[Cannon's Precedents, Volume 6]
[Chapter 207 - The Making of the Journal]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
THE MAKING OF THE JOURNAL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Proceedings only are recorded. Sections 635, 636.
2. Record of votes and roll calls. Section 637.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
635. The Journal records proceedings subsequently vacated.
On August 10, 1912,\2\ at the conclusion of the reading of the
Journal, Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, said:
Mr. Speaker, before the Journal is approved I desire to say that in
the reading of the Journal I did not hear whether it showed that last
night at the evening session a point of no quorum was made and that the
proceedings respecting that point of order were afterwards vacated. A
point of no quorum was made and the Chair, after counting, declared
that no quorum was present. The Record shows that subsequently some one
asked unanimous consent that all proceedings should be vacated. I am
not very particular about what the Journal shows, but I wish to
emphatically dissent from the idea that when the House finds itself
without a quorum, the Chair having counted and declared there was no
quorum present, thereafter by unanimous consent that finding may be set
aside until a quorum does appear.
Inquiry disclosed that the Journal, as written, did not record the
vacating of the proceedings referred to, and the Speaker \3\ said:
The gentleman is entirely correct. The Chair thinks the Journal ought
to show what occurred, because the Chair has been as particular as
could be about not doing anything at all after the fact has appeared
that there is no quorum present. The Chair has always believed that the
Record itself ought to show exactly what happens in this House and what
is said in the House and nothing else. The Journal will be corrected
accordingly.
636. The Journal and the Record record proceedings vacated under the
rules.--On December 23, 1932,\4\ the Journal of the preceding day
having been read, Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, objected to its
approval for the reason that it failed to record the roll call and
attendant proceedings vacated under the rule \5\ when the House
adjourned without a quorum on the preceding day.
The Speaker \6\ explained that the proceedings referred to were not
recorded because vacated, and were omitted pursuant to the rule which
he read as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Supplementary to Chapter LXXXIV.
\2\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 10678.
\3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\4\ Second session, Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 980.
\5\ Section 4 of Rule XV.
\6\ John N. Garner, of Texas, Speaker.
Sec. 637
At any time after the roll call has been completed, the Speaker may
entertain a motion to adjourn, if seconded, by a majority of those
present, to be ascertained by actual count by the Speaker; and if the
House adjourns, all proceedings under this section shall be vacated.
The Speaker continued:
The Chair does not know what this language can mean unless it means
that where a quorum failed on an automatic roll call and the House
adjourned the entire proceedings relating to the call shall be vacated.
What can it possibly mean other than to vacate the proceedings? And
that, of course, includes the roll call.
The gentleman from Alabama called attention to the definition of
``vacate'' found in Webster's Dictionary. The Parliamentarian calls the
Chair's attention to the definition appearing in Bouvier's Law
Dictionary, which is:
``To render null and void; to vacate an entry which has been made on
a record.''
That is exactly what was done in this case.
Let the Chair suggest to the gentleman from New York that we can
adjourn, if the House desires, at the present time, and the Chair will
recognize the gentleman from New York on next Tuesday to move to
correct the Journal of the proceedings of yesterday.
Whereupon, the House adjourned, and on the next legislative day,\1\
on motion of Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, by unanimous consent,
both the Journal and the Record were amended to include the omitted
proceedings.
Thereupon, Mr. Mapes inquired if the action of the House in agreeing
to the motion incorporating a record of the vacated proceedings in the
Journal and Record was to be taken as a precedent, and if such
proceedings would be included in full when a similar occasion should
again arise.
The Speaker said:
Yes. If the same question arises again, the names will be included in
the Journal and the Record.
637. No business is in order until the Journal has been approved.
The Journal does not record the names of Members not voting.
On January 15,1909,\2\ pending the approval of the Journal, Mr. John
W. Gaines, of Tennessee, submitted as a parliamentary inquiry:
Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. I notice that on the roll call
on yesterday Mr. George L. Lilley, of the State of Connecticut, was
called as a Member of this House. Now, I want to ask the Speaker if he
is any longer a Member of this House, having been sworn in as and being
now Governor of the State of Connecticut? I think his name ought not to
be on the roll.
The Speaker \3\ said:
The Chair is informed by the Clerk that the Journal makes no mention
of the name of the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Lilley. The
gentleman reads from the Record. The Record is one thing and the
Journal is another. The Journal does not, the Chair is informed, record
the name of the gentleman ``not voting.'' It records only the yeas and
nays and those answering ``present.''
Whereupon Mr. Gaines claimed the floor for a question of privilege.
The Speaker said:
It is not customary to dispose of questions of privilege not involved
in the order of the House pending the approval of the Journal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Record, p. 986.
\2\ Second session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 951.
\3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.