[Cannon's Precedents, Volume 8]
[Chapter 249 - The Motion to Lay on the Table]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


                           Chapter CCXLIX.\1\
 
                    THE MOTION TO LAY ON THE TABLE.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

   1. In order before Member presenting a proposition is 
     recognized for debate. Sections 2649, 2650.
   2. As applied to other motions. Sections 2651-2659.
   3. As to effect when decide affirmatively. Sections 2656-2659.
   4. General decisions. Section 2660.

-------------------------------------------------------------------



  2649. A motion to lay a proposition on the table is in order before 
the Member entitled to prior recognition for debate has begun his 
remarks.
  The motion to lay on the table is not debatable.
  On July 18, 1913,\2\ the House having under consideration the 
resolution (H. Res. 181) instructing the Attorney General to transmit 
to the House correspondence relating to the prosecution of Maury Diggs 
and Drew Caminetti, Mr. Henry D. Clayton, of Alabama, asked unanimous 
consent that there be four hours general debate at the expiration of 
which time the motion to lay on the table be voted upon.
  Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, moved, as preferential, that the 
resolution be laid on the table, and objected to further debate.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, submitted that Mr. Clayton, as 
Chairman of the Committee reporting the resolution was entitled to one 
hour, in which to discuss the report and said:


  Mr. Speaker, the resolution having been reported from the Committee 
on the Judiciary by the gentleman from the Alabama, he having withdrawn 
his motion to lay on the table, is he not entitled to the floor for the 
discussion of the resolution ahead of any demands of any person to be 
recognized for the purpose of moving to lie on the table? It is 
perfectly patent, Mr. Speaker, when a bill is called up before the 
House, if any Member on the floor can take off his feet a person in 
charge of the bill by a motion the bill on the table, it would be a 
very common method of filibustering.


  The Speaker \3\ ruled:


  Section 740 of the Manual says:
  ``In debate the members of the committee, except the Committee of the 
Whole, are entitled to priority of recognition for debate, but a motion 
to lay a proposition on the table is in order before the Member 
entitled to prior recognition for debate has begun his remarks.''
  Therefore the motion of the gentleman from Tennessee is in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Supplementary to Chapter CXIX.
  \2\ First session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 2539.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 2650
  Mr. Julius Kahn, of California, asked unanimous consent to proceed in 
debate for two minutes.
  The Speaker said:


  The motion to lay on the table is not debatable. The question is on 
the motion of the gentleman from Tennessee to table this resolution.


  2650. On August 20, 1921,\1\ Mr. W. Bourke Cockran, of New York, 
offered as involving the privileges of the House, a resolution 
characterizing as ``an unconstitutional violation'' of the rights and 
privileges of the House, a message delivered in the Senate by the 
President of the United States.
  Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, moved that the resolution be laid 
on the table.
  Mr. Cockran submitted that he was entitled to recognition as the 
proponent of the resolution, and could not be taken from the floor by a 
motion to lay on the table.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The gentleman from New York is mistaken, because it would then be in 
the power of any Member by offering a resolution to get the floor for 
an hour's debate. That was the reason for the motion to lay in the 
table.

  2651. The previous question being demanded on a resolution, a motion 
to lay the resolution on the table was held to be in order and to take 
precedence.
  Discussion of the relative privilege of the motions to adjourn, to 
lay on the table and for the previous question.
  The motion to discharge a committee from the consideration of a 
resolution is not debatable.
  On June 17, 1909 \3\ Mr. Cordell Hull, of Tennessee, moved to 
discharge the Committee on Ways and Means from the further 
consideration of a privileged resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 72) asking 
for date received through diplomatic correspondence pertaining to wages 
and manufactures in foreign countries.
  In response to a parliamentary inquiry from Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of 
New York, the Speaker \4\ held that the motion was not debatable.
  The motion was agreed to, and the resolution being under 
consideration, Mr. Hull demanded the previous question.
  Mr. Payne moved to lay the resolution on the table.
  Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, made the point of order that the 
question came first on the ordering of the previous question.
  The Speaker ruled:

