merchandise
for such time as he may deem proper.
Mr. Ezra B. Taylor, of Ohio, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill, relating, as it did, to the
subject of revenue.
The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order, and the amendment was
not received.
5869. An amendment limiting immigration generally was held not to be
germane to a proposition to prevent the immigration of Chinese.--On
April 18, 1904,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union was considering a proposition to enact legislation to prevent the
coming of Chinese persons to the United States.
To this Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, offered an amendment
providing for limiting immigration generally.
Mr. Robert R. Hitt, of Illinois, made a point of order against the
amendment.
The Chairman \5\ held:
On page 325 of the Digest and Manual, the clause reads:
``An amendment prohibiting aliens from coming temporarily into the
United States to work was held not to be germane to a bill to regulate
the immigration of aliens.''
And--
``A proposition to prohibit the employment of Chinese on American
vessels was held not to be germane to a bill to prevent their coming
into the United States.''
The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hitt]
relates solely to the exclusion of Chinese, and an amendment relating
to the general policy of immigration is therefore not germane to that
amendment and the Chair sustains the point of order.
5870. To a provision excluding immigrants unable to read and write
and requiring a certificate with each immigrant admitted, an amendment
to exclude all foreign-born laborers was held not to be germane.--On
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
\2\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 556; Record, p.
4098.
\3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 5037.
\5\ Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, Chairman.
Sec. 5871
May 19, 1896,\1\ Mr. Richard Bartholdt, of Missouri, presented a bill
(H. R. 7864) to amend the immigration laws of the United States by
adding to the classes of aliens excluded from admission to the United
States the following:
All male persons between 16 and 60 years of age who can not both read
and write the English language or some other language.
To this Mr. John B. Corliss, of Michigan, offered an amendment
excluding aliens living in another country and, while so living there,
entering the United States to engage in labor within its borders.
To Mr. Corliss's amendment Mr. Rowland B. Mahany, of New York,
offered as an amendment provisions for a general contract-labor law.
Mr. Bartholdt having reserved a point of order against this
amendment, the Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order.
Mr. William A. Stone, of Pennsylvania, offered as a substitute a bill
providing for the reading and writing test, for consular certificates
as to the immigrant's fitness, and for exclusion of residents of other
countries who might seek to enter to engage in employment while
maintaining their residence without the United States.
Mr. Grove L. Johnson, of California, offered an amendment providing
that it should be unlawful for any foreign-born laborer to enter the
United States.
Mr. Bartholdt made the point of order that this amendment was not
germane either to the original bill or the substitute.
The Speaker said:
The Chair thinks that an amendment providing that nobody shall come
into the United State can hardly be germane as an addition to a bill
which provides that only those who can read and write shall come in,
and provides for consular certificates as to those who may come in.
5871. An amendment prohibiting aliens from coming temporarily into
the United States to work was held not to be germane to a bill to
regulate the immigration of aliens.--On May 22, 1902,\3\ the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union was considering the bill
(H. R. 12199) to regulate the immigration of aliens into the United
States, when Mr. John B. Corliss, of Michigan, offered as an amendment
a proposition to prohibit male aliens from being employed on the public
works of the United States or from coming regularly into the United
States for engaging in any trade or manual labor, returning from time
to time to a foreign country.
Mr. William B. Shattuc made a point of order against the amendment.
After debate the Chairman \4\ said:
The Chair will first dispose of the point of order made upon these
two amendments. The bill before the House is a bill regulating the
immigration of aliens into the United States. The scope of the measure
is exceedingly broad, and any amendment relating directly to the
general scope and intent of the bill would be germane.
These amendments bring in an entirely new subject not alluded to in
the bill, but relating to contract labor and contract-labor laws. If
the Chair did not feel convinced in his own mind on this point of
order, he would feel inclined to follow the decision made by Mr.
Speaker Reed in the Fifty-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 5417, 5421.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\3\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 5834, 5835.
\4\ Henry S. Boutell, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 5872
fourth Congress, which the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Corliss] will
undoubtedly recall.\1\ On an immigration bill similar to the pending
bill amendments similar to the pending amendments were offered, and
points of order were made against them. The points of order were
sustained by Mr. Reed on the ground that the amendments relating to
contract labor were not germane to an immigration bill. In view of the
precedent established by Mr. Speaker Reed, and in accordance with what
seems to the Chair to be correct parliamentary practice, the point of
order is sustained on the ground that the amendments are not germane to
the subject-matter of the bill.
5872. On May 27, 1902,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was continuing the consideration of the bill (H. R.
12199) to regulate the immigration of aliens into the United States,
when Mr. De Alva S. Alexander, of New York, offered the following
amendment:
Amend by adding as new sections, to be known as sections 30 and 31:
``Sec. 30. That it shall hereafter be unlawful for any male alien who
has not in good faith made his declaration before the proper court of
his intention to become a citizen of the United States to be employed
on any public works of the United States, or to come regularly or
habitually into the United States by land or water for the purpose of
engaging in any mechanical trade or manual labor, for wages or salary,
returning from time to time to a foreign country.
``Sec. 31. That it shall be unlawful for any person, partnership,
company, or corporation knowingly to employ any alien coming into the
United States in violation of the next preceding section of this act:
Provided, That the provisions of this act shall not apply to the
employment of sailors, deck hands, or other employees of vessels, or
railroad train hands, such as conductors, engineers, brakemen, firemen,
or baggagemen, whose duties require them to pass over the frontier to
reach the termini of their runs, or to boatmen or guides on the lakes
and rivers on the northern border of the United States.''
Mr. W. B. Shattuc, of Ohio, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \3\ held:
The amendment of the gentleman from New York, with a slight variation
which does not change the effect of the amendment, is the same as the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Corliss] last
week, and to which the point of order was sustained. The same question
was raised in the Fifty-fourth Congress by a similar amendment to an
immigration bill; and, as the Chair stated in passing upon it last
week, Mr. Speaker Reed sustained the point of order on the ground,
among other things, that the amendment related to contract labor, on a
subject not included within the general scope of an immigration bill.
One of the tests of the germaneness of an amendment would be whether if
introduced originally it would go to the committee having in charge the
bill before the House. Now, it seems to the Chair that the provisions
contained in the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York, if
submitted as an original amendment, would, under our rules, go to the
Committee on Labor. * * * As the Chair stated, this is the same
amendment that the Chair ruled upon last week, and although the word
``contract'' does not appear, the reading of the amendment discloses
this fact, referring to those who come regularly and habitually into
the United States by land or water for the purpose of engaging in any
mechanical trade or manual labor, the amendment is one which relates to
the occupation or the employment of the immigrant after his arrival. So
that under the circumstances, and the Chair having ruled upon it last
week, the point of order will be sustained.
5873. An amendment providing for an educational test for immigrants
was held to be germane to a bill to regulate the immigration of aliens
into the United States.--On May 22, 1902,\4\ the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union was considering- the bill (H. R. 12199)
to regulate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 5870 of this chapter.
\2\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6005.
\3\ Henry S. Boutell, of Illinois, Chairman.
\4\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 5822.
Sec. 5874
the immigration of aliens into the United States, when Mr. Oscar W.
Underwood, of Alabama, proposed an amendment providing an educational
qualification, there being no such qualification in the bill.
Mr. William B. Shattuc, of Ohio, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \1\ said:
The Chair would point out in passing on this question that an
examination of this bill shows that it is a general immigration
measure, the title being ``to regulate the immigration of aliens into
the United States.'' Section 35 repeals all other laws inconsistent
with this law. Any amendment to this bill, in the opinion of the Chair,
which is clearly and distinctly connected logically with the general
scope and intent of the bill would be germane.
Section 2 provides restrictions upon which aliens shall enter this
country; it limits the number of aliens by classes who may enter this
country. This amendment provides for a new section, adds a new
restriction, an additional restriction, to the class of persons who may
enter under our immigration laws.
It is not the province of the Chair to pass on the merits or demerits
of any amendment, or its wisdom or justice. It appears to the Chair
that this amendment is clearly, distinctly, and logically connected
with the general scope of a bill regulating the immigration of aliens
into the United States, and under these circumstances the Chair feels
constrained to overrule the point of order and hold that the amendment
is germane to the bill.
5874. A proposition to prohibit the employment of Chinese on American
vessels was held not to be germane to a bill to prevent their coming
into the United States.--On April 7, 1902,\2\ the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union, was considering the bill (H. R.
1303) to prohibit the coming into and to regulate the residence within
the United States, its Territories, and all territory under its
jurisdiction, and the District of Columbia, of Chinese and persons of
Chinese descent.
During consideration of the bill for amendments Mr. Champ Clark, of
Missouri, offered an amendment prohibiting the employment of any
Chinese person not entitled to admission to the United States on any
vessel holding an American register.
Mr. James B. Perkins, of New York, raised the question of order that
the amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \3\ held:
The Chair is ready to rule with considerable hesitation upon this
question. There is no question as to the rule which governs the point
now raised by the gentleman from New York. The statement of Rule XVI is
in these words:
``No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under cover of an amendment.''
However simple the rule may be, its application to the varying states
of fact which are brought before this body is not easy, because it is
not always easy to decide what is the subject under consideration. In
this case it is by the title of the-bill said to be a proposition ``to
prohibit the coming into and to regulate the residence within the
United States, its Territories, and all territory under their
jurisdiction, and the District of Columbia, of Chinese and persons of
Chinese descent.
The title of the bill is unimportant, except so for as it correctly
describes the bill itself. The Chair has examined this bill with a good
deal of care, and has caused it to be examined by another
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Henry S. Boutell, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 3801-3803.
\3\ William H. Moody, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
Sec. 5875
person with a good deal of care. In point of fact, there is no
provision in the bill except a provision looking to the exclusion of
Chinese from our territory. There is no provision regulating the
employment of Chinese within our territory, as the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Grow] has just now so forcibly pointed out. Whatever
the motive may be behind the bill, whatever the reason for its
enactment may be, the actual subject under consideration is the
exclusion of Chinese from American territory.
It is said that the deck of an American ship is American territory.
So it is, while that ship is upon the high seas. When it is in the port
of a foreign country it is not American territory unless the ship be a
public ship of war. Such, if the Chair understands correctly, is the
rule of international law.
But the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri is not to
prohibit Chinese from coming upon the ships sailing under the American
flag, but is to prohibit their employment under the American flag, a
subject entirely different from that under consideration by the
Committee. Could it be in order, for instance, upon an immigration bill
excluding certain classes of people from coming to these shores, to
provide that our ambassadors abroad should not employ persons of that
same descript1on? It would hardly be contended that that would be in
order.
The attention of the Chair has been called to a ruling made by Mr.
Speaker Reed \1\ on the 19th of May, 1896, where a bill to amend the
immigration laws of the United States was before the House, and it was
proposed by that bill to exclude all male persons between 16 and 60
years of age ``who can not both read and write the English language or
some other language.'' Mr. Corliss, of Michigan, offered an amendment
excluding aliens living in another country and while so living there
entering into the United States to engage in labor within its borders--
what the Chair remembers the gentleman from Michigan termed ``birds of
passage.''
A point of order was made against the amendment, and Mr. Speaker Reed
sustained the point of order upon the ground that the amendment was not
germane, although both the bill and the amendment had in view the
protection of American labor. The Chair will say that if this amendment
had proposed to prohibit the presence as employees of Chinese persons
upon American ships touching American ports, where there would be an
opportunity for escape from the ship from time to time, the Chair would
have ruled that to be germane to the general purpose of the bill, which
is to prohibit the entering of Chinese persons into American territory;
but for the reasons that were so well stated by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Grow], that this bill is not engaged in the
regulating of the employment of labor, but in excluding persons of
Chinese blood and descent from our territories, the Chair sustains the
point of order.
Thereupon Mr. Julius Kahn, of California, offered the amendment
modified to read as follows:
And it shall be unlawful for any vessel holding an American register
on a voyage terminating at an American port to have or to employ, etc.
Mr. Perkins having raised a question of order, the Chairman said:
As the Chair has stated, this bill is to prohibit the entrance of
Chinese laborers into the United States. Seamen are laborers within the
distinctions made in this bill, and the amendment now before the
Committee proposes to prohibit the coming of such laborers into an
American port. It is based upon the theory that great safeguards are
needed to carry out the purpose of the law. The bill is full of
provisions which are intended to guard against evasions of the law. For
instance, upon page 10 of the bill it is provided that even the Chinese
who are entitled under this bill to enter our ports can only come in at
certain named ports of entry. In other words, the regulation of
American ships or foreign ships bearing Chinese to our shores is
prescribed by this bill. The Chair thinks, therefore, that, with the
modifications which have been made in the amendment, it is clearly in
order and overrules the point of order. The question is upon agreeing
to the amendment,
5875. To a resolution requesting information as to the amount of
money in the Treasury of the United States an amendment calling for
information as to the number of distilleries in the United States was
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 5870 of this chapter.
