[Hinds' Precedents, Volume 4]
[Chapter 89 - Private and District of Columbia Business]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
PRIVATE AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BUSINESS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rules for considering private business Friday. Sections
3266-3267.
2. Motions in relation to private business. Sections 3268-
3275.
3. Unfinished private business. Sections 3276-3280.
4. Former and present rules for considering pension bills.
Sections 3281-3284.
5. Distinction between private and public bills. Sections
3285-3294.\1\
6. Private bills not to be made general. Sections 3295-3297.
7. Reports from the Court of Claims. Sections 3298-3303.
8. Rules and practice as to District of Columbia. Sections
3304-3311.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3266. Friday of each week is set apart for private business, unless
otherwise determined by the House.
Present form and history of section 1 of Rule XXVI.
By a standing order long in force private business from the
Committees on Claims and War Claims alternates on all Fridays devoted
to private business, except the second and fourth of each month.
Section 1 of Rule XXVI provides--
Friday in every week shall be set apart for the consideration of
private business, unless otherwise determined by the House.
On January 19, 1810, as related in the Annals of Congress, Mr.
Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, arose, and, ``after some remarks on
the present desultory mode of doing business,'' proposed the following
rule:
That Friday, in each week, be set apart for the consideration of
reports and bills originating from petitions.
On January 22, 1810, the rule was agreed to,\2\ yeas 88, nays 15.
On January 26, 1826,\3\ on motion of Mr. William L. Brent, of
Louisiana, this form of rule was adopted, giving an additional day for
private business:
That Friday and Saturday, in every week, be set apart for the
consideration of private bills and private business, in preference to
any other, unless otherwise determined by a majority of the House.
On February 9, 1826,\4\ Mr. Speaker Taylor decided that this rule
gave private bills preference on Fridays and Saturdays, but that they
did not lose their place on the general docket and might be considered
on other days.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\A public bill applies to a class and not individuals as such.
Section 2614 of Vol. III.
\2\ Second session Eleventh Congress, Journal, p. 189; Annals, Part
I, pp. 1247, 1253.
\3\ First session Nineteenth Congress, Journal, p. 197.
\4\ First session Nineteenth Congress, Journal, p. 795.
Sec. 3267
On April 26, 1828,\1\ on motion of Mr. Ichabod Bartlett, of New
Hampshire, a rule was adopted providing that the order of business as
established by the rules should not be postponed or changed except by a
two-thirds vote; and under this rule it was held and repeatedly
sustained that a two-thirds vote was required to dispense with private
business on Friday.\2\
On May 8, 1874, \3\ Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, presented
a unanimous report from the Committee on Rules, setting apart Friday
alone, instead of both Friday and Saturday, for private business. It
was urged in support of this change that one-fifth of the time of the
House was occupied with private business. The House agreed to the
proposal, and since that time the rule has been unchanged in this
respect.
When the rules were revised in 1880,\4\ the Committee on Rules
reported this form of rule, adapted directly and with little change
from the old rule:
Friday in every week shall be set apart for the consideration of
private business, unless otherwise determined by a majority of the
House.
When the report was considered, however, Mr. Mark H. Dunnell, of
Minnesota, offered an amendment, which was adopted, striking out the
word ``majority'' and inserting ``two-thirds,'' the object being to
protect Friday as private-bill day. In 1885, however, the words ``two-
thirds'' were stricken out, and in their place were inserted the
present phrase, ``unless otherwise determined by the House.'' \5\
On March 14, 1900,\6\ the House adopted this order:
Resolved, That on all Fridays for the remainder of this Congress,
except the second and fourth of each month, it shall be the order, the
House having proceeded to the consideration of private business
according to the provisions of section 6 of Rule XXIV \7\ and section 1
of Rule XXVI, to take up, in the Committee of the Whole House, bills on
the Private Calendar under the following conditions: On the next Friday
which the House may devote to prirate business, and on every alternate
Friday thereafter which may be devoted to private business, bills
reported from the Committee on Claims shall have priority over those
reported from the Committee on War Claims; and on the remaining
alternate Fridays devoted to private bills, those reported from the
Committee on War Claims shall have priority over those from the
Committee on Claims.
This standing order has been adopted by each succeeding Congress.
3267. Each Friday, after the unfinished business is disposed of, the
motion to go into Committee of the Whole House to consider business on
the Private Calendar is in order.
If the House on a Friday votes down a motion to go into Committee of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Twentieth Congress, Journal, pp. 621, 634.
\2\ See footnote to Rule 29, Barclay's Digest, edition of 1859, p.