  The Chair caused to be read by the Clark Rule XVI, clause 4. The 
Chair will read it again.
  ``When a question is under debate, no motion shall be received but to 
adjourn, to lay on the table, for the previous question (which motions 
shall be decided without debate), to postpone to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 5357.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 3411.
  \4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 2652
a day certain, to refer, or to amend, or postpone indefinitely; which 
several motions shall have precedence in the foregoing order.''
  Now, the rule speaks for itself. There can be no mistaking of its 
language. Now, on the first motion, the Chair again says the gentleman 
from Tennessee, Mr. Hull, was entitled to an hour. The gentleman 
yielded the floor by moving the previous question and, then, what 
motion was in order? It was the motion to adjourn.
  The gentleman could not have been taken off of his feet for an hour 
by a motion to adjourn unless he should yield. No motion to adjourn was 
made. The second motion is ``to lay on the table.'' What is the third? 
It is ``for the previous question.'' Now, the gentleman moved the 
previous question. Can it be contended for a moment that, pending that 
motion, it would not be in order to move to adjourn? Certainly not. By 
the express terms of the rule, the motion to adjourn would be in order. 
Again, ``to lay on the table,'' which precedes the ``previous 
question.'' Now, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Payne, at that point 
interposes the motion, which is a preferential motion by the express 
terms of the rule, to lay on the table. If the gentleman could not make 
the motion at that time, he could not make it at any time until the 
previous question had been decided. This rule deprives the House of no 
power. It is a mere question of precedence of motions. If the House 
desires to dispose of this resolution by a motion to lay on the table, 
it has the opportunity under the rule to dispose of that business 
before it orders the previous question, which it ordered, leads up to 
either the passage of the resolution or the defeat of the resolution.

  The Speaker than referred to sections 5409 and 5411 of Hinds' 
Precedents and continued:

  Now, then, let us see where that construction of the rule would take 
us. The gentleman from Tennessee had the floor for an hour. He could 
not be taken from the floor to enable anybody to move the previous 
question. But he moved the previous question, thereby yielding the 
floor; and then, for the first time, a Member had the right, under the 
rule, to make the preferential motion--the motion to lay the resolution 
on the table--the same right that he would have to move to adjourn, 
second only to the more preferential motion to adjourn. The Chair 
overrules the point of order. The question is on the motion of the 
gentleman from New York, that the resolution lie on the table.

  2652. It is in order to lay on the table a motion to reconsider.
  A motion to reconsider the vote by which an amendment was agreed to 
may be laid on the table without carrying with it the amendment 
proposed to be reconsidered.
  On July 9, 1913,\1\ while the House was considering the resolution 
(H. Res. 198) providing for the investigation of an alleged lobby, Mr. 
James R. Mann, of Illinois, moved to reconsider the vote by which an 
amendment offered by Mr. Jefferson Levy, of New York, had been agreed 
to earlier in the day.
  Mr. Richard W. Austin, of Tennessee, inquired if it would be in order 
to move to lay on the table the motion to reconsider.
  The Speaker \2\ replied:

  The parliamentary inquiry is whether it is in order to lay this 
motion on the table. The Chair thinks it is.

  Mr. Henry A. Cooper, of Wisconsin, then asked if affirmative action 
on a motion to reconsider would carry to the table the amendment 
proposed to be reconsidered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session, Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 2348.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 2653
  The Speaker answered in the affirmative but after further 
consideration ruled:

  The gentleman from Wisconsin propounded a parliamentary inquiry a 
short time ago as to whether a motion to lay the motion of the 
gentleman from Illinois on the table would carry the resolution with 
it. After considering the matter, the Chair said he thought it would; 
but I have reflected on it, and while there do not seem to be any 
precedents on the subject, by analogy the Chair does not believe that 
to table this motion of the gentleman from Illinois would table the 
resolution. There is a very common precedent. We always move to 
reconsider the vote by which a bill is passed and lay that on the 
table, and, of course, it does not carry the bill. That is what made 
the Chair change his opinion about it, and if the question arises he 
will hold that it does not carry the resolution.