Sec. 5876
held not to be germane.--On February 27, 1884,\1\ Mr. William R.
Morrison, of Illinois, from the Committee on Ways and Means, reported a
resolution requesting the Secretary of the Treasury to inform the House
how much money was now in the Treasury of the United States, under what
provisions of law it was retained, and how much, in view of current
receipts, etc., could be applied to the liquidation of the public debt
without embarrassing the Department.
Mr. John D. White, of Kentucky, moved to amend the same by adding a
request for information as to the number of distilleries in the United
States, the number of gallons produced from fruit, etc., and other
facts relating to distilled spirits.
Mr. William S. Holman, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane, and the Speaker \2\ sustained it.
5876. An amendment in the nature of a substitute providing simply for
the establishment of land offices was held not to be germane to a bill
providing for the organization of a Territorial government.--On May 10,
1860,\3\ pending consideration of the bill (H. R. 707) to provide a
temporary government for the Territory of Idaho, Mr. Eli Thayer, of
Massachusetts, proposed an amendment in the nature of a substitute for
the bill.
Mr. Galusha A. Grow, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that,
inasmuch as the bill provided for the organization of a Territorial
government and the amendment simply provided for the establishment of
land offices, the amendment was not in order.
The Speaker \4\ sustained the point of order.
In the discussion the precedent of the preceding Congress, when the
homestead bill was offered as a substitute for the bill relating to
redemption of the public lands, was cited.
Mr. Thayer having appealed, the appeal was laid on the table, yeas
84, nays 77.
5877. To a bill relating to the sale of the public lands an
amendment proposing to give them to settlers was held not to be
germane.--On January 20, 1859,\5\ the House was considering the bill
(H. R. 807) to amend the acts granting rights of preemption to settlers
on the public lands of the United States, when Mr. Francis P. Blair,
jr., of Missouri, proposed to submit an amendment in the nature of a
substitute for the said bill, the general object of said amendment
being ``to donate a homestead of one hundred and sixty acres of public
land, upon condition of occupancy and cultivation, to every citizen of
the United States who is the head of a family.''
Mr. Williamson R. W. Cobb, of Alabama, made the point of order that
the amendment, not being germane to the bill, was out of order.
The Speaker \6\ said:
The title of the bill reported from the Committee on the Public Lands
describes its character; it is a bill to amend the acts granting rights
of preemption to settlers on the public lands of the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 683.
\2\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\3\ First session Thirty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 817, 818;
Globe, pp. 2047, 2048.
\4\ William Pennington, of New Jersey, Speaker.
\5\ Second session Thirty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 223; Globe, p.
492.
\6\James L. Orr, of South Carolina, Speaker.
Sec. 5878
The amendment of the gentleman from Missouri is the homestead bill, and
proposes to give every man who is the head of a family a quarter
section of land. The Chair does not perceive the slightest similarity
between the regular sale of the public lands and the giving them away
as a gratuity. The policy is a very different one where the sale is
regulated by law from that where the lands are given away. It would be
as competent for the gentleman to amend the original bill reported from
the Committee on the Public Lands by proposing to give all the public
lands for school purposes in the several States, or to make any other
like disposition of them which the fancy or caprice of any Member may
dictate. It is on that ground that the Chair rules the amendment out of
order.
5878. To a bill relating to the sale of the public lands an amendment
limiting alien ownership of land other than the public lands was held
not to be germane.--On June 26, 1888, \1\ the House was considering a
bill relating to the disposal of the public lands of the United States,
when Mr. William C. Oates, of Alabama, proposed this amendment:
That no alien or person who is not a citizen of the United States
shall, after the approval of this act, acquire title to or own a
greater interest than a leasehold for five years in any lands anywhere
within the United States of America and their jurisdiction; and deeds
or other conveyances of land acquired after the approval of this act by
any alien or unnaturalized foreigner, or by any company, firm, or
corporation composed of such, shall be void: Provided, That foreign
governments and their representatives may acquire and own lands or lots
sufficient in quantity for ministerial and legation purposes, to be
approved by the Secretary of State: Provided further, That any alien
may for valuable consideration take hold, and assign, foreclose and
sell under any mortgage or deed of trust any land within the United
States and their jurisdiction.
Mr. William S. Holman, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
The Speaker pro tempore \2\ held:
The Chair thinks that the amendment of the gentleman from Alabama, in
so far as it seeks to control the future disposition of lands not now
the property of the Government, and not the subject of legislation in
this bill, is not germane. To that extent, therefore, the Chair
sustains the point of order. The gentleman from Alabama having, in
framing his amendment, gone beyond the public lands, the Chair is
compelled to hold that the amendment is not in order. It would be
competent, in the opinion of the Chair, to adopt a proviso of the kind
suggested, applicable only to the public lands and their disposition;
but waiving altogether the question of the power of Congress--a matter
with which the Chair would have nothing to do--the Chair thinks it is
not germane in a bill of this kind, dealing only with the public
domain, to attempt to incorporate any provision not bearing distinctly
upon the public lands and their disposition.
5879. To a bill to enlarge the size of homesteads in a certain State,
an amendment changing the commutation law as to homesteads generally,
was offered and held not to be germane.--On February 28, 1905,\3\ the
House was considering the bill (H. R. 18464) to amend the homestead
laws as to certain unappropriated and unreserved lands in South Dakota,
when Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, offered an-amendment repealing
Section 2301 of the Revised Statutes, which authorizes the commutation
of homesteads on the public lands generally.
Mr. Eben W. Martin, of South Dakota, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fiftieth Congress, Record, pp. 5600, 5604; Journal,
p. 2222.
\2\ Benton McMillin, of Tennessee, Speaker pro tempore.
\3\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 3683, 3684.
Sec. 5880
The Speaker \1\ held, after debate:
The Chair finds on examination that this bill affects lands in the
State of South Dakota. The Chair also finds upon examination that as to
those lands in South Dakota it repeals the commutation homestead
clause. The amendment which the gentleman from Alabama offers applies
to all the public lands in the United States subject to homestead
entry. * * * But this bill affects land alone in the State of South
Dakota. The gentleman's amendment would affect land everywhere outside
of the State of South Dakota.
Even without any precedents the Chair would be clear that the
amendment would not be germane upon this bill. The Chair, however, has
a precedent in principle:
``In a provision extending the customs and internal-revenue clause of
the United States over the Hawaiian Islands, an amendment for effecting
the extension of all the laws of the United States over those islands
was offered and held not to be germane.'' \2\
It is perfectly clear, in the opinion of the Chair, that under the
rules the amendment is subject to the point of order.
5880. To a bill transferring the care of forest reserves to the
Department of Agriculture, an amendment modifying the civil service
rules as to officials in those reserves was held not germane.--On
December 12, 1904, \3\ the House was considering this bill:
A bill (H. R. 8460) providing for the transfer of forest reserves from
the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture.
Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Department of
Agriculture shall, from and after the passage of this act, supervise
the execution of all laws and regulations affecting public lands
heretofore or hereafter reserved under the provisions of section 24 of
the act entitled ``An act to repeal the timber-culture laws, and for
other purposes,'' approved March 3, 1891, and acts supplemental to and
amendatory thereof, after such lands have been so reserved, excepting
such laws as affect the surveying, entering, relinquishing,
reconveying, certifying, or patenting of any of such lands.
To this bill Mr. Eben W. Martin, of South Dakota, proposed to add
this as an amendment:
Provided, however, That forest superintendents, supervisors, and
rangers shall be selected, when practical, from qualified citizens of
the State or Territory in which said reserves, respectively, are
situated.
Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
The Speaker \1\ held:
The bill provides for the transfer of the forest reserves from the
Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture. The
amendment seeks to deal with the civil service of the Government,
amendatory of existing law touching the civil service. It seems to the
Chair that it is not germane, and therefore the Chair sustains the
point of order.
5881. The distribution of seed grain to a class of destitute farmers
was held not to be germane to the regular Congressional seed
distribution for the improvement of agriculture.--On February 25,
1891,\4\ the House was in Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union considering the agcultural appropriation bill, and the
paragraph appropriating for the annual
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\2\ See section 5864 of this chapter.
\3\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 167.
\4\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 3268.
Sec. 5882
distribution of seeds, trees, shrubs, vines, etc., among the
constituents of Members of Congress had been reached.
Mr. Edward P. Allen, of Michigan, offered an amendment providing for
the distribution of seed grain to such farmers in the States of North
Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska, and the Territory of Oklahoma as
had had their crops destroyed by the elements in the year 1890, and who
should be found to be too impoverished and destitute to supply
themselves with seed grain for use in the year 1891.
Mr. Judson C. Clements, of Georgia, made a point of order against the
paragraph.
The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order.
5882. To a proposition relating to the terms of service of
Representatives and Senators, an amendment proposing election of
Senators by the people was held not to be germane.--On January 10,
1893,\2\ the House proceeded to the consideration of the joint
resolution (H. J. Res. 98) proposing amendments to the Constitution
substituting the 31st day of December for the 4th day of March as the
commencement and termination of the official terms of Members of the
House of Representatives and of United States Senators, and providing
that Congress shall hold its annual meeting on the second Monday in
January and substituting the 30th of April for the 4th of March as the
date for the commencement and limitation of the terms of President and
Vice-President.
After debate, Mr. William S. Holman, of Indiana, submitted this
amendment:
That the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two
Senators from each State, who shall be chosen by a direct vote of the
people of the several States for six years; and the electors in each
State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most
numerous branch of the State legislature; and each Senator shall have
one vote.
Mr. Nelson Dingley, Jr., of Maine, made the point of order that the
amendment proposed by Mr. Holman was not germane to the pending joint
resolution.
The Speaker \3\ sustained the point or order.
5883. To a bill providing for an issue of Treasury notes, an
amendment providing for the redemption of such notes by suspending the
distribution of the proceeds of public land sales was held not to be
germane.--On January 10, 1842, \4\ the House was considering in
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union a bill
authorizing the issue of Treasury notes.
To this bill Mr. John B. Weller, of Ohio, offered an amendment in the
form of a new section, to provide that so much of the act of September
4, 1841, as provided for the distribution of the proceeds of the public
lands among the States and Territories be suspended, and that the said
fund should be applied to the payment of the outstanding Treasury
notes, as well as those authorized to be issued under this act.
Mr. Millard Fillmore, of New York, made the point of order that the
proposed amendment was not relevant to the subject-matter of the bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nelson Dingley, jr., of Maine, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 39; Record, pp.
483, 497, 498.
\3\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Globe, p. 112.
Sec. 5884
The Chairman \1\ said:
The amendment proposed is objected to as not in order, and the
fiftieth rule of the House is relied upon to sustain the objection.
That rule prescribes that ``no motion, or proposition, on a, subject
different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color
of amendment.'' The question, therefore, of order in this case resolves
itself into one of fact. Is the amendment now proposed ``on a subject
different from that under consideration?'' If it is, then it is clear
that the amendment is not in order. The subject under consideration is
a bill for the issue of Treasury notes. The amendment, whilst it may be
regarded as a proposition to set apart the proceeds of the sales of the
public lands as a fund either to supersede, to some extent, the issue
of Treasury notes, or for the redemption of such as may be issued, and
to that extent unquestionably of a kindred character to the bill under
consideration, still the fact can not but strike every gentleman that
the amendment aims at the repeal of an existing law, and the mere
statement of the proposition can not fail to inspire us all with the
wide difference between a bill to issue Treasury notes and a bill to
repeal the distribution act. It may be admitted that either proposition
would attain the same end--that of furnishing supplies for the use of
the Government-still the Chair, regarding the repeal of the law
referred to in the amendment as wholly different from the bill under
consideration, inclines to the opinion that the amendment is not in
order.
Mr. John McKeon, of New York, having appealed, the decision of the
Chair was sustained by the committee, yeas 92, nays 79.
5884. To a provision for the erection of a building for a mint, an
amendment to change the coinage laws was held not to be germane.--On
May 11, 1892,\2\ the House was in Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union considering the sundry civil appropriation bill. The
Clerk having read the section of the bill providing for the purchase of
a site and the commencement of the building of an addition to the mint
at Philadelphia, Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, offered the
following amendment:
Provided, That all silver bullion now in the Treasury the property
of the Government, or hereafter purchased by or becoming the property
of the Government, shall be immediately coined into standard silver
dollars, and the seigniorage or gain arising therefrom covered into the
Treasury and paid out to meet the appropriations herein provided for.
