[Cannon's Precedents, Volume 8]
[Chapter 239 - Reports from the Committee of the Whole]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Chapter CCXXXIX.\1\
REPORTS FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A series of bills considered in the order reported. Sections
2417, 2418.
2. Amendments and their consideration. Sections 2419-2425.
3. Amendments in the nature of a substitute. Sections 2426,
2427.
4. Paragraphs ruled out not reported. Section 2428.
5. Irregular report. Section 2429.
6. General decisions. Section 2430.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2417. A series of bills reported from the Committee of the Whole are
usually considered in the House not in the order in which taken up on
the committee but in the order reported.
On December 19, 1918,\2\ the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole
House in reporting a series of bills from the Private Calendar, grouped
them in accordance with the disposition recommended by the Committee of
the Whole and not in the order in which considered in the committee.
He reported that the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union had had under consideration certain bills on the Private Calendar
and had directed him to report the same back to the House, with the
recommendation that as to some of them they be laid on the table, and
that as to others, some with amendments and some without amendments,
they be passed.
The House then proceeded to the several consideration of all bills
reported with the recommendation that they lie on the table; next,
those reported with amendments and, last, those reported without
amendments.
2418. On February 6, 1914,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House rose
and the Chairman reported that the committee, having had under
consideration sundry bills on the Private Calendar, had directed him to
report back to the House with favorable recommendation, some with
amendment and some without amendment.
The House thereupon severally considered all bills reported with
amendments, and these having been disposed of, proceeded to the several
consideration of all reported without amendments.
2419. When the Committee of the Whole reports, the question in the
House is not on the acceptance of the report of the committee but on
the bill and amendments reported, if any, and such amendments may be
voted
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Supplementary to Chapter CIX.
\2\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 695.
\3\ Second session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 3074.
Sec. 2419
upon en grosse or any Member may demand a separate vote on any
amendment.
Amendments reported to the House by the Committee of the Whole are
subject to amendment and the bill itself is open to amendment in the
House unless the previous question is ordered.
If the Committee of the Whole reports to the House a substitute for
the entire bill the substitute is subject to amendment in the House
unless the previous question is operating.
On May 10, 1910,\1\ Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, called up the
bill (H. R. 17536) to create an interstate commerce court, reported
from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union on a
previous day, and offered an amendment to the substitute recommended by
the Committee on the Whole.
Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, made the point of order that the
question pending was on concurring in the recommendation of the
Committee of the Whole, and it was not in order to offer an amendment.
The Speaker \2\ said:
The first question is, on the report of the Committee of the Whole of
a bill with amendments, as to whether a separate vote is asked on any
amendment. That is where there is more than one amendment, and the
unvarying practice of the House is to vote on the amendments separately
if a separate vote is asked for, and not to take the question on
concurring in the action or the recommendation of the Committee on the
Whole. This amendment reported by the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union is an amendment to be acted on by the House, and
subject, in the absence of the previous question being demanded and
ordered, to amendment.
The general rule is in all the history of amendments reported from
the Committee of the Whole, as the Chair recollects, and as the
gentleman recollects as to appropriation bills, that the question is on
the pending amendments, and the unbroken practice of the House has been
that when a bill is reported from the Committee on the Whole with
amendments it is in order to submit additional amendments; but the
first question is on the amendments reported.
The Chair reads the following precedent:
``Instance wherein a substitute amendment was offered to a bill
reported from the Committee of the Whole with amendments and the
previous question was ordered on all the amendments and wills to the
final passage.''
That is an analogous case. There is no trouble about the practice of
the House with the statement that there is no sanctity about a
recommendation of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, which is the great committee of the House, but that the same
rules, the same parliamentary usage as to amendments recommended by
that committee are to be had as to amendments recommended by any other
committee.
Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, submitted the further point of
order that the substitute recommended by the Committee of the Whole
proposed to strike out all after the enacting clause, and the amendment
offered by Mr. Mann was not in order because it proposed to insert as a
part of the substitute a section in the original bill stricken out by
the substitute.