165. Also Journals, Twenty-first Congress, second session, p. 367, and
Twenty-sixth Congress, first session, p. 425. But on January 18, 1833
(second session, Twenty-second Congress), Mr. Speaker Stevenson held
that the House might ``otherwise determine'' by a majority vote.
\3\ First session Forty-third Congress, Record, p. 3691.
\4\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 207, 1092.
\5\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 171, 338. The
other form had conflicted with what is now section 6 of Rule XXIV (see
sec. 3267 of this work), and the Committee on Rules thought the
question should be settled by allowing the majority to decide what
business should be taken up.
\6\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 351.
\7\ See section 3267 of this work for the rule.
Sec. 3268
the Whole House to consider the Private Calendar, public business is
then in order as on other days.
Present form and history of section 6 of Rule XXIV.
Section 6 of Rule XXIV provides:
On Friday of each week, after the unfinished business has been
disposed of, it shall be in order to entertain a motion that the House
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House to consider
business on the Private Calendar; and if this motion fails, then public
business shall be in order as on other days.
This rule dates from the revision of 1880,\1\ and as framed at that
time provided that the motion should be in order after the morning hour
for committee reports. The revision of 1890, which abolished the hour
for committee reports, placed this motion after the unfinished
business.\2\ Former Rule 129, of the system as it existed prior to
1880, made provision for the order of procedure after going into
Committee of the Whole House.
3268. The motion to go into Committee of the Whole House to consider
business on the Private Calendar may not include a designation of the
bills to be considered by the committee.--On March 5, 1900,\3\ a Monday
devoted to business reported from the Committee on the District of
Columbia, Mr. Joseph W. Babcock, of Wisconsin, moved that the House
resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House to consider certain
specified bills on the Private Calendar reported from the Committee on
the District of Columbia.
Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, made points of order that the motion
was not in order.
The Speaker \4\ sustained the points of order as to the specification
of the particular bills, and also as to that portion of the motion
included in the words ``reported from the Committee on the District of
Columbia.''
Mr. Babcock having made the simple motion to go into Committee of the
Whole House to consider business on the Private Calendar, the motion
was entertained and decided in the affirmative. In the Committee of the
Whole House Mr. Babcock called up the bills reported from the Committee
on the District of Columbia, and they were considered.
3269. On January 26, 1900,\5\ a Friday, Mr. Thaddeus M. Mahon, of
Pennsylvania, moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of the
Whole House for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 6909) to pay the
claim of the Eastern Extension, Australasia and China Telegraph Company
(Limited).
The Speaker \4\ said:
The Chair will state to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Mahon]
that the motion should be to go into the Committee of the Whole House
to consider business on the Private Calendar. * * * He made a motion
that the House go into the Committee of the Whole to consider a
particular bill on the Private Calendar. The Chair holds that his
motion must be that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the
Whole to consider bills on the Private Calendar. * * * The Chair will
remind the gentleman from Pennsylvania that when in Committee of the
Whole House, the committee has the right to take up any particular
bill. Does the gentleman renew his motion?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 207.
\2\ House Report No. 23, First session Fifty-first Congress.
\3\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2355; Journal, p.
311.
\4\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\5\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1223, 1224.
Sec. 3270
3270. A motion to lay aside private business is in order on Friday,
and may be agreed to by majority vote.--On Friday, January 25, 1878,\1\
the regular order of business being demanded, the Speaker stated the
regular order to be the call of committees for reports of a private
nature.\2\
Mr. John Randolph Tucker, of Virginia, moved that the consideration
of private business be for the present postponed.
It was so voted--146 yeas to 104 nays.
3271. On February 28, 1890,\3\ Mr. David B. Henderson, of Iowa, moved
that the House lay aside private business in order to go into Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union to consider general
appropriation bills.
The motion was agreed to.\4\
3272. On Friday, June 10, 1898,\5\ Mr. George W. Ray, of New York,
called for the regular order, which was the consideration of private
business.
Mr. Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, moved that the House proceed to
the consideration of public business.
Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, made the point of order that
the motion was not in order.
After debate, the Speaker \6\ decided:
The Chair wants to call the attention of the House to the actual
situation. There is not only the rule which declares that after a
failure to go into Committee of the Whole for the consideration of
private business public business shall then be considered in order, but
there is also another provision which has been kept in all the
revisions, which might seem superfluous except in the light of what the
Chair is about to remark:
``Friday in each week shall be set apart for the consideration of
private business unless otherwise determined by the House.''
Now, it so happens that in the matter of transacting business until
quite recently the first clause of the rule covered the whole subject
in actual practice--that is, there was no business transacted by the
House prior to going into Committee of the Whole House. There was no
business. It was not the practice of the House to do as it does now.