  2653. The motion to lay on the table may not be applied to the motion 
to recommit authorized after the previous question is ordered.
  On February 2, 1910,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union reported to the House the bill (H. R. 18364) relative to 
the provision for the Thirteenth Decennial Census, with an amendment, 
and with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the 
bill as amended be passed.
  On motion of Mr. Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, the previous 
question was ordered on the bill and amendment to final passage.
  Mr. Champ Clark, of Missouri, moved to recommit the bill to the 
Committee on the Census with instructions to report it back forthwith 
with an amendment prohibiting inquiry on the part of census enumerators 
as to the political affiliations of persons enumerated.
  Mr. Crumpacker moved to lay the motion on the table.
  Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, raised a question of order 
against the motion.
  The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order and said:

  It seems to the Chair that the motion to lay on the table a motion to 
recommit is not in order.

  2654. It is in order to lay on the table a motion to postpone to a 
day certain.
  On March 18, 1910,\3\ Mr. Joseph H. Gaines, of West Virginia, moved 
to postpone the pending subject of discussion to the next day.
  Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, moved to lay on the table the 
motion to postpone.
  The Speaker \4\ expressed at first doubt as to whether or not the 
motion was in order, but decided to admit it.
  Subsequently,\5\ in discussing this decision, the Speaker held:

  In some cases one privileged motion is not applicable to another. 
Thus it would undoubtedly not be in order to move to lay on the table a 
motion to adjourn or for the previous question, as they are not 
debatable or amendable. But as the motion to postpone is both debatable 
and amendable, there is an advantage to it a motion to lay on the 
table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1416.
  \2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 3416.
  \4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \5\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2794.
Sec. 2655
  2655. The motion to lay on the table was held not to be applicable to 
the motion to recommit.
  The previous question being ordered on a bill to final passage on 
motion to lay the bill on the table was not entertained.
  On May 26, 1920,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union reported to the House the bill (S. 3451) for payment of 
claims of wooden-ship builders.
  On motion of Mr. William S. Greene, of Massachusetts, the previous 
question was ordered on the bill and amendments to final passage.
  Mr. Ewin L. Davis, of Tennessee, moved to lay the bill on the table.
  The Speaker \2\ held:

  That motion is not in order. It would be in order if the previous 
question had not been ordered. The previous question has been ordered. 
So now the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the 
bill.

  Mr. Green moved to recommit the bill to the committee on the Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries.
  Mr. Davis moved to lay that motion on the table.
  The Speaker said:

  The Chair does not think that motion is in order.

  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, submitted that the motion was in 
order as the previous question had not been ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  The Speaker ruled:

  A citation has just been shown to the Chair saying that a motion to 
lay on the table is not in order. The gentleman from Massachusetts 
moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries, and on that he moves the previous question.

  2656. A proposed amendment being laid on the table carries with it 
the pending measure to which offered.
  On January 8, 1909,\3\ during consideration of the resolution (H. 
Res. 478) relating to certain messages from the President of the United 
States with reference to the Secret Service, Mr. Augustus P. Gardner, 
of Massachusetts, proposed an amendment to the pending resolution.
  Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, offered a motion to lay the 
amendment on the table.
  Mr. Speaker \4\ said:

  To lay the amendment on the table, the Chair suggests, would lay 
everything on the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7708.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 682.
  \4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 2657
  2657. Laying on the table the motion to postpone consideration of 
Senate amendments was held not to carry to the table pending motions 
for their disposition.
  The motion to postpone to a day certain may be laid upon the table.
  The motion to postpone to ``the next legislative day'' was construed 
as a motion to postpone to a day certain.
  On February 17, 1911,\1\ the House was considering Senate amendments 
to the Indian appropriation bill.
  Mr. Charles H. Burke, of South Dakota, moved that the House further 
insist on its disagreement to the pending Senate amendment.
  Mr. Louis B. Hanna, of North Dakota, offered a motion to recede from 
disagreement to the amendment and concur therein.
  Thereupon Mr. Charles C. Carlin, of Virginia, moved that further 
consideration be postponed until the next legislative day.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that the 
motion to recede and concur tended to bring the two Houses together and 
therefore took precedence of the motion to postpone to a day certain.
  Mr. Mann also contended that as the date of ``the next legislative 
day'' was subject to change, the motion to postpone to the next 
legislative day was a motion to postpone indefinitely rather than a 
motion to postpone to a day certain.
  The Speaker \2\ ruled:

  Paragraph 4 of Rule XVI, page 383, of the Manual, says:
  ``When a question is under debate no motion shall be received but to 
adjourn, to lay on the table, from the previous question (which motions 
shall be decided without debate), to postpone to a day certain, to 
refer, or to amend, or postpone indefinitely.''
  Now, this question is under debate. Two preferential motions have 
been made, one by the gentleman from South Dakota and one by the 
gentleman from North Dakota. Now the gentleman from Virginia makes 
another motion, applying to a differently class of preference, because 
the other two motions were motions to being the House to a disposition 
of these particular amendments, and may be said to be incidental to 
these amendments, but the motion of the gentleman from Virginia is to 
postpone to the next legislative day, and has relation not alone to 
this bill but to the general order of business in the House. He might 
have moved, if you choose, in the same order of motion, to postpone 
indefinitely or to lay on the table.

  The Speaker then cited section 5393 of Hinds' Precedents, and 
concluded:

  The Chair thinks the precedent is in point, and therefore overrules 
the point of order.

  Mr. Mann moved to lay on the table the motion to postpone.
  Mr. Carlin made the point of order that the motion to lay on the 
table might not be applied to the motion to postpone.
  The speaker referred to a decision on a similar question decided on 
March 18, 1910, and overruled the point of order and announced:

  The Chair entertains the motion of the gentleman from Illinois to lay 
on the table the motion of the gentleman from Virginia.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2794.
  \2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 2658
  Mr. Swagar Sherley, of Kentucky, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked if 
affirmative action on the motion to table the motion to postpone 
consideration would carry with it the motion to further insist and the 
motion to recede and concur.
  The Speaker replied:

  Certainly not. They are entirely independent motions. The judgment of 
the Chair is no. A motion to reconsider may lay on the table, and is 
frequently made, without carrying anything with it. The question is on 
the motion of the gentleman from Illinois.

  2658. Affirmative action on a motion to lay on the table a resolution 
instructing conferees was held not to carry to the table with the 
resolution the bill in disagreement.
  The motion to lay on the table has precedence of the motion for the 
previous question.
  On November 10, 1921,\1\ by unanimous consent, the bill H. R. 8245, 
the internal revenue tax bill, was taken from the Speaker's table, 
Senate amendments were disagreed to, and the conference asked by the 
Senate was granted.
  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, offered a resolution to instruct 
the managers on the part of the House to agree to Senate amendment No. 
122, increasing surtax rates from 32 per cent to 50 per cent.
  After debate, Mr. Garrett demanded the previous question on the 
resolution, and Mr. Frank Mondell, of Wyoming, offered a motion to lay 
the resolution on the table.
  Mr. Charles R. Crisp, of Georgia, submitted an inquiry as to whether 
affirmative action on the motion to lay on the table would carry the 
bill to the table with the resolution.
  The Speaker pro tempore \2\ held:

  In the view of the Chair this is an independent motion operating only 
on those who shall be made the managers on the part of the House, as a 
guide for their action, and while it may limit the freedom of action on 
the part of the conferees, it is not directly and intimately related to 
the bill which has been sent to conference, in such a manner, as in the 
opinion of the Chair, would carry the bill to the table. When a motion 
to reconsider the vote by which a bill is passed is laid on the table 
it does not carry the bill to the table, and this would seem to be an 
independent motion of a character which if tabled does not carry with 
it a bill to which it is related.