The Speaker ruled:
In reply to the parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from Georgia,
the Chair finds from the report of the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union that that committee has
considered the bill committed to it, and has directed him to report an
amendment in the nature of a substitute. It is one amendment in the
nature of a substitute to the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 6029.
\2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 2420
bill. That is all the Chair knows touching the proceedings of the
Committee of the Whole. A substitute is always subject to an amendment,
like any other amendment, and therefore the proposition of the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Mann, to amend the substitute in the House
is in order. But the gentleman can see at once, if his contention was
right, that if the House must first vote upon the amendment recommended
by the Committee of the Whole House, the House might agree to it or
reject it, and there would be no opportunity to amend it.
The Speaker then read section 5472 from Hinds' Precedents and
continued:
An amendment by way of a substitute is amendable just as much as the
original bill is amendable so that the precedent is precisely in point.
The Clerk will report the amendment.
2420. The Committee of the Whole having reported a Senate amendment
with the recommendation that it be agreed to with an amendment, a
separate vote was had on the amendment to the Senate amendment.
On September 23, 1918,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union reported to the House the bill (H. R. 11945), the
food stimulation bill, with Senate amendments, and with the
recommendation that a Senate amendment be agreed to with an amendment.
Mr. Julius Kahn, of California, demanded a separate vote on the
amendment to the Senate amendment recommended by the Committee of the
Whole.
Mr. William L. Igoe, of Missouri, made the point of order that the
Senate amendment and the amendment recommended by the Committee of the
Whole had been reported as one proposition and a division of the vote
was not in order.
The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order and put the question
separately on agreeing to the amendment to the Senate amendment.
2421. If a Committee of the Whole amend a paragraph and subsequently
strike out the paragraph as amended, the first amendment falls and is
not reported to the House or voted on.
On August 3, 1921,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union, rose and its Chairman reported that the committee having
had under consideration the bill (S. 674) to provide for the
distribution of captured war trophies, had directed him to report it
back to the House with sundry amendments.
All amendments were agreed to en bloc with the exception of an
amendment recommended by the committee as a substitute for section 5,
which was rejected on a separate vote, yeas 120, nays 127.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked
whether section 5 remained in the bill in its original form after the
rejection of the committee substitute or in the form to which amended
in perfecting it prior to vote on the substitute in the committee.
Mr. Mann suggested:
The amendments were not reported to the House. The amendments were
agreed to in committee and then the committee struck out the whole
section, so that the previous amendments were not reported to the
House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 10694.
\2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\3\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4621.
Sec. 2422
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is the duty of the Speaker of the
House to determine what has been done and not the duty of the reading
clerk to guess at what the House wanted to do. I do not know whether
the reading clerk will certify to the enrolling clerk section 5 as
originally passed by the Senate, or originally reported to the House,
or with certain amendments. I want to see that question determined,
although I am not in favor of section 5. These amendments have not been
agreed to and there is no way to bring them before the House now
because we are operating under the previous question. When the time
comes I will move to recommit the bill.
The Speaker pro tempore \1\ ruled:
The Chair thinks that the gentleman from Illinois is correct in his
statement that the House has not taken any action on the amendments to
the section. The Chair's impression would be that the section would
remain unamended, and that is the statement of the Chair.
2422. It is not in order to demand a separate vote on perfecting
amendments incorporated in amendments adopted by the Committee of the
Whole and reported to the House.
On April 24, 1930,\2\ the House was considering in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union the bill (H. R. 10381) to
amend the World War veterans' act of 1924.
During the consideration of the bill, Mr. John J. Cochran, of
Missouri, offered a perfecting amendment to a pending amendment
proposed by Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi.
The perfecting amendment was adopted and the original amendment as
amended was incorporated in the bill.
When the Committee of the Whole reported the bill to the House, Mr.
Hamilton Fish, of New York, asked for a separate vote on the perfecting
amendment proposed by Mr. Cochran.
The Speaker \3\ said:
The Chair understands that the so-called Cochran amendment was
incorporated as a part of the so-called Rankin amendment, and therefore
is not an amendment that can be voted on separately.