The House always come out of Committee of the Whole in time to finish
up the business which had been done in it. But owing to pressure of
pension cases the House committee have adopted the plan of running the
full time and then turning over to the House, to be disposed of on the
next Friday, a long list of cases. Of course those cases were first in
order on private-bill day and were so ruled to be by the Chair. That
created a situation which obliged the Chair to say that until that
business was disposed of it was not in order to move to go into
Committee of the whole.
That leaves apparently a large portion of the day beyond the disposal
of the House, and the rule of the House evidently contemplated that the
House should have control of Friday; that it should be private-bill day
unless otherwise determined, but if otherwise determined it should be
given up to public business. Now, then, how shall it be determined? It
seems in no other way except by motion, and the House has the same
control over it that it has in the other case--in this case by direct
motion, because it cannot be reached by the motion to go into Committee
of the Whole. The one set of rulings seems necessarily to lead to the
other. Therefore the Chair will put the question to the House, and it
is for the House to dispose of entirely. The gentleman moves that we
lay aside private business for the day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Forty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 286; Record, p.
570.
\2\ Reports of a private nature, as well as most public reports, are
now presented by laying them on the Clerk's table, so this call no
longer exists.
\3\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 1807; Journal, p.
288.
\4\ For other instances, see Journal, first session Forty-ninth
Congress, pp. 372, 1129, 1437, 1538.
\5\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 5761, 5762.
\6\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
Sec. 3273
3273. The motion to go into Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union to consider a bill other than a revenue or general
appropriation bill is not privileged on Friday as against private
business.--On Friday, July 11, 1890,\1\ while business on the Speaker's
table was being considered, Mr. Lewis E. Payson, of Illinois, moved
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill of the
Senate (S. 2781) to forfeit certain lands heretofore granted for the
purpose of aiding in the construction of railroads, and for other
purposes.\2\
Mr. Payson cited in support of his motion the fact that the motion to
go into Committee of the Whole House to consider the Private Calendar,
which was privileged on this day by section 6 of Rule XXIV,\3\ had not
been made, and therefore that his motion was in order as against the
business on the Speaker's table.
The Speaker \4\ held that the motion of Mr. Payson was not then in
order.
3274. On Friday, February 20, 1903,\5\ Mr. Charles N. Fowler, of New
Jersey, moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union to consider the bill (H. R. 16228)
relating to the currency, the said motion deriving privilege from the
following special order adopted at a prior date:
Resolved, That the bill (H. R. 16228) ``A bill providing for the
issue and circulation of national bank notes ``shall have, for the
remainder of this session, the same privilege that the rules give to
bills reported by committees under the privilege giving leave to report
at any time.
Thereupon Mr. Lemuel P. Padgett, of Tennessee, moved that the House
resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House for the consideration
of business on the Private Calendar.
Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, made a point of order that the
first motion had precedence.
The Speaker pro tempore \6\ said:
The Chair would state to the gentleman from New York that the
precedents are all in favor of the motion made by the gentleman from
Tennessee, as being of a higher character on this day, under the rule.
* * * The two motions being pending, the Chair is bound to put that
which is of the higher privilege. The Chair will state to the gentleman
from New York that it has been so ruled many times. The question is on
the motion of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Padgett] that the House
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House for the
consideration of business on the Private Calendar.
3275. The motion to go into Committee of the Whole House to consider
business on the Private Calendar being decided in the negative may not
be repeated on the same day.--On December 9, 1892,\7\ Mr. Charles E.
Hooker, of Mississippi, moved that the House resolve itself into
Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of considering bills on
the Private Calendar.
The question being put, it was decided in the negative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 849, 850;
Record, p. 7160.
\2\ This bill was privileged under section 57 [now 61] of Rule XI,
but had not the privilege of revenue and appropriation bills on this
day.
\3\ See section 3267 of this chapter.
\4\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\5\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress; Record, p. 2425.
\6\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Speaker pro tempore.
\7\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 17; Record, p.
72.
Sec. 3276
The House then resumed consideration of the unfinished business
pending when the House adjourned on the preceding day, the bill (S.
1549) providing for the public printing and binding and the
distribution of public documents.
Later Mr. B. H. Bunn, of North Carolina, moved that the House resolve
itself into Committee of the Whole House to consider bills on the
Private Calendar.
The Speaker \1\ declined to entertain the motion, holding that a
similar motion having been heretofore voted down, that action of the
House was equivalent to dispensing with private business.
3276. On a Friday devoted to private business the unfinished private
business must be considered before a motion to go into Committee of the
Whole House is in order.--On Friday, March 14, 1890,\2\ the regular
order being demanded, the Speaker stated the same to be the bill of the
House (H. R. 3538) for the relief of Albert H. Emery, coming over as
unfinished business from Friday last, the pending question being on
concurring in the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole House to
strike out the enacting clause of the bill.
Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, having, as a question of order,
suggested that the bill did not come up until after the sitting of the
Committee of the Whole to-day,
The Speaker \3\ held that under the amended rule relating to the
order of business the bills reported from the Committee of the Whole
House must be disposed of before a motion that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole House could be entertained.
3277. On January 6, 1893,\4\ Mr. F. E. Beltzhoover, of Pennsylvania,
moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House
for the purpose of considering bills on the Private Calendar.
Mr. Augustus N. Martin, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
consideration of bills heretofore reported from the Committee of the
Whole House at the Friday evening session of July 2, 1892, on the third
reading and passage of which the previous question had been ordered,
took precedence of the motion of Mr. Beltzhoover to go into Committee
of the Whole House.
The Speaker sustained the point of order, holding that the
consideration of such bills previously reported from the Committee of
the Whole House took precedence over the motion to resolve into the
Committee of the Whole House, and that, in strictness, the previous
question having been ordered on the passage of the bills so reported,
their consideration would be the regular order immediately after the
reading of the Journal, and that, had the attention of the Chair been
called to the status thereof, they would have been then considered.
Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, then made the point of order
against the consideration of the bills called up by Mr. Maxtin, on the
passage of which the previous question had been ordered, that not
having been called up immediately after the Journal was read, and other
business having since intervened, the right of precedence of such bills
was waived.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
\2\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 344; Record, p.
2237.
\3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 33; Record, p.
381.
Sec. 3278
The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order, holding that the
consideration of the bills was in order, and was the regular order
whenever the attention of the Chair was called to their situation and
status notwithstanding the intervention of other business.
3278. On the day of Friday, April 3, 1896,\2\ Mr. John A. Pickler, of
South Dakota, calling for the regular order, asked the consideration of
certain bills that had been considered in Committee of the Whole House
on the evening of the previous Friday and came over as unfinished
business, the previous question not having been ordered on them.
Mr. Benton McMillin, of Tennessee, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked
whether these bills would not be considered after coming out of
Committee of the Whole.
The Speaker \3\ said:
The Chair had occasion to rule on this subject in the Fifty-first
Congress. The ruling was that the bills which have come out of the
Committee of the Whole were unfinished business and therefore would
have to be taken up before the House would go into Committee of the
Whole again.
The particular case on which the ruling was given was not a pension
case; but an examination of the authorities as to the origin of the
pension evening makes it clear, in the opinion of the Chair, that the
pension bills would be within the purview of that ruling.
3279. On Monday, February 21, 1898,\4\ a day set apart by special
order for business usually in order on Friday, the House was
considering the unfinished business coming over from the previous
private bill day, and had reached the bill (H. R. 820) to remove the
charge of desertion from the record of Charles Winters.
Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, made a point of order, as
follows:
This bill and a number that follow it on the Private Calendar have
been reported from the Committee of the Whole at a Friday night
session, but the previous question has not been ordered. I therefore
make the point of order that this bill is not in order to be considered
at the day session of Friday, but that it should be considered at the
night session.
After debate the Speaker \3\ ruled:
The Chair desires to say that this question which has been discussed
to-day, although it has been twice decided by the Chair, is of recent
origin, simply because the evil that it was intended to correct was of
recent origin also. It has been the custom for many years for the House
to completely dispose of pension business upon Friday evenings, but by
and by there arose a system of obstruction which was met by having the
bills reported from the committee and then not acted upon by the House
itself.
Now, if it be true, as contended by the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Richardson, and the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Bailey, that the
privilege given on Friday night excludes a similar privilege during
Friday in the daytime, then there would be some ground for their
contention--perhaps sufficient ground for it--but it has never been the
custom so to consider it. On the contrary, the Friday night session is
an additional advantage which is given to pension claims over other
claims, and the Chair is not aware that when a pension claim has been
reached on Friday that it has ever been refused consideration on the
ground that it had no right to be considered during the daytime.
It is probably true that that matter has seldom come up, because the
Friday evening sessions have generally cleared the way upon the
Calendar, so that a pension bill would not naturally be reached on the
Calendar on Friday in the daytime.
Now, what is the principle which is endeavored to be carried out
throughout these rules? There is one which distinguishes these, in one
respect at least, from other rules of the House which have existed
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
\2\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 3536; Journal,
p. 365.
\3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 1982.