Mr. Charles Tracey, of New York, made a point of order against this
amendment.
The Chairman \3\ ruled:
The paragraph to which this amendment is offered proposes to
appropriate money for the building of a mint in the city of
Philadelphia. The amendment deals with the general question of the
coinage of money. It occurs to the Chair that the amendment is
obnoxious to paragraph 7, Rule XVI,\4\ because it is not germane to the
subject under consideration.\5\
The Chair further held the amendment out of order under section 2,
Rule XXI, as proposing a change of existing law.
5885. To a bill regulating the sale and speculation in certain farm
products, an amendment providing for the free coinage of silver at a
fixed ratio was held not to be germane.
Under the rule for the previous question only one motion to recommit
is in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ George W. Hopkins, of Virginia, Chairman.
\2\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Record, pp. 4174, 4181.
\3\ Rufus E. Lester, of Georgia, Chairman.
\4\ See section 5767 of this volume.
\5\ Similar amendments to a bill relating to the national banks were
held not to be germane. (First session Forty-seventh Congress, Journal,
pp. 1284-1293.)
Sec. 5886
On June 22, 1894,\1\ the House had ordered to be engrossed and read a
third time the bill (H. R. 7007) regulating the sale of certain
agricultural products, defining options, etc., and the question
recurred on its passage.
Mr. Charles S. Hartman, of Montana, moved to recommit the bill to the
Committee on Agriculture with instruction to report the same to the
House with an amendment providing for the free coinage of gold and
silver at a ratio of 16 to 1.
Mr. Charles Tracey, of New York, made the point that the amendment
proposed in the motion was not in order.
The Speaker pro tempore \2\ sustained the point of order.
Mr. Charles J. Boatner, of Louisiana, moved that the bill be
recommitted to the Committee on Agriculture with instruction to report
a similar bill limiting its provisions to transactions between citizens
of different States.
Mr. William H. Hatch, of Missouri, made the point of order that the
proposed instruction was not in order.
The Speaker pro tempore overruled the point of order.
On motion of Mr. Boatner, the previous question was ordered on
agreeing to the motion to recommit. And being put, the motion to
recommit was disagreed to.
Mr. Benjamin F. Funk, of Illinois, submitted a motion to recommit the
bill with instruction to report the same, with an amendment adding
sugar, refined and unrefined, to the articles enumerated therein.
The Speaker pro tempore \2\ held that, in accordance with the usage
of the House only one motion to recommit was in order after the
previous question is ordered on the passage of a bill; and that one
motion having been entertained and disposed of, the motion submitted by
Mr. Funk was not in order.
5886. To a bill relating to the coinage of silver in the Treasury and
its use in redemption of notes issued against it, amendments
authorizing the issue of bonds and also authorizing the giving of notes
for deposits of silver, were held not to be germane.--On March 1, 1894,
\3\ the House proceeded to the consideration of the bill (H. R. 4956)
directing the coinage of the silver bullion in the Treasury, and for
other purposes. This bill provided for the coinage of the seigniorage
arising from the act of July 14, 1890, and the use of it for expenses
of the Government through the medium of certificates issued against it;
and also the bill provided for the coinage of the other silver
purchased under the terms of the act of 1890, and its use in the
redemption and cancellation of the Treasury notes which had been issued
against it.
Mr. Martin N. Johnson, of North Dakota, offered this amendment to the
bill:
The Secretary of the Treasury shall afford to holders of standard
silver dollars the same rights and facilities as to redemption and
exchange as now accorded to the holders of silver dimes, quarter
dollars, and half dollars.
Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 446; Record, p.
6739.
\2\ Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, Speaker pro tempore.
\3\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 216, 217;
Record, pp. 2511, 2513, 2514.
Sec. 5887
The Speaker \1\ entertained the amendment.
Mr. Isidor Straus, of New York, submitted as an amendment to the
amendment proposed by Mr. Johnson, of North Dakota, the following:
That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized
to issue from time to time coupon and registered bonds of the United
States in denominations of $20 and multiples of that sum, payable in
coin after five years from date, and bearing interest at a rate not
exceeding 3 per cent per annum, payable quarterly in coin, and to sell
and dispose of the same at not less than par in coin; and the proceeds
of such bonds shall be paid into the Treasury and held and used for the
purposes now authorized by law.
Mr. Bland made the point that the amendment submitted by Mr. Straus
was not germane and not in order.
The Speaker sustained the point of order, and the amendment of Mr.
Straus was not entertained.
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, submitted as an amendment to the
pending amendment proposed by Mr. Johnson, of North Dakota, several
sections, of which the first was as follows:
That any owner of silver bullion may deposit the same at any coinage
mint or at any assay office in the United States that the Secretary of
the Treasury may designate, and receive therefor Treasury notes
hereinafter provided for, equal at the date of deposit to the net value
of such silver, at the market price, such price to be determined by the
Secretary of the Treasury under rules and regulations prescribed, based
upon the price current in the leading silver markets of the world.
Mr. Bland made the point of order that the amendment submitted by Mr.
Cannon was not germane to the subject under consideration.
The Speaker sustained the point of order, saving:
The Chair is not familiar with, and has not been able to carefully
consider, all of the provisions of this proposed amendment, but it is a
well-established rule that if any part of an amendment is out of order,
or is not germane, that fact taints the character of the whole; and the
Chair thinks that in order to authorize an amendment to the pending
proposition the gentleman must have his amendment in such shape that no
part of it is out of order. It is clear to the Chair that the first
proposition contained in this amendment is out of order and is not
germane. Whereas the pending bill proposes to deal with the silver now
in the Treasury, this is a proposition to permit all holders of silver
to take it to the Treasury and have it coined under a free-coinage
proposition--a proposition dealing with silver which his outside of the
Treasury--and therefore the Chair does not think it is in order, and so
holds.
5887. To a bill granting a right of way to a railroad, an amendment
providing for the purchase of the railroad by the Government was held
not to be germane.--On February 28, 1898,\2\ Mr. Richard Bartholdt, of
Missouri, by unanimous consent, presented the bill (H. R. 6358)
authorizing the Nebraska, Kansas and Gulf Railway Company to construct
and operate a railway through the Indian Territory, and for other
purposes.
To this Mr. Adbert M. Todd, of Michigan, proposed as an amendment a
provision, as follows:
That the United States of America shall have the right to purchase
the franchise rights and other property herein granted, with the
roadbed, bridges, telegraph lines, and tracks, together with such other
property and rights as the Government may deem necessary for the proper
operation of the road.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 2301, 2302.
Sec. 5888
at any time after ten years from this date, whenever the Government
shall elect to exercise such right, by giving the railroad company or
its assigns two years' notice of such intention to purchase, etc.
Mr. Bartholdt made the point of order that the amendment was not
germane.
The Speaker, said:
The Chair understands that the Government does not grant a franchise
to the road, but simply gives it a right of way. It does not give a
charter to the road. * * * The Chair will have to sustain the point of
order.
5888. To a bill relating to the resignation and salary of a district
judge, an amendment providing for the division of that judge's district
into two districts was offered and held not to be germane.--On January
5, 1899,\2\ the House was considering in Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union the bill (S. 4786) providing for the
resignation of Cassius G. Foster, United States district judge for the
district of Kansas, and the continuation of his salary.
To this bill Mr. Jerry Simpson, of Kansas, offered as a substitute an
amendment providing for the division of Kansas into two judicial
districts, for the holding of district and circuit courts therein, and
for the appointment of the additional judge required for the second
district.
Mr. David B. Henderson, of Iowa, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
The Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order.
5889. To a bill providing for the holding of courts in certain
existing judicial districts, an amendment providing for the creation of
a new district was held not germane.
It is not in order to do indirectly, by a motion to commit with
instructions, what may not be done directly by way of amendment.
On May 17, 1884, \4\ the House having under consideration a bill
relating to the judicial districts of the State of Texas, the bill was
passed to be engrossed and read a third time under the operation of the
previous question.
The question then being on the passage of the bill, Mr. Poindexter
Dunn, of Arkansas, moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on the
Judiciary, with instructions to report the same with an amendment in
the nature of a substitute as submitted by him.
The Clerk having read a portion of the proposed amendment, Mr. Thomas
M. Browne, of Indiana, made the point of order that the motion was not
in order, for the reason that the proposed amendment was not germane to
the pending bill.
The Speaker, \5\ sustained the point of order, saying:
The Chair is inclined to think that the substitute embodied by the
gentleman in his motion to recommit is not germane. The bill pending
before the House is a bill to amend the act in relation to holding
courts in certain judicial districts and to attach part of the Indian
Territory to a judicial district now in existence-, whereas the bill
which the gentleman from Arkansas has sent to the Clerk's desk creates
an entirely new judicial district and provides for the appointment of
an additional judge
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas B. Reed \7\ of Maine, Speaker.
\2\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 412.
\3\ William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, Chairman.
\4\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 1247; Record,
pp. 4256, 4257.
\5\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
Sec. 5890
and other necessary officers to hold courts in the Indian Territory. It
relates alone to Indian Territory. * * * The question which the Chair
is called upon to decide is whether the bill which the gentleman
proposes to embody in his instructions is in fact germane to the
subject to which the other bill relates. The Chair thinks it is not.
There is Do doubt in the mind of the Chair that the bill now sent up
would, under the rules of the House, have to receive its first
consideration in the Committee of the Whole; whereas the other bill, as
the Chair decided in view of former rulings, need not go to that
committee, but might be considered at once in the House. The Chair
thinks that these instructions are not in order, although a motion to
commit simply would be in order. * * * It has been decided frequently
that it is not competent for the House to accomplish indirectly, by
reference to a committee with instructions, what could not be
accomplished directly by offering an amendment on the floor--that is to
say, if the bill which the proposed instructions direct the committee
to report is not germane as an amendment, it can not be brought before
the House on a motion to recommit.
5890. To a proposition to investigate the conduct of Members in
relation to a Department of the Government, an amendment proposing an
investigation of the Department itself was held not to be germane.
A privileged proposition may not be amended by adding thereto matter
not privileged or germane to the original question.
On March 11, 1904,\1\ the following resolution, involving a question
of high privilege, was before the House.
Whereas Fourth Assistant Postmaster-General J. L. Bristow, in his
report to the Postmaster-General, dated October 24, 1903, and which
report has been transmitted to a committee of this House, has charged
that ``long-time leases for post-office premises were canceled and the
rent increased upon the recommendation of influential
Representatives;'' and
Whereas it is charged in the same report that ``if a Member of
Congress requested an increase in the clerk hire allowed a postmaster,
Beavers usually complied, regardless of the merits of the case;'' and
Whereas certain cases of an aggravated character are cited on pages
133, 134, and 135 of said report to sustain the above charges; and
Whereas on page 145 of said report it is charged that Members of
Congress have violated section 3739 of the Revised Statutes, and that
``in the face of this statute Beavers has made contracts with Members
of Congress for the rental of premises, either in their own names, the
names of their agents, or some member of their families;'' and
Whereas these charges and others contained in said report reflect
upon the integrity of the membership of this House, and upon individual
Members of this House whose names are not mentioned: Therefore be it
Resolved, That the Speaker of this House appoint a committee,
consisting of five Members of this House, to investigate said charges;
that said committee have power to send for persons and papers, to
enforce the production of the same, to examine witnesses under oath, to
have the assistance of a stenographer, and to have power to sit during
the sessions of the House, and to exercise all functions necessary to a
complete investigation of said charges, and to report the result of
said investigation as soon as practicable.
To this Mr. John A. Moon, of Tennessee, proposed an amendment in the
nature of a substitute, to strike out all after the word ``resolved,''
and insert:
That the Speaker of the House appoint a committee, consisting of five
Members of this House, to investigate the conduct and administration of
the Post-Office Department; that said committee have power to send for
persons and papers and enforce the production of the same, to examine
witnesses under oath, to have the assistance of a stenographer and all
necessary clerks, to have the power to sit during the sessions of the
House and exercise all functions necessary to a complete investigation
of all frauds and irregularities alleged to exist in the said
Department, including alleged frauds, irregularities, illegalities, and
improprieties by Members of Congress in connection with said
Department, and to report the result of said investigation as soon as
practicable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 3146-3149;
Journal, p. 418.