2423. On May 20, 1920,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union rose and its Chairman reported that the committee
having had under consideration the bill H. R. 13558, the war risk
insurance bill, had directed him to report it back to the House with
sundry amendments and favorable recommendation.
Mr. Alben W. Barkley, of Kentucky, rising to a parliamentary inquiry,
stated that before the amendment reported by the Chairman, striking out
the first section of the bill, was agreed to in the Committee of the
Whole the committee had adopted an amendment to the section, and
inquired if a separate vote could be secured on that amendment.
The Speaker \5\ responded:
The Chair is of opinion that the House has no knowledge at all of any
further amendment. The amendment before the House is the amendment to
strike out the paragraph. It does not
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Horace M. Towner, of Iowa, Speaker pro tempore.
\2\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 7672.
\3\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7381.
\4\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
\5\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 2424
seem to the Chair that it gives the House the control it ought to have,
but the decision is that if the Committee of the Whole amends a
paragraph and subsequently strikes out the paragraphs as amended the
first amendment falls and is not reported to the House or voted on.
2424. The House having rejected a substitute recommended by the
Committee of the Whole, the section of the bill for which the
substitute was proposed remains in the bill in its original form and
not as amended.
An instance in which the Speaker announced to the House that after
further consideration he did not desire a recent decision to be
considered as a precedent.
Discussion as to the importance of observing precedent.
On March 31, 1922,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 10864) to supply
additional hospital facilities for ex-service men and women.
The first section of the bill having been perfected by amendment was
stricken out in favor of a substitute for the entire section offered by
Mr. Martin B. Madden, of Illinois.
The bill was reported back to the House with sundry amendments, and a
separate vote being demanded on the amendment proposing a substitute
for section 1, all remaining amendments were agreed to and the
amendment by way of a substitute to section 1 was rejected, yeas 137,
nays 167.
Whereupon, Mr. Horace M. Towner, of Iowa, rising to a parliamentary
inquiry, asked if section 1, for which a substitute had been rejected,
remained in the bill in its original form or as perfected by amendments
agreed to before the adoption of the substitute in the Committee of the
Whole.
In debating the point of order Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois,
argued:
The gentleman assumes, I think, that those amendments were adopted in
gross. The only amendments which were agreed to in gross were the
amendments which were reported to the House. Suppose some gentleman
offers an amendment in Committee of the Whole and some other gentleman
offers an amendment to the amendment, and the amendment to the
amendment is agreed to, but the amendment as amended is disagreed to.
Would the gentleman claim that the amendment that had been agreed to
and reported to the House was adopted?
Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, supplemented:
Mr. Speaker, the House can not agree to something that has never been
reported to it, and when the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union makes a report he does not say ``I
report a bill with certain amendments that have agreed to and certain
amendments that have not been agreed to.'' The gentleman would have one
believe that the House, when it has voted upon amendments in gross,
voted to agree to a lot of amendments with a proviso that if the
substitute was eliminated, then the amendments were in it; that if it
was voted down in the House, therefore we have agreed to these
amendments. Certainly the House is not in a position where a vote it
has already taken must depend on the vote which follows it. The
situation is as I have stated. The Chairman of the committee reported
the bill back to the House with certain amendments. The amendments were
among those with the substitute for the first section of the bill. It
makes no difference what was done to the section in the Committee of
the Whole, the effect of it was to strike out the language as proposed
in the bill, and whether there were amendments or no amendments to it
the House or the Speaker has no means of knowing, because the
substitute is simply one amendment. If the House rejected that one
amendment the text is left in the bill, because we do not report a
negation or a negative to the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4893.
Sec. 2425
It seems to me, having rejected the substitute which the committee
agreed to and which it could have agreed to without amendment, we are
not dependent on amendments which were agreed to in the committee and
which the committee immediately negatived because that is the report to
the House. Of course, the gentleman from Iowa will appreciate the fact
that the Chairman, when he reports to the House the final action of the
committee, does not report the successive stages, as pointed out by the
gentleman from Illinois. If we have a dozen amendments and amendments
thereto, it is only the final action of the committee that is reported.