Sec. 3280
before the Fifty-first Congress. That principle is that business once
undertaken is to be disposed of by the House in some way or other. Now,
if we were to confine this pension business entirely to Friday evening
and were not to regard it as the proper business of the whole day on
Friday, you can see at once that practically the whole business of
Friday evening might be brought to a close. It was brought to a close,
and therefore and by that means the question came up before the House,
on which the Chair ruled, saying, as the gentleman has said, that he
would hear argument at any time. That ruling was repeated in the Fifty-
fourth Congress, and will be found somewhat at length in the
proceedings of the 3d of April, 1896.
The ruling was that a bill ordered by the House to be considered by
the Committee of the Whole House, and reported by that committee, was
unfinished business. Now, any unfinished business is always in order at
the time when that class of business is in order, and surely that class
of business is in order upon Friday; and being in order, it is the
first thing to be disposed of before the committee considers any other
business. Any other ruling would oblige business which has already been
passed upon by the committee to give way to business in a prior stage
which had not been submitted to the committee. In other words, the less
advanced business would be given priority instead of the more advanced.
3280. On March 11, 1898,\1\ at a Friday evening session, the House
having reassembled after the recess, Mr. George W. Ray, of New York,
moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House
for the consideration of business on the Private Calendar, under
section 2 of Rule XXVI.\2\
Mr. Samuel W. T. Lanham, of Texas, made the point of order that the
bills which had come over from the previous Friday evening as
unfinished business were first in order.
The Speaker pro tempore \3\ held that the bills coming over from the
evening session of Friday, not those coming over from the day session
of Friday, were the first business in order.
3281. A standing order of the House superseding the existing rule as
to Friday evening sessions provides that the second and fourth Fridays
of each month shall be devoted to pension bills and bills removing
charges of desertion and political disabilities.
Present form and history of section 2 Rule XXVI.
Section 2 of Rule XXVI provides:
The House shall on each Friday at 5 o'clock p.m. take a recess until
8 o'clock, at which evening session private pension bills, bills for
the removal of political disabilities,\4\ and bills removing charges of
desertion only shall be considered; said evening session not to extend
beyond 10 o'clock and 30 minutes.
This rule dates from the revision of 1890,\5\ although before that
such evening sessions had been instituted temporarily.\6\ The rule was
retained with verbal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2737.
\2\ See section 3281 of this chapter.
\3\ John F. Lacey, of Iowa, Speaker pro tempore.
\4\ Political disabilities arising from the civil war have been
removed by general statute. (30 Stat. L., p. 432.)
\5\ House Report No. 23, first session Fifty-first Congress.
\6\ First session Fiftieth Congress, Congressional Record, p. 2514;
also, on February 16, 1831 (Second session Twenty-first Congress,
Journal, p. 308; Debates, p. 717), an order of the House devoted the
day to the consideration of pension bills. This seems to have been the
first instance wherein they were distinguished from other private
bills.
Sec. 3282
modifications in the Fifty-second and Fifty-third Congresses, and
restored to its original form in the Fifty-fourth.
On March 8, 1900,\1\ the House adopted this order:
Resolved, That during the remainder of this Congress the second and
fourth Fridays in each month, after the disposal of such business on
the Speaker's table as requires reference only, shall be set apart for
the consideration of private pension bills, bills for the removal of
political disabilities, and bills removing charges of desertion. The
provision herein made shall be in lieu of the evening session \2\
provided for by section 2 of Rule XXVI, and section 6 of Rule XXIV and
section 1 of Rule XXVI \3\ are hereby modified to conform herewith.
This order has been readopted by each succeeding Congress; and the
evening sessions to consider pension bills are no longer held.
3282. When the House by special order devotes Friday entirely to
business other than private business, the special rules governing the
use of the day are thereby suspended.
Instance wherein the Speaker submitted the decision of a question of
order to the House.
On Friday, July 8, 1892,\4\ Mr. Joseph E. Washington, of Tennessee,
moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H. R. 7690) with certain
amendments.
Pending the motion, Mr. J. D. Taylor, of Ohio, made the point that
the hour of 5 p.m. having arrived it was the duty of the Chair to
declare the House in recess, and that the motion of Mr. Washington
could, therefore, not be entertained.
The Speaker \5\ expressed doubts as to the effect of the order
adopted by the House on the previous day:
Resolved, That Friday, July 8, be substituted for Monday, July 4, for
suspension of the rules as provided in Rule XXVIII, the latter date
being a legal holiday.
And accordingly submitted the question to the House: Is it the duty
of the Chair to declare the House in recess?
It was decided in the negative.
The point of order made by Mr. J. D. Taylor was accordingly overruled
by the House, and the motion of Mr. Washington was entertained.
3283. In practice an adjournment before 5 p.m. on a Friday was held
to vacate the evening session formerly provided for by the rule.--On
Friday, June 5, 1896,\6\ before the hour of 5 p.m. had arrived, Mr.