Sec. 5890
Mr. Jesse Overstreet, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
proposed amendment was not germane and not privileged.
In the course of the debate on the question of order, Mr. David A. De
Armond, of Missouri, said:
I rise for the purpose of making to the Chair a suggestion which I
hope he may adopt; which if it seems to him proper to be adopted he
will adopt, I think. It is that, instead of formally ruling upon this
point of order, the Speaker do as very many of his predecessors did in
the time past--submit the question to the House, to let it determine
for itself.
At the conclusion of the debate the Speaker \1\ ruled:
The gentleman from Tennessee offers the amendment which has been
reported at the Clerk's desk. It provides for a general investigation
of the conduct and administration of the Post-Office Department, and
also coupled with it an investigation as to the action of Members of
Congress touching matters referred to. To this amendment the gentleman
from Indiana makes the point of order, first, that it is not germane;
second, that it is not privileged, or, to put it in another way, that
even if it were germane, he makes the point that it couples a
nonprivileged matter with a privileged matter. The question before the
House is a matter of such high privilege, touching the dignity of the
House and the integrity of Members in their representative capacity,
that it displaces all other business. The gentleman from Virginia this
morning called for the regular order, although matters made privileged
by the rules were ready for the consideration of the House, and that
demand for the regular order postponed those privileged matters,
because this is a question of the highest privilege. Otherwise it could
not be here.
Some weeks ago the gentleman from Virginia rose in his place to a
question of privilege. Gentlemen will recollect that he then had a
nonprivileged matter coupled with his question of privilege, and the
Chair, sustained by the House, held that the resolution first offered
was subject to the point of order because, while part of it represented
a question of privilege, a part of it did not, and the decisions that
the Chair then referred to by Mr. Speaker Carlisle, by Mr. Speaker pro
tempore Blackburn, of Kentucky, and others, are within the recollection
of the House. \2\ The Chair will refer to those briefly again. The
gentleman offered the resolution embodied in the report, which I need
not take the time of the House to again read, free from the
nonprivileged matter, and the House sent that resolution to the
Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads. That committee reports back,
with the recommendation that that resolution (known as the Hay
resolution) do lie upon the table. Pending the vote on laying that
privileged resolution upon the table, by unanimous consent, the
gentleman from Tennessee, under the special order, offers this
amendment. First, is it germane? Clause 7, Rule XVI, is as follows:
``And no motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
What is the question under consideration? A question of the highest
privilege, touching the relations of the Members of this House to
certain matters referred to in the report from the Post-Office
Department. This amendment proposed to investigate the Post-Office
Department generally, not only as to matters relating to Members of
this House, but as to a wide variety of matters having no reference
whatever to the Members of this House. A bare reading of the rule shows
that the proposed amendment embodies a subject different from that
under consideration. The Chair may insert, with the permission of the
House--he will not take the time to read it--an extract from an opinion
of Mr. Speaker Carlisle in construing the same rule, in which he gave
the history of the rule and the practice of the House of
Representatives heretofore. \3\ It is an exceedingly clear opinion,
like most of the opinions of Mr. Speaker Carlisle. The extract follows:
``The Congress of the Confederation, in 1781, adopted a rule in the
following words:
`` `No new motion or proposition shall be admitted under color of
amendment as a substitute for a question or proposition under debate
until it is postponed or disagreed to.'
``The House of Representatives of the First Congress, on the 4th of
March, 1789, adopted the following rule upon this subject:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\2\ See sections 5809, 5810 of this chapter.
\3\ See section 5825 of this chapter.
Sec. 5890
`` `No new motion or proposition shall be admitted under color of
amendment as a substitute for the motion or proposition under debate.'
``It will be observed that each of these rules admitted amendments
introducing new motions or propositions if they were not offered as
substitute for the motion or proposition under debate. But in March,
1822, the House changed the rule of 1789 so as to make it read as
follows:
`` `No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.'
``And in this form the rule has stood ever since, and now constitutes
a part of the seventh clause of Rule XVI in the recent revision. The
rule does not prohibit a committee reporting a bill from embracing in
it as many different subjects as it may choose, but after the bill has
been reported to the House no different subject can be introduced into
it by amendment, whether as a substitute or otherwise.
``When, therefore, it is objected that a proposed amendment is not in
order because it is not germane, the meaning of the objection is simply
that it (the proposed amendment) is a motion or proposition on a
subject different from that under consideration. This is the test of
admissibility prescribed by the express language of the rule.''
Now, if it be germane and proper under the rules to couple a
nonprivileged matter with a privileged matter, let us inquire a minute
where it would lead the House. If this amendment to investigate the
Post-Office Department is germane, an amendment to investigate the
postal service is germane. If this is germane, an amendment to
investigate the Interior Department or the Treasury Department would be
germane. Any conceivable question connected with the Executive would be
germane. If this be germane, whenever a Representative in a House of
almost 400 Members desired to inaugurate an investigation touching any
matter he need only make his motion so as to make it privileged, and
then you could tack on all matters nonprivileged and nongermane, and
the House, in the transaction of its business, would cease to be an
orderly body, and would run lawless.
The Chair has a number of decisions here.
As early as 1827 a Speaker who occupied the Chair for four terms--
Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia--held that an amendment commanding tariff
revision was not germane to a resolution giving a committee power to
investigate tariff subjects. \1\ In later days Mr. Speaker Carlisle
construed the rule with equal strictness, and held that a proposition
to investigate the affairs of the New Orleans Cotton Exposition was not
germane to a proposition to pay the indebtedness of that exposition.
But the Chair is not confined to reasonings on general principles.
The particular question involved has been settled before, and the Chair
may follow a broad and well-beaten pathway.
Questions precisely similar arose in the Forty-eighth Congress; and
there are found in sections 1078 and 1079 of the Parliamentary
Precedents well-considered rulings--one by Mr. Speaker Carlisle and the
other by Mr. J. C. S. Blackburn, of Kentucky, as Speaker pro tempore--
wherein it is specifically held that a privileged proposition may not
be amended by adding thereto matter not privileged or germane to the
original question. The reasonableness and justice of these rulings have
not been questioned in twenty years.
Under the Constitution the House makes rules for its government. The
House elects the Speaker who presides over the body. The House
determines and construes the rules when a question is properly
presented before him; but with a line of precedents running for almost
a century, whoever might occupy the chair would, in the opinion of the
present occupant of the chair, act the coward if he did not call the
attention of the House to the precedents touching the germaneness of
this and similar amendments. The grouping together of privileged and
nonprivileged matters is contrary to all rules, and has been so held by
all occupants of this chair, so far as the Chair has been enabled to
find himself, and after availing himself of advice from one who perhaps
has a better knowledge of the precedents than any other man within the
sound of my voice.
Therefore the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order,
first, that the amendment is not germane, and, second, that it is in
the teeth of the rule that prohibits the linking together of privileged
and nonprivileged matters.
Mr. James M. Griggs, of Georgia, having appealed, the appeal was, on
motion of Mr. Overstreet, laid on the table by a vote of yeas 154, nays
125.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 5853 of this chapter.
Sec. 5891
5891. To a proposition for the appointment of a select committee to
investigate a certain subject, an amendment proposing an inquiry of the
Executive on that subject was held not to be germane.--On June 8,
1850,\1\ the House was considering a resolution providing for the
appointment of a select committee to investigate the conduct of the
Secretary of the Treasury in relation to certain Indian funds.
Mr. Joseph R. Chandler, of Pennsylvania, moved to amend by striking
out all after the word ``resolved,'' and inserting:
That the Secretary of the Treasury be requested to report to this
House an account of all sums of money which may have been taken (if
any) from the surplus fund, which had accumulated to said fund under
the provisions of the act of Congress of 1795 from appropriations made
for the Florida Indians, and for other purposes, under various specific
appropriations.
The Speaker \2\ said:
A resolution was offered to raise a select committee, and it is
proposed to amend that resolution by adopting the amendment which calls
upon one of the Departments for information. The Chair holds that a
resolution calling for information belongs to a different class of
business altogether from the other resolution; and there are rules of
the House containing provisions in respect to resolutions calling for
information which do not apply to other propositions. One of these
provisions is very important. It provides that a resolution calling for
information must lie over, and that it can not be considered on the
same day on which it is offered. The resolution now pending is in
order; but the moment the Chair entertains the amendment of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania and that amendment is brought before the
House, the House must stop in the midst of the proceeding and the
resolution calling for information must go over. The Chair gives this
illustration to show that a resolution calling for information is never
in order to a resolution of the character of that now under
consideration. There is also another difficulty in the way. The rule of
the House declares that these resolutions calling for information shall
never be considered on the same day on which they are offered. The rule
would be null and void if such a resolution could be brought in by way
of amendment, and the rule which requires calls for information to lie
over one day would thus, in effect, be abrogated.\3\
5892. An amendment relating to the Government tax on liquors sold in
prohibition communities was held not to be germane to a proposition to
prohibit the sale of liquor in the Capitol.--On May 27, 1902, \4\ the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union was considering
the bill (H. R. 12199) to regulate the immigration of aliens into the
United States, when an amendment was offered, without objection that it
was not in order, as follows:
That no intoxicating liquors of any kind shall be sold within the
limits of the Capitol building of the United States.
To this amendment Mr. Charles K. Wheeler, of Kentucky, proposed the
following amendment:
And the collectors of revenue districts of the United States are
hereby directed to refuse license to sell spirituous, vinous, and malt
liquor by retail to any person living in a county or district where the
inhabitants of said county or district have by vote prohibited the sale
of such liquors in such county or district.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Globe, p. 1233.
\2\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
\3\ This rule has been changed in later years.
\4\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 6011-6013.
Sec. 5893
Mr. William B. Shattue, of Ohio, made the point of order that the
amendment to the amendment was not germane.
After debate, the Chairman \1\ said:
The Chair is prepared to rule upon the point of order made by the
gentleman from Ohio to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Kentucky to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Indiana. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana provides that no
intoxicating liquors of any character shall be sold within the limits
of the Capitol building of the United States. It will be observed that
this amendment is not a general provision, prohibiting or restricting
the sale of intoxicating liquors on all Government property or in all
Government buildings, but is simply a prohibition against the sale of
intoxicating liquors in one building, and any amendment restraining the
sale of liquor in any other building or any other locality controlled
by the Government would not be in order under the rule. The amendment
offered by the gentleman from Kentucky also affects matters relating to
the revenues, and would be original matter which would go to the
committee dealing with matters relating to revenue. The Chair feels
very clearly, therefore, that the amendment is not germane to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana, and sustains the point
of order made by the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Wheeler having appealed, the decision of the Chair was
sustained--ayes 102, noes 16.
5893. An amendment prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors in
all Government buildings accessible to aliens was held not germane to a
proposition to prohibit such sale in immigrant stations.--On May 27,
1902, \2\ the House was considering in Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union the bill (11. R. 12199) to regulate the
immigration of aliens into the United States, when Mr. Justin D.
Bowersock, of Kansas, offered the following amendment:
On page 21, after the word ``prescribe,'' in line 20, insert
``provided that no intoxicating liquors shall be sold in any such
immigrant station.''
Mr. W. B. Shattuc, of Ohio, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
The Chairman \1\ held:
The question is on the point of order raised by the gentleman from
Ohio to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr.
Bowersock]. An examination of this bill discloses that section 30, in
connection with section 32, provides in general terms for the
government and regulation and the administration of the law in
immigrant stations. In section 30 it is provided that eating-house
privileges and other like privileges shall be disposed of by public
competition, under the direction of the Commissioner of Immigration and
the Secretary of the Treasury. These terms are general, and include the
entire subject of the regulation and preservation of order in these
immigrant stations. Any amendment making specific restrictions, and
thereby limiting the general language in this section, would, in the
opinion of the Chair, be clearly germane, and the point of order made
by the gentleman from Ohio is therefore overruled.
Mr. Shattuc thereupon offered the following as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Bowersock:
That hereafter it shall be unlawful to sell intoxicating liquor in
any immigrant station or other building accessible to aliens, owned or
used by the United States Government, or in the grounds appertaining to
the same.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Henry S. Boutell, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ First session Thirty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 6005, 6006.
Sec. 5894
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
substitute was not germane.
After debate, the Chairman said:
The raising of a point of order necessarily throws upon the Chairman
the responsibility of deciding it. This amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio as a substitute, taken in its entirety, is
certainly not germane to even the broadest scope or intent that could
be given to this bill. As the Chair stated in ruling on the point of
order, one test of the germaneness of an amendment that can always be
made is this: Could the subject embraced in the amendment, if offered
as an independent bill in the House, be referred to the committee which
has reported the bill under consideration?