The Speaker \1\ held:
The gentleman made a parliamentary inquiry but the Chair supposes
that the action of the clerks will probably depend upon the ruling of
the Chair. When the gentleman first asked the question, the Chair was
referred to a citation and answered the gentleman according to the
precedent, that the original section would stand. During the roll call
the Chair looked up that precedent. It was the only precedent that he
could find. That is a precedent back in 1852, and it does not now seem
to the Chair to entirely cover the matter. The Chair is informed by the
parliamentary clerk that once or twice the present occupant of the
chair has ruled in accordance with that precedent, but on reflection
and on hearing the argument the Chair is disposed to rule the other
way.
However, on April 3,\2\ immediately after the approval of the
Journal, the Speaker announced:
The Chair would like to make a statement in relation to a response to
a parliamentary inquiry that he made on Friday last. The House will
remember that after some slight discussion the Chair differed in some
measure from some of the precedents and announced that inasmuch as the
motion to strike out a section has passed in committee and been voted
down in the House, that then the section stood as it had been amended
in committee, and not in its original form. The Chair in making that
statement thought, and still thinks, that he was following the dictates
of equity and reason in that particular case, and he was also advised
that there was a ruling by Speaker Clark in the same line. The Chair
has not been able to discover any such ruling by Speaker Clark. There
is an old legal maxim that ``hard cases make bad law,'' and the Chair
is not at all certain that his position Friday would be the wise one as
a general precedent, although it seemed proper in the particular case.
He therefore wishes to file a caveat and say that in the future that
ruling will not be used or considered as a precedent to bind the
present occupant of the chair; but if the question comes up again the
Chair will carefully investigate and make a deliberate decision. Of
course, we all recognize that it is extremely important that precedents
should be followed. There may be occasions when it will be wise for the
House to overrule old precedents and establish a new one. But it is
important that the House should always know what the established law is
and consequently know what to expect. The doctrine of stare decisis
should be followed whenever possible, and therefore the Chair thinks it
fair to the House to state that his action in the future will not be
influenced by his statement of Friday.
2425. On March 5, 1932,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union rose and the Chairman reported that the committee
having had under consideration the Treasury and Post Office Departments
appropriation bill had directed him to report it with sundry
amendments.
Mr. James M. Mead, of New York, rose to a parliamentary inquiry and
informed the Chair that in the course of the consideration of the bill
in the Committee of the Whole he had proposed an amendment which had
been agreed to but that
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\2\ Record, p. 4925.
\3\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 3505.
Sec. 2426
subsequently a further amendment by Mr.. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New
York, had been offered and agreed to, striking out the entire section
including the amendment.
Mr. Mead desired to know whether his amendment would remain in the
bill if the amendment striking out the section was rejected by the
House.
The Speaker \1\ held:
The House has no knowledge of the gentleman's amendment. The House
has knowledge only of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
York, Mr. LaGuardia. If the House should vote down the amendment of the
gentleman from New York it will restore the section to the bill as it
was reported by the Committee on Appropriations.
2426. If the Committee of the Whole perfect a bill by amendment and
then adopt a substitute for the entire bill, only the substitute is
reported to the House, and if the House rejects the substitute the
original bill without amendment is before the House.
An amendment in the nature of a substitute for the entire bill may be
offered either at the end of the bill or after the reading of the first
paragraph with notice that if agreed to motions will be made to strike
out the remaining paragraphs.
A proposition reported from the Committee of the Whole as an entire
and distinct amendment may not be divided but must be voted on in the
House as a whole.
The demand for the reading of the engrossed copy of a Senate bill can
not be made in the House.
It is not in order to recommit, with instructions, a substitute for
an entire bill adopted by the House.
On June 28, 1922,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union was considering the bill (S. 3425) to reinstate certain land
offices.
After the consideration and adoption of sundry amendments the reading
of the bill was being completed when Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois,
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the entire bill.
Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, made the point of order that a
substitute for the entire bill could not be offered at the end of the
bill proposing thereby to strike out not only the original bill but all
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole in its consideration.