Nelson Dingley, of Maine, moved that the House adjourn.
The motion was agreed to, and at 4 o'clock and 55 minutes p.m. the
House stood adjourned until Saturday.
3284. If the terms of a special order seem to abrogate a rule for a
recess and an evening session for special business, the question of
order should be raised before the House goes into recess and not after
the House has met in evening session.--On Friday, January 8, 1897,\2\
the House
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 329.
\2\ See section 3267 of this work.
\3\ See section 3266 of this work.
\4\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 274-277;
Record, p. 5919.
\5\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
\6\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 6174.
\7\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 603.
Sec. 3285
met at 8 p.m. after the recess, and Mr. Henry F. Thomas, of Michigan,
moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House
for consideration of business on the Private Calendar under section 2
of Rule XXVI.\1\
Mr. C. J. Erdman, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that the
order of business prescribed by the rule was abrogated by the special
order which was in operation in the House, and provided--
That the said bill--the Pacific Railroad funding bill--shall be
considered under the rules governing general debate during the said day
and the day following until the hour of 5 o'clock p.m., at which time
general debate shall close, and then said bill shall be open to
amendment and consideration under the five-minute rule until 5 p.m. the
following day, at which time the committee shall rise, etc.
After debate, the Speaker pro tempore \2\ held:
Whether the special order adopted by the House is in conflict with
clause 2 of Rule XXVI may be a question; but in the opinion of the
Chair the point of order, if good, should have been raised at 5
o'clock. The House could not be declared in recess by the Speaker from
5 o'clock until 8 except under clause 2 of Rule XXVI. When that
announcement was made by the Speaker, it was in the power of any Member
to raise the point of order, and it should have been raised then, if
ever; because, had not the House been declared in recess until this
time by the Speaker under the rule, it would have continued in session
until a motion to adjourn or to take a recess had been made. The
Speaker having determined at that time that clause 2 of Rule XXVI was
in operation with respect to this evening's business, a point of order
now comes too late. The Chair therefore overrules the point of order
made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
An appeal being taken, there were, on the question of sustaining the
Chair, ayes 56, noes 1. The point of no quorum being made, a call of
the House was ordered; but the session ended without the appearance of
a quorum.
3285. A private bill is a bill for the relief of one or several
specified persons, corporations, institutions, etc., and is
distinguished from a public bill, which relates to public matters and
deals with individuals only by classes.--The statutes of the United
States provide \3\
The term private bill shall be construed to mean all bills for the
relief of private parties, bills granting pensions, and bills removing
political disabilities.
The Manual and Digest used by the House for a long time contained
this definition of public and private bills:
The line of distinction between public and private bills is so
difficult to be defined in many cases that it must rest on the opinion
of the Speaker and the details of the bill. It has been the practice in
Parliament, and also in Congress, to consider as private such as are
``for the interest of individuals, public companies or corporations, a
parish, city, or county, or other locality.'' To be a private bill it
must not be general in its enactments, but for the particular interest
or benefit of a person or persons. A pension bill for the relief of a
soldier's widow is a private bill, but a bill granting pensions to such
persons as a class, instead of as individuals, is a public bill. Bills
for the incorporation of companies whose operations are confined within
the District of Columbia have been treated as private, but where such
companies are authorized to have agencies and transact business outside
of the limits of the District they are treated as public. Bills
granting lands for railroads have always been held to be public, while
a bill authorizing the extension of a railroad into the District of
Columbia or conferring certain privileges upon such a corporation has
been held to be private.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 3281.
\2\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
\3\ 28 Stat. L., p. 609, section 55. This statute is part of a
general law governing the Government printing and was intended as a
rule of classification of bills for printing merely. Each House having
the constitutional power to make its own rules, would feel free to
disregard this definition if it should prefer to make another.
Sec. 3285
Bills frequently contain provisions of a public character which at
the same time are designed to benefit or promote private enterprises.
It is difficult in such cases to determine with uniformity in which
category these bills should be classed.
Bills authorizing the construction of bridges and bills granting the
right of way to railroads through Indian, military, or other
reservations have frequently been treated as private, while similar
bills have at other times been considered to be public bills. These
bills partake of both a public and a private character and it is
perhaps an open question whether they should be placed on the Public or
the Private Calendar.
Bills for the payment of money to counties or cities are held to be
private, while similar bills for the benefit of States or Territories
are held to be public.
The practice of the House has been generally in accordance with these
distinctions, although bills for the incorporation of companies, bills
authorizing the construction of bridges, and bills allowing rights of
way through Indian or Government reservations are now generally treated
as public. Bills granting American registers to foreign vessels have
quite often been treated as public, although generally now are treated
as private,\1\ while bills allowing American officers to accept gifts
from foreign governments have been placed on the Private Calendar.