Now, that part of this amendment which restricts the sale of
intoxicating liquor in all public buildings would certainly not be a
matter which would be referred to the Committee on Immigration, and the
description of these buildings as buildings which are accessible to
aliens is a mere description of all public buildings by indirection or
by circumlocution of words. It seems very clear to the Chair that,
taken as a whole, this amendment, offered as a substitute, is not
germane, and the Chair sustains the point of order made by the
gentleman from Illinois.
5894. To a paragraph prohibiting the sale of firearms or intoxicating
liquors to the natives of Alaska, an amendment providing a system for
licensing the sale of liquor in that Territory was held not to be
germane.--On January 11, 1899. \1\ the House was considering the bill
(H. R. 8571) to provide a criminal code for the district of Alaska. The
Clerk read this section:
Sec. 145. That if any person shall, without the authority of the
United States, or some authorized officer thereof, sell, barter, or
give to any Indian or half-breed who lives and associates with Indians
any firearms or ammunition therefor whatever, or any spirituous, malt,
or vinous liquor, such person, upon conviction thereof, shall be
punished by imprisonment in the county jail not less than two months
nor more than six months, or by fine not less than one nor more than
five hundred dollars. Section 1955 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States, and all that part of section 14 of ``An act providing a
civil government for Alaska,'' approved May 17, 1884, after the word
``provided,'' is hereby repealed.
Mr. William H. Moody, of Massachusetts, had offered an amendment to
strike out this section and insert the old provision of law prohibiting
the sale of liquor in Alaska.
To this amendment Mr. Thomas H. Tongue, of Oregon, offered as an
amendment a series of paragraphs providing a system for licensing the
sale of intoxicating liquors in the district of Alaska.
Mr. William H. Moody, of Massachusetts, having reserved a point of
order against the amendment, after debate the Speaker \2\ decided:
The Chair would be very glad to submit the matter to the House, but
is obliged to rule upon it according to his judgment and according to
the precedents, which he has carefully examined. The section which it
is proposed to amend does not deal generally with the liquor question.
It is only a prohibition to sell intoxicating liquors, or firearms, or
ammunition to Indians or half-breeds. It does not deal with the whole
liquor question with reference to the Territory of Alaska, but is
solely a prohibition to sell liquor and other things to Indians and
half-breeds. Now, certainly it is not germane to a section of that sort
to propose an entire change--to propose what is substantially and
necessarily a revenue measure. That revenue measure may incidentally
deal with the liquor question, but it deals with it only incidentally.
As the Chair has remarked, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Tongue],
when he presented his original amendment, presented a complete scheme
for raising revenue, not only by licensing the sale of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 580-584; Journal.
pp. 67, 68.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
Sec. 5895
liquors, but also by licensing various other occupations not of a
similar character, and some that were of what might be called a similar
character. That showed what his idea was when he originally presented
the amendment, and the fact that he has stricken off all the other
taxes does not in any way change the fact that the basis of this action
is a tax. It is proposed to use that as an amendment to a proposition
forbidding the sale of liquor to Indians and halfbreeds. Certainly if
there ever was a case where a proposition was not germane it is this.
The Chair has been reluctant to come to this conclusion, but it seems
inevitable. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
5895. To a proposition to investigate the cost of armor plate, an
amendment fixing the terms of purchase thereof was held not to be
germane.--On March 2, 1905, \1\ the House was considering Senate
amendments to the naval appropriation bill, when this amendment was
read:
And provided further, That the Secretary of the Navy shall cause a
thorough inquiry to be made as to the cost of armor plate and of armor
plant, the report of which shall be made to Congress.
Mr. Willard D. Vandiver, of Missouri, moved to recede and concur with
this amendment:
Add to amendment No. 33 the following:
``And provided also, That in the purchase of the armament and armor
appropriated for in this act all contracts shall be let to the lowest
responsible bidder: but no contract shall be let for armor plate at a
price exceeding $398 per ton.''
Mr. George E. Foss, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Speaker \2\ held--
The point of order made by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Foss] is
that it is not germane to the Senate amendment. The House will notice
that the Senate amendment provides for an investigation. The amendment
proposed by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Vandiver] provides to
limit the purchase price to $398 a ton.
Now, it has been frequently held on similar questions that such an
amendment is not germane. The Chair will not take time to quote more
than one, namely, a decision made by Mr. Speaker Carlisle, as follows:
``To a proposition to make an appropriation for paying indebtedness
and premiums of an exposition, an amendment to appoint a committee to
investigate the affairs of the exposition was offered and held not to
be in order.''
Deciding the exact principle involved in this point of order.
Without the decision the Chair would have no hesitation in holding
that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Vandiver] is not germane, and the Chair therefore sustains the point of
order.
Thereupon Mr. Vandiver proposed this amendment:
And provided also, as follows: First, that for the purpose of
carrying out this provision a board of inquiry shall be constituted of
the Judge-Advocate-General of the Navy, the Admiral of the Navy, one
experienced naval constructor, one experienced naval inspector of armor
plate, and one machinist of the first class, experienced in the
manufacture of armor plate, and shall make report to Congress in
December, 1905
Second, that the said board shall investigate whether or not there is
reason to believe that in the bidding for contracts to furnish armor to
the Government any persons, firms, or corporations have entered into
any combination, trust, or agreement, or understanding, the object or
effect of which is or has been to deprive the Government of free and
open competition.
Third, that if it shall reasonably appear that any persons, firms, or
corporations have so combined or in any way contrived to deprive the
Government of free and open competition, then all payments from
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 3877-3879.
\2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 5896
appropriations made in this act to such persons, firms, or corporations
shall be withheld, and the facts laid before the Attorney-General for
such action as he may deem proper under the law.
And provided further, That the Secretary shall cause a thorough
inquiry to be made as to the cost of armor plate and of an armor plant,
a report on which shall be made to Congress.
Mr. Foss made the point of order that the amendment was not germane.
After debate the Speaker held--
That amendment proposes an investigation touching the cost of the
plate and the plant, and that only. The gentleman now proposes to
concur in that amendment with an amendment. The amendment now proposed
provides an additional investigation, far-reaching, about an entirely
different matter, and legislates what shall be done if certain things
are found in the investigation. Now, if this provision had been put
upon this conference report and an agreement made in fun, it would have
been a matter not in difference, and the recommendation would have been
subject to the point of order by any Member. It is perfectly clear to
the Chair that the proposed House amendment provides for entering on an
investigation not now authorized by law, which would be subject to a
point of order if under consideration upon a money bill under the terms
of the rules, and is not germane, and is new legislation. Therefore the
Chair sustains the point of order.
5896. To a provision requiring a record and report of a certain class
of mail matter, an amendment providing for entering mail matter of a
certain class was held not germane.--On April 12, 1906,\7\ the Post
Office appropriation bill was under consideration in Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union, when the Clerk read as follows:
And the Postmaster-General shall require a record from July 1 to
December 31, 1906, of all second class mail matter received for free
distribution, and also at the 1 cent a pound rate, so as to show the
weights in pounds, respectively, by classes, of daily newspapers,
weekly and other than daily newspapers, magazines, scientific
periodicals, educational periodicals, religious periodicals, trade-
journal periodicals, agricultural periodicals, miscellaneous
periodicals, and sample copies of said newspapers, magazines, and
periodicals, and make report to Congress of such information by
February 1, 1907, together with an estimate of the average length of
haul of said respective classes above named.
Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, offered the following amendment:
Insert at page 17, line 24, end of line:
``And in the meantime and until said report is made, whenever any
person or corporation shall apply to the Postmaster-General for the
admission of any newspaper or publication to the mails at the second-
class rate, and such application shall be denied or refused, such
person or corporation shall have the right, and is hereby empowered, to
apply for a writ of mandamus to the supreme court of the District of
Columbia, or to the justices or any justice thereof; and the
proceedings therein shall be had and governed as is provided for in the
issuing, granting, and trial of such writs of mandamus in chapter 42 of
the Laws of the District of Columbia, enacted March 3, 1901, and as
amended by acts approved January 31 and June 30, 1902, and embraced in
sections 1273 to 1282, inclusive, of said Code of the District of
Columbia, and if upon the trial and hearing of said application for
writ of mandamus it shall be decided by the supreme court of the
District of Columbia, or the justices or any justice thereof, that such
newspaper or publication is, under the law governing the admission of
newspapers and publications to the mails as second-class matter,
entitled to such admission, then it shall be the duty of said court, or
said justices or any justice thereof, to issue the writ of mandamus
directed to the Postmaster-General, requiring him to admit such
newspaper or publication to the mails as second-class matter; the costs
in such proceeding to be paid by the person or corporation making
application for the mandamus.''
Mr. Jesse Overstreet, of Indiana, raised a point of order.
After debate the Chairman \2\ said:
Whether the provision in the bill as reported was in order or not, an
amendment to it must be germane. But on the assumption that the
provision was not in order, no point of order having been raised,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 5173-5175.
\2\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 5897
of course it is in the bill. The question comes down to this point: An
amendment thereto must first be germame; second, it must not add any
new matter of legislation not contained in the provision the point of
order upon which has not been raised.
Now, the provision in the bill provides for what? For a record of the
transactions of the service and a report thereon to a future Congress.
The amendment provides for a trial in a court and provides the
machinery for relief where the complainants believe a wrong had been
perpetrated. * * * The subject-matter of the provision is a record and
a report. The subject-matter of the amendment is a writ of mandamus in
case a wrong is perpetrated or is said to have been perpetrated.
But further than that, the amendment is obnoxious to the rule, which
says that an amendment must be simply to perfect the text, and must not
bring in some additional question of legislation. In the opinion of the
Chair, this amendment is not germane, and it does propose to
incorporate in the bill a new matter of legislation. Therefore the
Chair is constrained to hold the amendment not in order.
Mr. Bartlett thereupon proposed this amendment:
After line 24, page 17, insert:
``And in the meantime and until said report is made, when any person
or corporation shall apply to the Postmaster General for the admission
of any newspaper or publication to the mails as second-class matter,
and the same shall be denied admission to the mails as second-class
matter, then such person or corporation shall have the right to an
appeal to a board of appeals, hereby constituted and created for that
purpose, to consist of the Postmaster-General, the First Assistant
Postmaster-General, and the second Assistant Postmaster-General, who
shall hear such appeal and the facts submitted by such person or
corporation making the appeal, and if in the opinion of such board of
appeals so constituted as above stated said newspaper or publication is
entitled under the law to be admitted to the mails as second class
matter, then such board of appeals shall so find and determine, and
shall order said newspaper or publication to be admitted to the mails
as second-class matter.''
Mr. Overstreet having raised a question of order, after debate the
Chairman held:
The provision of the bill relates to keeping a record of certain
events and reporting thereon. The provisions of the amendment relate to
the entry of certain mails under certain classes. Therefore it is new
subject-matter, and is not germane to the amendment, and the Chair is
again constrained to sustain the point of order.
5897. To a proposition to provide relief for destitute citizens of
the United States in the island of Cuba, a proposition declaring a
state of war in Cuba and proclaiming neutrality, etc., was held not
germane.--On May 20, 1897, \1\ Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, from
the Committee on Rules, presented a resolution providing a time for the
consideration of this Senate resolution:
That the sum of $50,000 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out
of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the relief
of the destitute citizens of the United States in the island of Cuba,
said money to be expended at the discretion and under the direction of
the President of the United States in the purchase and furnishing of
food, clothing, and medicines to such citizens and for transporting to
the United States such of them as so desire and who are without means
to transport themselves.
Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, moved to recommit the resolution
providing for consideration, with instruction to amend it so as to
provide also for the consideration of this resolution:
That a condition of public war exists between the Government of Spain
and the government proclaimed and for some time maintained by force of
arms by the people of Cuba, and that the United States of America shall
maintain a strict neutrality between the contending powers, according
to each all the rights of belligerents in the ports and territory of
the United States.
Mr. Dalzell made the point of order that the amendment was not
germane to the pending resolution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 1187
Sec. 5898
The Speaker \1\ decided that the amendment was in no wise in order.
Mr. Bailey having taken an appeal, the appeal was laid on the table
by a vote of 114 yeas to 83 nays.
5898. To a resolution for printing a document relating to the
colonial systems of the world, an amendment providing for the printing
of maps of Cuba was offered and held not to be germane.--On February
25, 1899,\2\ the House was considering a concurrent resolution
providing for the printing of the report entitled ``The colonial
systems of the world.''