The Chairman \3\ ruled:
There are two methods by which substitutes for the entire bill may be
offered. The first is to offer, after the first paragraph has been
read, a substitute for the entire bill, with the notice that with
regard to the succeeding sections of the bill as they are read a motion
will be made to strike them out. That method had been used in a good
many instances. In that case gentlemen will notice that, of course,
there is no opportunity for amending any subsequent section of the
bill, providing the substitute is agreed to.
The other method is to offer the substitute for the entire bill at
the conclusion of the reading of the entire bill, as was done in this
instance by the gentleman from Illinois. Of course in that
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John N. Garner, of Texas, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 9638.
\3\ Horace M. Towner, of Iowa, Chairman.
Sec. 2426
case of all of the amendments that have been adopted by the committee,
whatever they may be, are stricken out if the substitute is adopted. If
the substitute contains in effect or in actual language some of the
amendments that are already agreed to, that does not deprive the mover
of the substitute of the consideration of his substitute. That applies
practically to the case that we have before us, in the opinion of the
Chair. No matter what the effect of this substitute may be, it is the
right of the committee to vote down or to support the motion of the
gentleman from Illinois. The point of order is, therefore, overruled.
The question is on the substitute offered by the gentleman from
Illinois.
The question being taken on the substitute offered by Mr. Mann, it
was decided in the affirmative and the committee reported the bill back
to the House with the recommendation that the substitute be agreed to
and the bill as amended be passed.
The yeas and nays having been ordered on the question of agreeing to
the substitute for the bill recommended by the Committee of the Whole,
Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, requested a separate vote on each
section of the substitute.
The Speaker \1\ said:
The Chair has no authority to allow the amendment to be divided.
Mr. Homer Hoch, of Kansas, submitted a parliamentary inquiry as to
whether, in event of the rejection of the substitute, the original bill
would be before the House or the bill as amended in the Committee of
the Whole before the adoption of the substitute.
The Speaker said:
This bill is reported with one amendment. There are no other
amendments before the House; therefore if this amendment should be
disagreed to, the original bill would be before the House not as
amended. The only way the House could express itself, if it wished to
amend it, would be by a motion to recommit. The Chair thinks it would
be the original Senate bill. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The question being put, the substitute recommended by the Committee
of the Whole was agreed to, when Mr. Cramton demanded the reading of
the engrossed copy.
The Speaker overruled the request and said:
This is a Senate bill.
Thereupon Mr. Cramton offered a motion to recommit with instruction
to strike out a portion of the substitute and insert in lieu thereof a
certain amendment.
Mr. Mann made the point of order that instructions to strike out any
portion of an amendment just inserted by the House were not in order.
The Speaker sustained the point of order and said:
This question has been settled by a uniform line of decisions and has
been ruled upon by the present Speaker several times. The rule is laid
down very conclusively. After the House has adopted an amendment, as it
has in this case, it is not subject to amendment indirectly by a motion
to recommit. The Chair thinks the only motion would be a motion to
recommit without instructions.
The House has adopted this amendment. It is not the act of the
committee, but an act of the House, and after it has been adopted the
House can not amend it. The amendment is a substitute for the entire
bill.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 2427
2427. A separate vote in the House on a perfecting amendment offered
in the Committee of the Whole and incorporated in an amendment reported
to the House is not in order and may be had only by unanimous consent.
When a Senate bill is reported by the Committee of the Whole with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute and the House rejects the
substitute, and the previous question is operating, the vote recurs on
the Senate bill without amendment.
The motion to recommit may not include instructions modifying an
amendment agreed to by the House.
On May 14, 1930.\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union reported to the House the bill (S. 108) to suppress unfair
and fraudulent practices in the marketing of agricultural commodities
in interstate and foreign commerce, with an amendment in the nature of
a substitute, and with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed
to and that the bill as amended be passed.
Mr. Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, as a parliamentary inquiry,
asked what would be before the House in event the amendment recommended
by the Committee of the Whole was rejected.
The Speaker pro tempore \2\ replied that if the amendment was
rejected the vote would recur on the Senate bill as messaged to the
House.
Mr. C. William Ramseyer, of Iowa, then referred to the desire of a
number of Members for a separate vote in the House on perfecting
amendments offered in the Committee of the Whole and incorporated in
the substitute reported to the House, and asked the Chair to explain
the parliamentary situation.