Questions have arisen in cases where a single bill has contained
provisions relating to a number of persons. An ``omnibus claim bill,''
containing provisions for the payment of many different claimants, but
all having claims of the same class and each claimant being specified
by name, has been treated as a private bill.\2\ So also a bill to
pension a battalion of soldiers has been held to be private, although
the point was much disputed.\3\ The practice in regard to such bills is
somewhat varying,\4\ because of the difficulty of establishing a
definite rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See bill H. R. 4936, Index Congressional Record, second session
Fifty-fifth Congress.
\2\ See section 3293 of this work.
\3\ See section 3292 of this work.
\4\ Thus, bills of the following kinds are found on the private
calendars in recent years: Resolutions referring to Court of Claims
lists of bills, specified by number and title (Cal. Nos. 16, 312, 360
in Fifty-third Congress; 660, 780., 781, 782, 789 in Fifty-second
Congress; 1095, 1285, 1509, 1510 in Fifty-first Congress); bill for the
payment of Fourth of July claims (Cal. No. 158, Fifty-third Congress);
bill for the allowance of certain claims for stores and supplies (Cal.
No. 148, in Fifty-third Congress) taken and used by the United States
Army, as reported by the Court of Claims under the Bowman Act (Cal. No.
297 in Fifty-first Congress and Court of Claims Calendar in Fiftieth
Congress); bills for allowance of certain claims reported by the
accounting officers of the United States (Cal. No. 737, Fifty-third
Congress; No. 27 and No. 1343 of Fifty-second Congress); bill for
payment of certain awards to parties therein named (Cal. No. 218,
Fifty-third Congress); bill to pension Gray's battalion, Arkansas
Volunteers (Cal. No. 614, Fifty-third Congress); joint resolution for
the relief of certain settlers in Oklahoma (Cal. No. 703, Fifty-third
Congress); a bill in lieu of [12] House bills for the payment of sundry
claims for streets and other improvements adjacent to the property of
the United States (Cal. No. 798, Fifty-third Congress); bill to
reimburse certain persons who expended moneys and furnished services
and supplies in repelling invasion and suppressing Indian hostilities
within the territorial limits of Nevada (Cal. No. 106, Fifty-second
Congress); a bill for the payment of certain claims of the Delaware
Indians of Indian Territory, and for other purposes (Cal. No. 111,
Fifty-second Congress); bill directing Secretary of War to examine and
settle accounts of certain States and city of Baltimore growing out of
the war of 1812 (Cal. No. 166, Fifty-second Congress); bills for relief
of certain army and naval men, custom-house employees (Cal. Nos. 180,
271, and 1372 in Fifty-second Congress; Nos. 34, 35, 48, 332, and 1962
in Fifty-first Congress); bill to refund to West Virginia certain money
paid officers of a militia regiment (Cal. No. 338, Fifty-second
Congress); bill to reimburse Kansas for adjustment of claims of
citizens for property destroyed by Confederates (Cal. No. 417, Fifty-
second Congress); bill for relief of Logan and Simpson counties, Ky.,
city of Louisville, and Sumner and Davidson counties, Tenn. (Cal. No.
467, Fifty-second Congress); bill for allowances of claims for rent.
Sec. 3286
3286. A bill for the benefit of individuals, but which includes also
provisions of general legislation, is classed as a public bill.--On
February 16, 1877,\1\ Mr. Thomas L. Jones, of Kentucky, from the
Committee on Railways and Canals, to which was referred the bill of the
House (H. R. 4456) to authorize William A. Downer and others to
construct a ship canal at the head of Lake George, Florida, reported
the same with amendments.
Mr. John R. Eden, of Illinois, made the point of order that the bill,
being one of a public nature, was not in order under this call.
The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order, saying:
The Digest states that such bills are to be considered private as are
``for the interest of individuals, public companies or corporations, a
parish, city or county, or other locality. To be a private bill it must
not be general in its enactments, but for the particular interest or
benefit of a person or persons.'' The Chair finds that this bill
provides for the collection of tolls generally from the public, and
that it also provides for the punishment of individuals in the courts
of the United States. These provisions, in the opinion of the Chair,
bring the bill within the objection that a private bill must not be
general in its enactments.
3287. A bill containing among provisions for the relief of private
persons one item to pay a claim of a foreign nation was classed as a
public bill.--On June 5, 1906,\1\ the House was considering a motion to
suspend the rule and pass the bill (H. R. 19606) to pay certain claims
of citizens of foreign countries against the United States, and to
satisfy certain conventional obligations of the United States.