Mr. Nicholas N. Cox, of Tennessee, offered as an amendment a
proposition to print maps of the island of Cuba.
Mr. George D. Perkins, of Iowa, made the point of order that the
proposed amendment was not germane.
The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order.
5899. To a provision providing clerks for the Members of one House an
amendment providing them for Members of the other House has, at
different times, been held both germane and not germane.--On March 2,
1885,\3\ the House was considering certain amendments of the Senate to
the bill (H. R. 8179) making appropriations for the legislative,
executive, and judicial expenses of the Government. Among them was an
amendment providing ``for clerks to Senators who are not chairmen of
committees, at $6 per day during the session, $39,432.''
Mr. J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, moved to concur in this Senate
amendment with an amendment, which would make it read as follows: ``For
clerks to Senators and Representatives who are not chairmen of
committees, at the rate of $100 per month during the session,
$209,300.''
A point of order having been made by Mr. William S. Holman, of
Indiana, that this amendment was not germane, the Speaker \4\ said:
The Chair thinks it is germane. It relates to the subject of clerks
for Members of Congress. The fact that the Senate amendment provides
simply for clerks to Members of the Senate does not preclude the right
of the House to so amend as to pay clerks of Members of the House.
Suppose, for instance, the question was as to the compensation of the
clerks of the Senate committees or the officers of the Senate, might it
not be amended by adding the clerks or officers of the House? The Chair
thinks it could. If you take it in the narrowest sense, of course, it
relates only to the subject of clerks to the individual Senators; but
the Chair thinks that would be an exceedingly narrow construction to
put upon it and one not warranted by the rule.
5900. On April 14, 1896, \5\ the House was considering Senate
amendments to the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation
bill, the particular amendment under consideration being one providing
for annual clerks for Senators.
To this Mr. Charles S. Hartman, of Montana, proposed this amendment:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment numbered
19 of the Senate, relating to 38 annual clerks to the Senators, and
agree to the same with an amendment as follows: ``And for 360 annual
clerks to Members and Delegates of the House, at $100 per month,
$432,000.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\2\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2395.
\3\ Second session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 2420, 2423.
\4\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\5\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 3963.
Sec. 5901
Mr. Henry H. Bingham, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane, and the further point that it was
contrary to existing law.
The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order.
5901. To a resolution assigning clerks to committees an amendment
assigning a clerk to each Member of the House was offered and ruled out
of order.--On January 9, 1888,\2\ Mr. Frank T. Shaw, of Maryland,
submitted from the Committee on Accounts a privileged resolution
assigning to various committees of the House the 31 clerks allowed by
the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill.
To this resolution Mr. Bishop W. Perkins, of Kansas, offered as an
amendment the following:
Provided, That each Member of this House not the chairman of a
committee given a clerk herein shall be given a clerk during the
sessions of Congress, to be paid for from the House contingent fund, at
the rate of $100 per month.
Mr. Charles E. Hooker, of Mississippi, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane.
After debate the Speaker \3\ held:
The rule of the House provides that no proposition on a subject-
matter different from that under consideration shall be admitted under
color of an amendment; in other words, that every amendment offered to
a pending proposition must be germane to that proposition. The report
now before the House relates entirely to the assignment of clerks to
committees of the House, while the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Kansas proposes to assign a clerk to each Member. The Chair thinks
the point of order is well taken and that the amendment is not in
order.
5902. To a provision for the payment of clerk hire to Members and
Delegates an amendment providing that under certain circumstances the
Member should forfeit the payment was offered and ruled out of order.--
On January 6, 1899,\4\ the legislative, executive, and judicial
appropriation bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union. The paragraph providing for the
payment to Members and Delegates the amounts certified by them to have
been paid for clerk hire had been reached, when Mr. Charles S. Hartman,
of Montana, offered this amendment:
Provided, That every Representative or Delegate who shall retain or
require to be paid to him any portion of the money now or hereafter
appropriated for clerk hire shall upon the ascertainment and
determination of such fact by the House, or any duly authorized
committee thereof, forfeit all rights to any money so appropriated.
Mr. Henry H. Bingham, of Pennsylvania, made a point of order against
the amendment.
The Chairman \5\ sustained the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\2\ First session Fiftieth Congress, Record, p. 305; Journal, p. 306.
\3\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\4\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 452.
\5\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 5903
5903. To a provision relating to transfers of clerks from one
department to another an amendment classifying the work of the clerks
was held not to be germane.
Legislation may not be proposed under the form of a limitation.
On March 30, 1906,\1\ the legislative appropriation bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, under the terms of a rule which precluded the raising of points
of order on the provisions of the bill; and the Clerk read this
paragraph:
Sec. 5. It shall not be lawful hereafter for any clerk or other
employee in the classified service in any of the Executive Departments
to be transferred from one Department to another Department until such
clerk or other employee shall have served for a term of three years in
the Department from which he desires to be transferred.
Mr. Henry W. Palmer, of Pennsylvania, proposed to this paragraph the
following amendment:
Add after line 18, page 162, the following:
``The heads of Departments, offices, and bureaus appropriated for by
this act shall grade the clerical work to be performed in their
respective Departments before the 30th of June, 1906, into as many
grades as there are classes in the classified service of the United
States, as provided under Rule XIII of the civil-service rules and
promulgated by the President, and thereafter all employees included in
said classification shall be employed only upon the grade of work
corresponding with their respective classes. Every person employed in
said classification service shall receive payment for the grade of work
which he performs and no other.''
Mr. Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \2\ held:
It has often been held that where a paragraph changing existing law
is permitted to remain in the bill it may be perfected by any germane
amendment. By the operation of the rule adopted yesterday this section
5 is permitted to remain in the bill. The Chair is of the opinion that
it does change existing law, and that it is therefore subject to be
perfected by any germane amendment; and if the only objection were that
the proposed amendment does change existing law, the Chair would
overrule the point of order.
But the objection that the amendment is not germane to section 5
requires an examination and comparison. It appears that section 5
relates wholly to the transfers of clerks in the classified service
from one Department to another, providing that no clerk shall be
transferred until he shall have served at least three years in the
Department from which he desires to be transferred. The amendment on
the other hand relates not to transfers, but provides for a
classification, not of clerks, but of the work which they are to
perform and upon which they are to be engaged. It requires that they
shall be employed upon no other work than upon the work so classified,
each clerk according to the proper class. It applies not merely to
clerks transferred or desiring to be transferred, but to all work done
by clerks and to all clerks.
That seems to the Chair a change of existing law upon a subject
different from that embraced in the pending section. Therefore, for the
reason that it is not germane, the Chair will be compelled to sustain
the point of order.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania urges that it is a limitation on the
appropriation. It does not seem, however, to limit the appropriation.
The appropriations have been made in previous sections. This amendment
does not impose a condition upon the payment of that money.
Furthermore, it is a principle well established that in order to be a
limitation the provision must cover only the year for
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 4506-4508, 4509.
\2\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
Sec. 5904
which the appropriation is made. This proposed amendment, as its
language clearly indicates, is intended for permanent legislation. The
Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
A little later Mr. Palmer offered the same amendment as a new
section.
Thereupon Mr. Crumpacker made the point of order that it proposed
legislation.
After debate the Chairman said:
The gentleman from Indiana makes the point that the proposed new
section changes existing law in violation of the rule of the House upon
that subject, and the gentleman from Ohio adds the additional point
that it is not within the provision of the special rule adopted by the
House yesterday and under which we are proceeding. The Chair
understands that this is the same matter which was offered as an
amendment to section 5. The Chair then said that it was not subject to
the objection of changing existing law, because the section to which it
was offered was open to the same charge. But it was ruled out because
not germane to the section. It is now offered as an independent
section, and is not aided by the fact that some other section offends.
It manifestly changes existing law, and the Chair must sustain both
points of order.
5904. To a proposition to give an extra month's pay to the officers
and employees of the House, an amendment to include clerks of Members
was held not to be germane.--On March 1, 1905,\1\ the general
deficiency appropriation bill was under consideration in Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union, when this amendment was
pending:
On page 76, after line 16, insert:
``To enable the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives to pay to the officers and employees of the Senate and
House borne on the annual and session rolls on the 31st day of January,
1905, including the Capitol police, the official reporters of the
Senate and House, and W. A. Smith, Congressional Record clerk, for
extra services during the third session of the Fifty-eighth Congress, a
sum equal to one month's pay at the compensation then paid them by law,
the same to be immediately available.''
Mr. Roswell P. Bishop, of Michigan, propoped this amendment to the
amendment:
Amend the amendment by inserting after the words ``Record clerk ``the
following:
``And including clerks to Delegates and Members of the House of
Representatives now in Congress, to be certified to by Members, as now
prescribed by law.''
Mr. Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, having raised a question of order,
the Chairman \2\ held:
The gentleman from Ohio makes the point of order that the amendment
submitted by the gentleman from Michigan is not germane. The Chair
sustains the point of order.
Later Mr. Bishop offered this amendment to the text of the bill:
Insert after line 16, on page 76:
``Delegates and Members of the House of Representatives now in
Congress, a sum equal to one month's pay for clerk hire, to be
certified as now prescribed by law.''
Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, made the point of order.
The Chairman \2\ held:
The gentleman from Alabama makes the point of order that the
amendment is not in order. The Chair sustains the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 3807-3809.
\2\ James R. Mann. of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 5905
5905. To a bill relating to laying of conduits for telephone wires,
an amendment relating to the prices to be charged for services was held
not to be germane.--On May 26, 1902,\1\ the House was considering the
bill (H. R. 12865) to provide for the removal of overhead telegraph and
telephone wires in the city of Washington, for the construction of
conduits in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, when Mr.
Thetus W. Sims, of Tennessee, proposed the following amendment:
Add to the bill a new section, to be section 8, to read as follows:
``Any telephone company operating under the provisions of this bill
shall charge not to exceed $50 per year for telephones.''
Mr. Joseph W. Babcock, of Wisconsin, raised the question of order
that the amendment was not germane.
After debate the Speaker \2\ said:
The Chair finds the authority cited by the gentleman and remembers
the case very well. The title of that bill was a bill referring
generally to the affairs of a gas company, and an amendment introducing
the subject of the price of gas was held to be germane. On January 21,
1901, the House was considering a bill (H. R. 13660) relating to the
Washington Gaslight Company, and for other purposes. Mr. William W.
Grout, of Vermont, moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on the
District of Columbia with instructions to report the bill back with
this amendment:
``Provided further, That on and after July 1, 1902, the Washington
Gaslight Company shall furnish gas to the people of the District of
Columbia for 90 cents per 1,000 cubic feet; on and after July 1, 1903,
for 80 cents per 1,000 cubic feet, and on and after July 1, 1904, for
75 cents per 1,000 cubic feet.
``Mr. Joseph W. Babcock, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that
the bill did not deal with the price of gas, and that therefore the
amendment proposed would not be germane.''
The Speaker said:
``The Chair has not read the bill through, and the confusion of this
morning made it almost impossible to hear it. Still the Chair sees that
this is for the purpose of giving a franchise to this company. and here
is a proviso:
``That the Commissioners of the District of Columbia may require said
company to lay such mains or conduits in any graded street, highway,
avenue, or alley in the District of Columbia not already provided
therewith as may be necessary.''
``It seems to be a general bill regulating the gas business and this
gas company, and the Chair is of opinion that the point of order is not
well taken and that the instructions of the gentleman from Vermont are
in order.''
Now, here was a general bill going into the question of the
regulation of the gas company. As is stated in the decision, it treated
of a franchise; but there is nothing of that character in the present
bill. It does not grant any corporate rights. It does not establish a
company or clothe it with power. It does not treat of stocks, bonds, or
any of the elements connected with the organizing of a corporation, but
treats of a corporation in existence and franchises and powers that the
corporation already possesses. How? By authorizing the Commissioners of
the District of Columbia to regulate this matter. It does not go into
the question of prices or rates in any shape or form, nor does it
invite anything of that kind. When you come to treat of incorporating a
company, these are limitations that should be put on and enforced, but
not on a bill of this kind, which treats wholly of the question of
conduits.
The Chair thinks that the point of order is clearly well taken.
Thereupon Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, proposed the following
amendment:
Add at the end of section 6 the following:
``Provided, That the privileges herein authorized to be extended to
persons or corporations shall be exercised on condition only that
service shall be furnished on the term and at the prices now authorized
by law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 5935, 5936.
\2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
Sec. 5906
Mr. Babcock raised the question of order on the amendment also.