The Speaker pro tempore said:
The House has been considering the bill S. 108. The Committee on
Agriculture amended that bill by striking out all after the enacting
clause and inserting an amendment of its own. That amendment has been
perfected in the Committee of the Whole and has been reported to the
House as a single amendment.
There is only one amendment reported to the House. The House has no
knowledge of any action taken by the Committee of the Whole, except as
reported to it by the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.
From a parliamentary standpoint this is but a single amendment, and
so far as the House is concerned the House is at liberty to vote on but
one amendment.
In response to an inquiry from Mr. Fred S. Purnell, of Indiana, the
Speaker pro tempore added that a vote on any proposition incorporated
in the amendment reported by the Committee of the Whole to the House
could be had by unanimous consent.
Thereupon, Mr. James B. Aswell, of Louisiana, asked if it would be in
order to recommit the bill with instructions to modify certain
provisions in the substitute just adopted by the House.
The Speaker pro tempore that held the House having adopted an
amendment it would not be in order to move to recommit with
instructions which could not have been offered as amendments in the
Committee of the Whole, and if an amendment
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 8934.
\2\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Speaker pro tempore.
Sec. 2428
recommended by the Committee of the Whole was agreed to by the House it
would not be in order to propose a motion to recommit with instructions
modifying such amendment.
2428. Paragraphs ruled out in Committee of the Whole on points of
order are not reported to the House.
On January 31, 1921,\1\ the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union reported that the committee had had
under consideration the river and harbor bill and had directed him to
report it back to the House without amendment and with favorable
recommendation.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made the point of order that the
report of the Chairman was inaccurate in that it failed to report two
paragraphs having been stricken from the bill on points of order.
The Speaker \2\ said:
The Chair must be governed by the report made by the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and overrules
the point of order.
2429. A matter alleged to have arisen in Committee of the Whole but
not reported by the Chairman may not be brought to the attention of the
House.
The Speaker has no official knowledge of proceedings in Committee of
the Whole save as reported by its Chairman.
There is no appeal from a decision by the Speaker on a question of
recognition.
On March 2, 1910,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union rose and the Chairman reported that the committee having had
under consideration the bill (S. 4639) concerning tonnage duties on
lake vessels, had directed him to report the bill back to the House
with the recommendation that it be passed.
Mr. Gilbert M. Hitchcock, of Nebraska, rising to a question of order,
informed the Speaker that the bill had not been read for amendment in
the Committee of the Whole under the five-minute rule.
The Speaker \4\ said.
The Chair has no knowledge of what took place in Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union except by the report of the
chairman of that committee to the House. The bill is reported back by
the chairman with the recommendation that it do pass. And the Chair has
no knowledge, parliamentarily or in fact, except what the gentleman
states. The Chair must rely upon the report of the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
Mr. Hitchcock and Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, simultaneously
demanded recognition to move to recommit the bill.
The Speaker having recognized Mr. Payne, Mr. Hitchcock appealed from
the decision of the Chair.
The Speaker ruled:
On a question of recognition the Chair declines to entertain the
appeal, in conformity with the precedents of the last 40 years.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2357.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2639.
\4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 2430
2430. When a bill is reported from the Committee of the Whole with an
adverse recommendation, an opponent of the bill is recognized to make a
motion as to its disposition.
The Speaker is not presumed to have knowledge of proceedings had in
the Committee of the Whole and not reported to the House through its
Chairman.
On March 2, 1910.\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union at the conclusion of its consideration of the bill (H. R.
15814) for the purchase of embassy buildings abroad, rose and reported
the bill back to the House through its Chairman \2\ with the
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.
The Speaker \3\ announced:
The Committee of the Whole House reports, through its Chairman, that
that committee struck out the enacting clause. Now, while the Chair is
supposed not to know, and does not know as Speaker, upon whose motion
the enacting clause was stricken out, or what discussion took place in
the Committee of the Whole House, yet that action is evidently adverse
to the bill and therefore the Chair would recognize an opponent of the
bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2648.
\2\ William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, Chairman.
\3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.