  Mr. Garrett made the point of order that the demand for the previous 
question took precedence of the motion to lay on the table.
  The Speaker pro tempore said:

  The Chair will state that the same question arose on June 17, 1909, 
when Mr. Speaker Cannon ruled that at the close of an hour's debate, 
the previous question being moved, the Member moving it thereby yielded 
the floor, and then a Member had the right under the rules to make the 
preferential motion, the motion to lay the resolution on the table, the 
same right that he would have had if he had moved to adjourn, and that 
the motion to lay upon the table takes precedence over the motion for 
the previous question.
  The Chair overrules the point of order made by the gentleman from 
Tennessee, Mr. Garrett. The question is upon the motion to lay the 
motion to instruct the conferees on the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 7620.
  \2\ Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Speaker pro tempore.
                                                            Sec. 2659
  2659. A motion to lay on the table a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which an amendment to a pending motion was rejected does not carry to 
the table the motion to which the amendment was offered.
  The motion to lay on the table is applicable to the motion to 
reconsider.
  On May 5, 1924,\1\ the Committee on the Whole House on the state of 
the Union rose and reported that they had had under consideration the 
bill (H. R. 7358) to provide for the expeditious and prompt settlement, 
mediation, conciliation, and arbitration of disputes between carriers 
and their employees and subordinate officials, and had come to no 
resolution thereon.
  Mr. Alben W. Barkley, of Kentucky, moved that general debate on the 
bill in the Committee of the Whole be limited to three hours.
  Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, offered a substitute limiting debate 
to 24 hours.
  The proposed substitute being rejected, yeas 95, nays 205, Mr. Carl 
R. Chindblom, of Illinois, entered a motion to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. Barkley moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
  In response to an inquiry by Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, as 
to the effect of laying on the table the motion to reconsider, the 
Speaker \2\ held:

  The Chair thinks it would just carry that motion to reconsider. The 
Chair thinks it simply carries the motion to reconsider and nothing 
else. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Kentucky to 
lay the motion on the table.

  The question being submitted to the House was decided in the 
affirmative, and the motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The question then recurred on the motion to limit debate to three 
hours, which was agreed to.
  2660. Laying on the table a resolution providing for adverse 
disposition of a matter does not carry to the table the original matter 
proposed to be disposed of.
  An instance in which it was held that the motion to table might be 
applied to a proposition to lay on the table when that proposition was 
incidental to other provisions relating to the subject proposed to be 
tabled.
  Affirmative action on the motion to lay on the table, while not a 
technical rejection, is in effect an adverse disposition equivalent to 
rejection.
  The motion to lay on the table has precedence over the motion for the 
previous question.
  A demand for the previous question takes precedence of a motion to 
amend.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 7897.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 2660
  On January 25, 1923,\1\ at the conclusion of general debate on the 
resolution (H. Res. 425) proposing impeachment of Harry M. Daughtery, 
Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Andrew J. Volstead, of 
Minnesota, submitted the following:

  Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from 
further consideration of the charges and proposed impeachment of Harry 
M. Daugherty, Attorney General, and that H. Res. 425 be laid upon the 
table.

  Mr. Volstead demanded the previous question.
  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, moved to lay on the table the 
resolution proposed by Mr. Volstead.
  Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, submitted that the motion to 
lay on the table was not in order pending the demand for the previous 
question.
  The Speaker \2\ held:

  The Chair thinks not. Anybody who wishes to move to lay upon the 
table has always the prior right of recognition over a person moving 
the previous question.

  Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, made the point of order that it was 
not in order to move to lay on the table a proposition to lay on the 
table.
  The Speaker ruled:

  This is not a resolution such as is referred to in the citation (V, 
5426), nor is it an amendment. This is a resolution disposing of the 
whole matter. This is a resolution laying the whole subject on the 
table. It seems to the chair at first blush that a motion to lay that 
on the table, if it carried, would be equivalent to rejecting it. It 
would be rejecting a motion to lay the impeachment proceedings on the 
table, and it seems to the Chair that it would still leave the 
impeachment matter pending. If the motion of the gentleman from 
Minnesota were simply a motion to lay upon the table, then the Chair 
thinks it would not be in order for the gentleman from Tennessee to 
move to lay it on the table; but the Chair thinks that the resolution 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota is much more than that, that it 
is an independent resolution which disposes of the whole subject and 
which couples with the motion to lay on the table other factors. 
Therefore the Chair believes the motion of the gentleman from Tennessee 
is in order, although to adopt it would be simply to refuse to dispose 
of the subject and would leave it exactly where it is now. The Chair 
will recognize the gentleman from Tennessee if he wishes to make the 
motion, for it is a preferential motion on which the leader of the 
minority is entitled to recognition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2449.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.