The Speaker held:
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa is substantially the
same as the one that has just been ruled upon, although framed in a
different way. The Commissioners can not be treated from any standpoint
except that which is tendered by the bill under consideration. The
gentleman from Iowa can offer amendments affecting these conduits, the
depth that they may be placed in the ground, the size of them, or
anything bearing upon the propositions in the bill; but when he
attempts to instruct the Commissioners and to bind them on a matter
that is purely reached by the incorporating acts themselves, he steps
entirely outside of the province of the bill and offers a proposition
that is not germane thereto. * * * The distinction is a very sharp one.
It is a pure conduit-planting bill, and anything bearing upon that
question is legitimate and germane; but when you go back to the
constituting instrument and the questions therein this bill does not
permit it. If that should be permitted, then you could in this bill
take up the question of capital stock. The Chair is very clearly of the
opinion that this amendment is not germane.
5906. To a bill relating to corporations carrying passengers for hire
over the streets of Washington an amendment regulating the size of
tires of all vehicles passing over the streets was held not to be
germane.--On March 2, 1907,\1\ the House was considering the bill (S.
6147) entitled ``An act authorizing changes in certain street-railway
tracks within the District of Columbia, and for other purposes,'' with
the amendment thereto reported by the Committee on the District of
Columbia.
This bill as it came from the Senate contained only the subject of
the approaches to the new railroad station as related to street-
railroad tracks, and to a. certain omnibus line for the carriage of
passengers, which was required to substitute motor vehicles for the
existing conveyances.
The amendment reported by the Committee on the District of Columbia
covered not only these subjects, but had the following section:
Sec. 13. That from and after the 1st day of January, 1908, every
wagon or other vehicle of whatsoever kind or description weighing, when
loaded, more than 2 tons exclusive of the weight of the vehicle, used,
operated, or propelled on, over, or across any of the streets, avenues,
alleys, bridges, or roadways of the District of Columbia shall have
wheel tires not less than 4 inches broad. Any owner or driver or other
person in control of such wagon or other vehicle so using, operating,
or propelling the same who shall violate the provisions of this section
shall, on conviction thereof in the police court of the District of
Columbia, be punished by a fine not exceeding $25, or by imprisonment
for not more than sixty days, or both.
Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, made the point of order that
the provision was not germane.
The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order.
5907. To a provision requiring two street-railway companies to issue
free transfers each over the other's lines an amendment requiring the
two companies to issue universal transfers over all intersecting lines
was held not to be germane.--On May 23, 1898,\3\ the House was
considering the bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 4509.
\2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 5124.
Sec. 5908
(H. R. 10293) to incorporate the East Washington Heights Traction
Railroad Company, in the District of Columbia. To this provision of the
bill:
Provided, That the said company and the Capital Traction Company are
hereby required to issue free transfers, whereby a passenger on the
said East Washington Heights Traction Company shall be entitled to a
continuous ride over the line of the other company, or vice versa.
Mr. John B. Corliss, of Michigan, offered the following amendment:
Provided further, That universal free transfers shall be issued and
exchanged by said company and said Capital Traction Company with all
street railways whose lines intersect the lines of said companies, so
that a passenger shall be entitled to a continuous ride over the line
of said companies and any line intersecting the same for one fare.
Mr. Joseph W. Babcock, of Wisconsin, made the point of order against
the amendment.
The Speaker pro tempore \1\ ruled:
This is a bill to incorporate the East Washington Heights Traction
Railroad Company in the District of Columbia. Section 19 provides for
the rates of fare upon that road, and also further provides: ``That the
said company''--that is, the East Washington Heights Traction Railroad
Company--``and the Capital Traction Company are hereby required to
issue free transfers, whereby a passenger on the said East Washington
Heights Traction Company shall be entitled to a continuous ride over
the line of the other company, and vice versa.''
That is, that these two companies can and must issue transfers one
over the line of the other.
Now, this amendment provides that whatever railroads intersect with
either of these two roads must issue transfers upon these two roads,
and these two roads upon the others, for a continuous ride. Now, with
all deference to what has been said, the Chair thinks that this is not
germane to the proposition in the bill.
5908. To a bill requiring street-railway corporations to make annual
reports amendments relating to transfers and accommodations for
passengers were held not to be germane.--On May 26, 1890,\2\ the House
was considering the bill (H. R. 9105) requiring the street-railway
companies of the District of Columbia to make annual reports, when Mr.
William M. Springer, of Illinois, proposed an amendment providing,
under suitable penalties, that street-railway companies in the District
of Columbia should cause their cars to stop at all street crossings
where connections were made with lines of cars on other streets and
transfers be given for a sufficient length of time to enable passengers
to make connections with other cars; and that no street-railway company
in the District of Columbia should demand or collect fare from any
passenger on any street car unless such passenger was furnished a seat
in such car.
Mr. Louis E. Atkinson, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
the proposed amendment was not germane to the bill and therefore not in
order.
The Speaker pro tempore \3\ sustained the point of order.
Mr. Joseph E. Washington, of Tennessee, moved to further amend the
bill as follows:
That all street railways in this city at the point of crossing or
junction shall issue transfer tickets and transfer passengers without
extra charge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
\2\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 667; Record, pp.
5316, 5317.
\3\ Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, Speaker pro tempore.
Sec. 5909
Mr. Atkinson, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that the
proposed amendment was not germane to the bill, and therefore not in
order.
The Speaker pro tempore sustained the point of order.
5909. To a bill providing for an interoceanic canal, specifying a
certain route, an amendment providing for another route was held to be
germane.--On January 9, 1902,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 3110) to provide
for the construction of a canal connecting the waters of the Atlantic
and Pacific oceans when Mr. Richard W. Parker, of New Jersey, proposed
an amendment providing for a canal across the Isthmus of Panama.
Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane, because, while the bill provided for a canal
at Nicaragua only, the amendment provided also for a canal at another
place. After debate the Chairman \2\ said:
The subject-matter of this bill--the enterprise upon which the House
has entered--is, in the language of the bill--
``To construct a canal to connect the waters of the Atlantic and
Pacific oceans.''
The Chair is of the opinion that that is the purpose of the
legislation sought; that the question of location is wholly a
subordinate one, and that it is perfectly competent for Congress to
reject one location and to adopt another. For instance, suppose it was
a question of the building of a house for the purpose of storing the
records of the Government, and a bill was introduced to locate it on a
certain square in this city. Can anybody doubt that the proposition
might be amended so as to locate it upon other square?
5910. To a bill providing for the reorganization of the Army a new
section prescribing a system of competition in marksmanship among the
soldiers was held to be germane as an amendment.--On January 31,
1899,\3\ the bill (H. R. 11022) for the reorganization of the Army was
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, and Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, offered as a new section or
paragraph prescribing frequent target practice by enlisted men and
providing for the giving of medals for the best records.
Mr. James Hay, of Virginia, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
After debate the Chairman \4\ overruled the point of order.
5911. To a bill relating to the operation of a street railway in
several particulars an amendment fixing the rate of fares on this and
other street railways also was held not to be germane.--On February 11,
1907,\5\ the bill (H. R. 22123) to amend an act to authorize the
Baltimore and Washington Transit Company of Maryland to enter the
District of Columbia, approved June 8, 1896, was under consideration in
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union when Mr. Ollie
M. James, of Kentucky, proposed this amendment:
Amend by striking out all of section 5 and inserting in lieu thereof
the following:
``That from and after the passage of this act the rate of fare that
may be charged for the transportation of passengers over any and all
street-railway lines in the District of Columbia shall not exceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 553, 554.
\2\ Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, Chairman.
\3\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 1324.
\4\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
\5\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 2723, 2724.
Sec. 5912
3 cents each, good for transportation of one passenger over the whole
or any part of the line of such street-railway company over which such
tickets are sold.''
Mr. Joseph W. Babcock, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \1\ held:
This is a bill authorizing a street-railroad company from outside the
District of Columbia to come into the District of Columbia and connect
in the city of Washington with what is called the ``Traction Company.''
It provides for a point of contact, and then provides that a single
fare shall carry a passenger from his occupancy of the car outside to
the end of the traction line in the city of Washington. The point of
order is made to the amendment that it is not germane to the bill under
consideration. It has been distinctly ruled heretofore, it seems to the
Chair, exactly on all fours with that question:
``To a provision requiring two railroad companies in the District of
Columbia to issue free transfers over the lines of one another an
amendment requiring the two companies to issue universal transfers with
all other intersecting lines in the District of Columbia was offered
and held not to be germane.''
Following that opinion and following the opinion which the Chair has,
the point of order is sustained.
5912. To a bill relating to the salaries and expenses of judges an
amendment forbidding them to receive passes, franks, etc., was held to
be germane.--On January 27, 1903, \2\ the House as in Committee of the
Whole was considering the bill (S. 3287) ``to fix the salaries of
certain judges of the United States'' when Mr. Choice B. Randell, of
Texas, offered the following amendment:
Insert after line 15, on page 2, the following:
``That it shall be unlawful for any of the judges of United States
courts to accept or receive any gifts, free transportation, or frank
from any corporation or person engaged in operating any railroad,
steamboat line, express or telegraph company. Any violation of this
provision shall be punished by a fine not less than $100 and not
exceeding $5,000.''
Mr. John J. Jenkins, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Speaker \3\ said:
This question is one that troubles the Chair a little, but when we
consider that this bill deals not only with salaries but also with the
subject of expenses, the issuing of passes, franks, and other things
that keep down the expenses would seem to be germane. At all events,
the Chair will overrule the point of order and admit the amendment of
the gentleman from Texas.
5913. To a bill relating to the salaries of the Federal judges and
those of the District of Columbia an amendment relating to the salaries
of the Porto Rican judges was held to be germane.--On January 27, 1903,
\4\ the House as in Committee of the Whole was considering the bill (S.
3287) ``to fix the salaries of certain judges of the United States''
when Mr. Vincent Boreing, of Kentucky, proposed this amendment:
To the judge of Porto Rico, $6,000.
Mr. John J. Jenkins, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Charles II. Grosvenor, of Ohio, Chairman.
\2\ ``Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 1343.
\3\ David B. Henderson, of lowa, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 1341.
Sec. 5914
After debate the Speaker \1\ said:
The Chair calls the attention of the gentleman from Wisconsin to the
fact that the judges of the District of Columbia are incorporated in
this bill. It seems that these Porto Ricans are appointed by the
President of the United States. The provision has broadened out now
from the Federal judges for the States to the judges for the District
of Columbia. * * * The Chair is not entirely satisfied, but is inclined
to hold, and will so hold, that the point of order is not well taken.
5914. To a bill relating to the control of several distinct public
places in Washington an amendment providing for the removal of the
fence around the Botanical Garden, in the same city, was held
germane.--On May 23, 1898,\2\ the House had under consideration the
bill (H. R. 10294) relative to the control of wharf property and
certain public places in the District of Columbia, the bill being
considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Joseph W. Babcock, of Wisconsin, offered the following amendment
as a new section:
Sec. 5. Provided, That the park known as the Botanical Garden shall
be open to the public the same as the other parks in the city of
Washington; and within six months from the passage of this act the
fence around the same shall be removed.
Mr. William Sulzer, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
The Speaker pro tempore \3\ held:
The only question is whether the amendment is germane to the bill.
The Chair thinks the amendment is germane to the bill, and therefore
overrules the point of order of the gentleman from New York.
5915. To a proposition to create a board of inquiry an amendment
specifying when the board should report was held to be germane.--On
March 2, 1905, \4\ the House was considering Senate amendments to the
naval appropriation bill, when this amendment was proposed as an
amendment to a Senate amendment:
And provided also, as follows: First, that for the purpose of
carrying out this provision a board of inquiry shall be constituted of
the Judge-Advocate-General of the Navy, the Admiral of the Navy, one
experienced naval constructor, one experienced naval inspector of armor
plate, and one machinist of the first class, experienced in the
manufacture of armor plate.
To this amendment Mr. Willard D. Vandiver, of Missouri, offered the
following amendment:
And that this board of inquiry shall make its report at the first
regular session of the Fifty-ninth Congress.
Mr. George E. Foss, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
amendment to the amendment was not germane.
The Speaker \5\ said:
The Chair thinks the amendment is in order and is germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 5120.
\3\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
\4\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3879.
\5\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 5916
5916. To a bill providing generally for a Union Station in the
District of Columbia an amendment levying a special tax in the District
to defray the cost of the station was held to be germane.--On December
15, 1902,\1\ the bill (S. 4825) ``to provide for a Union Station in the
District of Columbia and for other purposes,'' was under consideration
in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, when Mr.
Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, offered this amendment:
Insert at the end of line 18, page 28, the following:
``That, in order to meet the extraordinary expenses entailed by the
provision of this act, the rate of taxation on the assessed real and
personal property in the District of Columbia for each of the next five
fiscal years is hereby increased 25 per cent.''
Mr. Sidney E. Mudd, of Maryland, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman,\2\ said:
This is a bill to provide for a union railroad station in the
District of Columbia, and for other purposes. It is reported from the
Committee on the District of Columbia. It provides for the
establishment of a park in the District of Columbia and for the opening
of streets, and imposes considerable expense upon the District of
Columbia.
It also imposes some expense upon the Treasury of the United States.
If, as has been suggested, an amendment were offered increasing the
tariff upon imports to meet such charges the objection would at once be
made that under the rules such a measure must be referred to a
different committee--the Ways and Means. In other words, the rules of
the House would make an amendment touching the tariff not germane to
such a bill as this.
But with the District of Columbia the case is different. If the
amendment of the gentleman from Illinois were offered as a separate
measure, it would go, under the rules, to the same committee which has
reported this bill. The District Committee has jurisdiction of revenues
as well as expenditures, and could, without infringing any rule,
include in one bill the purposes of the bill and also of the amendment.
While not entirely clear from doubt, the Chair is of the opinion that
the amendment providing revenue to meet the expenditures entailed by
the provisions of the bill itself upon the District of Columbia is
germane to the bill, and therefore overrules the point of order.
5917. To a bill establishing a new department, creating offices, and
fixing salaries an amendment for changing the salary of an officer of
the department was held to be germane.--On January 17, 1903,\3\ the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union was considering
the bill (S. 569) to establish a Department of Commerce and Labor, when
a section was reached for transferring the Census Bureau to that
Department, and Mr. William S. Cowherd, of Missouri, proposed an
amendment reducing the salary of the Director of the Census from $6,000
to $4,000.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \4\ said:
This is a bill to establish a Department of Commerce and Labor. It is
not a general appropriation bill; it is new legislation. It creates new
offices and fixes salaries. It transfers certain departments and
certain officials to this new Department of Commerce. In section 12 it
gives the Secretary of State the power to designate a certain person
who shall perform certain duties, and in that connection gives
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 332, 333.
\2\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 914, 915.
\4\ George P. Lawrence, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
Sec. 5918
him the rank and salary of a chief of a bureau. It is new legislation,
creates new officials, creates new salaries, and the Chair is of the
opinion that an amendment changing the salary of any official who is
transferred to this bureau is in order. The Chair therefore overrules
the point of order.
5918. To a proposition to recoin full legal-tender silver dollars
into subsidiary coin an amendment making the latter full legal tender
was held to be germane.--On May 28, 1902,\1\ the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union was considering the bill (H.R. 12704)
to increase the subsidiary silver coinage, when Mr. Galusha A. Grow, of
Pennsylvania, offered the following amendment:
After the word ``coin,'' in line 9, add ``Provided, That the
subsidiary coins shall be half dollar, quarter dollar, and 10-cent and
5-cent pieces; each of the aforesaid pieces shall be an aliquot part of
a dollar of 412\1/2\ grains.
Thereupon Mr. Francis G. Newlands, of Nevada, offered the following
amendment to the amendment:
Add to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania the
following words: ``which shall be full legal tender for all debts,
public and private.''
Mr. Ebenezer J. Hill, of Connecticut, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \2\ said:
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania follows the
word ``coin,'' in line 9, and to that amendment the gentleman from
Nevada offers an amendment providing that this subsidiary coinage shall
be full legal tender. The coin that this amendment proposes to declare
shall be full legal tender is to be made or recoined from full legal-
tender silver dollars. In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment of
the gentleman from Nevada is germane to the amendment of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, and therefore the Chair holds it in order.
5919. An amendment on the subject of renovated butter was held to be
germane to a bill relating to ``oleomargarine and other imitation dairy
products.''--On February 11, 1902,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union were considered the bill (H.R. 9206) to make
oleomargarine and other imitation dairy products subject to the laws of
the State or Territory into which they are transported and to change
the tax on oleomargarine, when Mr. Henry D. Allen, of Kentucky,
proposed the following amendment:
Sec. 4. That the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized and
required to cause a rigid sanitary inspection to be made from time to
time, and at such times as he may deem necessary, of all factories and
storehouses where butter is renovated; and all butter renovated at such
places shall be carefully inspected in the same manner and to the same
extent and purpose that meat products are now inspected. The quantity
and quality of butter renovated shall be reported monthly. All
renovated butter shall be designated as such by marks, brands, and
labels, and the words ``renovated butter'' shall be printed on all
packages thereof, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Secretary
of Agriculture, and shall be sold only as renovated butter. Any person
violating the provisions of this section shall, on conviction thereof,
be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined not less than
$50, nor more than $500 and imprisoned not less than one month nor more
than six months.
The Secretary of Agriculture shall make all needful sanitary and
other rules and regulations for carrying this section into effect, and
no renovated butter shall be shipped or transported from one State to
another, or to foreign countries, unless inspected as provided in this
section.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 6070, 6071.
\2\ James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, Chairman.
\3\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 1622-1624.
Sec. 5920
Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, made a point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \1\ said:
The Chair is of the opinion that it is germane, although it is
questionable as to whether the jurisdiction is obtained over the
proposition without any taxation being connected with it. But the
question being one of imitation butter, the Chair is of opinion that
this section is germane. As to its constitutionality, of course the
Chair can not pass upon that. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky.
5920. To a resolution rescinding an order for final adjournment, an
amendment assigning a new date was held to be germane.--On June 1,
1872,\2\ the House was considering the following:
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),
That the resolution directing the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives to declare their respective
Houses adjourned without day on Monday, the 3d day of June, at 12
o'clock meridan, be, and the same is hereby, rescinded.
Mr. Henry L. Dawes of Massachusetts moved to amend by striking out
all after the resolving clause and inserting:
That the time of final adjournment of the second session of the
Forty-second Congress be extended to Monday, June 10, at 12 o'clock
meridan, at which time the President of the Senate and the Speaker of
the House of Representatives shall adjourn their respective Houses
without day.
Mr. Benjamin F. Butler, of Massachusetts, made the point of order
that the amendment was not germane.
The Speaker \3\ said:
They are both resolutions with reference to the termination of the
session. The amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts is entirely
germane.
5921. To a bill referring generally to the affairs of a gas company,
an amendment introducing the subject of the price of gas was held to be
germane.--On January 21, 1901,\4\ the House was considering a bill (H.
R. 13660) ``relating to the Washington Gaslight Company, and for other
purposes.''
Mr. William W. Grout, of Vermont, moved to recommit the bill to the
Committee for the District of Columbia with instructions to report the
bill back with this amendment:
Provided further, That on and after July 1, 1902, the Washington
Gaslight Company shall furnish gas to the people of the District of
Columbia for 90 cents per 1,000 cubic feet; on and after July 1, 1903,
for 80 cents per 1,000 cubic feet, and on and after July 1, 1904, for
75 cents per 1,000 cubic feet.
Mr. Joseph W. Babcock, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that the
bill did not deal with the price of gas, and that, therefore, the
amendment proposed would not be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John F. Lacey, of Iowa, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Forty-second Congress, Globe, p. 4137.
\3\ James G. Blaine, of Maine, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1262.
Sec. 5922
The Speaker \1\ said:
The Chair has not read the bill through, and the confusion of this
morning made it almost impossible to hear it. Still the Chair sees that
this is for the purpose of giving a franchise to this company, and here
is a proviso--
``That the Commissioners of the District of Columbia may require said
company to lay such mains or conduits in any graded street, highway,
avenue, or alley in the District of Columbia not already provided
therewith as may be necessary.''
It seems to be a general bill regulating the gas business and this
gas company, and the Chair is of the opinion that the point of order is
not well taken, and that the instructions of the gentleman from Vermont
are in order.
5922. To a bill relating to Federal elections and functions of the
Federal courts therein, an amendment establishing a system of jury
commissioners in such courts was held to be germane.--On July 2,
1890,\2\ the Speaker announced as the regular order of business the
further consideration of the bill of the House (H. R. 11045) to amend
and supplement the election laws of the United States, and to provide
for the more efficient enforcement of such laws.
Mr. Jonathan H. Rowell, of Illinois, moved to amend by inserting as a
new section a provision for the establishment of a system of jury
commissioners for the Federal courts.
Mr. W. C. P. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, having called attention to
the fact that on a preceding day a provision relating to juries had
been stricken from the bill, made the point of order that such
provision was not germane to an election bill.
The Speaker\3\ overruled the point of order.
5923. An amendment to censure a Member has been held germane to a
resolution for his expulsion.--On April 12, 1864,\4\ the House was
considering a resolution providing for the expulsion of Mr. Alexander
Long, of Ohio, when Mr. John M. Broomall, of Pennsylvania, proposed an
amendment providing for the censure of Mr. Long as a substitute for the
resolution of expulsion.
Mr. William S. Holman, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the original proposition.
The Speaker pro tempore \5\ overruled the point of order.\6\
On appeal the decision of the Chair was sustained.\7\
5924. To a proposition to exclude a Member-elect from the House, a
proposition to expel was offered as an amendment and held not to be
germane.--On January 25, 1900,\8\ the House was considering the report
of the select
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\2\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 807; Record, pp.
6926, 6927.
\3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\4\ First session Thirty-eight Congress, Journal, pp. 518-520; Globe,
p. 1593.
\5\ Edward H. Rollins, of New Hampshire, Speaker pro tempore.
\6\ See, however, section 5924.
\7\ Another question was involved in this appeal, the Speaker pro
tempore having also at the same time decided a point of order relating
to the timeliness of the proposition to censure.
\8\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1215, 1216;
Journal, p. 196.
Sec. 5924
committee on the case of Brigham H. Roberts, Member-elect from Utah,
when Mr. John F. Lacey, of Iowa, moved to amend the resolution as
follows:
Insert in line 4, page 1, after the word ``and,'' the following: ``he
is expelled, and;'' so as to read:
``Resolved, That under the facts and circumstances in this case
Brigham H. Roberts, Representative-elect from the State of Utah, ought
not to have or hold a seat in the House of Representatives, and he is
hereby expelled, and that the seat to which he was elected is hereby
declared vacant.''
Mr. Robert W. Tayler, of Ohio, made the point of order that the
proposed amendment was not germane.
After debate the Speaker \1\ held:
The Chair will call attention to one or two facts preliminary to the
decision of this question. We have two propositions pending before the
House--one of exclusion, which is the proposition of the majority, and
one in which we are served with notice that expulsion will be asked
for, but involving first the swearing in of Mr. Roberts.
The resolution of the minority does not contain any element of
expulsion, but notice is served by the minority that so soon as the
oath is administered to Mr. Roberts his expulsion will be moved. The
proposition offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lacey] adds to the
proposition recommended by the majority the idea of expulsion.
The proposition as it stands will deny Mr. Roberts a seat, will not
allow him to sit for one instant in this House. That is the proposition
of the majority. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Lacey] does not deny him a seat alone, but says, with the majority,
that he must not have or hold a seat, but that he must also be excluded
from his seat.
The proposition of the majority, which denies Mr. Roberts a seat, can
be carried through this House, under the rules, by a majority vote.
With the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lacey] added, that
of expulsion, it will require a two-thirds vote to carry the amended
resolution. Does anyone contend that changing a resolution from a
condition where a mere majority can carry it through to a resolution
which will require a two-thirds vote to carry it through--that such an
amendment is germane to the original proposition?
The Chair does not entertain a single doubt but that this is not
germane to the original resolution. [Applause.]
The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lacey] says, however, that this involves
a question above and beyond the rules, being a question of the highest
privilege.
The Chair holds with the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lacey] that it is a
constitutional question and one of the highest privilege, but this body
has pursued constitutional methods in treating it, and is now, through
a committee appointed in recognition of this high right, considering
the matter, and that committee, in the discharge of its great duty to
this House under the Constitution, has brought in its two propositions.
The Chair therefore holds that the amendment is out of order, and
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Tayler].
Mr. Lacey appealed, but during the vote on the motion to lay the
appeal on the table Mr. Lacey withdrew the appeal, saying that the
evident spirit of the House was to sustain the Chair.\2\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\2\ See, however, section 5924 of this chapter and the action of the
House in the Credit Mobilier case, section 1286 of Volume II.