The bill was read, as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That the following amounts be, and the same are
hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, to pay the following claims against the United States,
hereinafter stated, the same being in full for and the receipt of the
same to be taken and accepted in each case as full and final release of
the respective claims, namely:
First. To pay the Canadian Electric Light Company, for damages to its
cable by the U. S. gunboat Essex, by fouling her anchor with the
company's cable, between Levis and the city of Quebec, July 17, 1904,
the sum of $7,307.30.
Second. To pay the Great Northwestern Telegraph Company of Canada,
for damages to their telegraph cable by the U. S. gunboat Essex,
between the city of Quebec and Levis, by fouling her anchor with the
company's cable, July 17, 1904, the sum of $939.58.
Third. To pay Messrs. Sive-Wright, Bacon & Co., of Manchester,
England, for damages to their vessel, the British steamship Eastry, by
collision, 1901, at Manila, with certain coal hulks of the United
States, the sum of $4,313.50.
Fourth. To pay William Radcliffe, British subject, for damages caused
by destruction of his fish hatchery and property in Delta, Colo., by a
mob in 1901, the sum of $25,000.
Fifth. To pay to the Empire of Germany, in full settlement of the
obligation of the United States of property taken, as reported by the
Court of Claims (Cal. No. 1647, Fifty-first Congress); bill for payment
of certain creditors of the Pottawatomies (Cal. No. 97, Fiftieth
Congress); bill for the allowance of certain awards made by a board of
claims to certain citizens of Jefferson County, KY. (Cal. No. 188,
Fiftieth Congress); bill authorizing Court of Claims to judge Old
Settlers or Western Cherokee claims (Cal. No. 204, Fiftieth Congress);
bills for allowance of certain claims reported by the accounting
officers (Cal. Nos. 274, 380, 559, 703, 858, 1099, 1024, Fiftieth
Congress); bill for the relief of several specified insurance companies
(Cal. No. 377, Fiftieth Congress); a bill for the relief of certain
settlers in Wind River Valley, Wyoming (Cal. No. 444, Fiftieth
Congress).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 460; Record, p.
1641.
\2\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
\3\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 7857.
Sec. 3288
Government to Germany under the convention between the United States,
Germany, and Great Britain for the settlement of Samoan claims, signed
at Washington, November 7, 1899, the slim of $20,000.
Sixth. To pay the British owners of the British steamship
Lindisfarne, for demurrage to that vessel while undergoing repairs
necessitated through collision with the U. S. army transport Cook in
New York Harbor, May 23, 1900, the sum of $158.11.
Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, raised a question of order, as
follows:
The rules of the House set apart certain special days--Fridays--for
the consideration of claims. This appears to be a bill reported from
the Committee on Claims, and I want to make a point of order. By what
authority or right, under the rules of the House, is a bill called up
for passage under suspension of the rules, which bill contains a claim
or any number of claims, when bills of this character have by the rules
of the House been assigned for consideration to a particular day, or
certain named days, of each month?
The Speaker \1\ said:
The Chair will answer the gentleman. This is a motion to suspend all
rules and pass the bill. The gentleman is correct as to the rule. It
has not been the practice of the present occupant of the chair to
submit bills upon the Private Calendar for passage on suspension day,
but this is a bill upon the Union Calendar, which is alleged to cover
several claims between the United States and foreign peoples. * * * One
claim in favor of the Empire of Germany, growing out of relations in
Samoa. It seems to the Chair, without expressing any opinion as to the
merits of the various propositions, after reading the report and the
letter from the Secretary of State, that this is a bill properly on the
Union Calendar, and not on the Private Calendar, of a claw that the
House ought to be able to consider under a motion to suspend the rules.
3288. A private bill of the House, returned from the Senate with a
substitute amendment of a public nature, was held to be a private bill
still.--On January 14, 1859,\2\ Mr. Thomas S. Bocock, of Virginia, from
the Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the bill of the
House (H. R. 336) for the relief of B. W. Palmer and others, with the
amendments of the Senate thereto, reported the same recommending
concurrence in the said amendments.
Mr. George S. Houston, of Alabama, made the point of order that
inasmuch as the amendment of the Senate to the body of the bill
proposed to substitute a general provision of a public nature for the
original bill, it was not in order on this day to report the bill to
the House, this day being Friday, devoted to private business.
After debate the Speaker \3\ said:
The Chair is of opinion that this House must receive and consider
this bill as a private bill. The original bill is that which must give
character, in the judgment of the Chair, to the proceeding. Were it
otherwise, it would enable the Senate to determine in what light and
character our bills should be considered when they send them back.
For instance, we send a private bill to the Senate. They desire to
defeat it. They put on a public bill as an amendment to it. Under the
rule contended for by the gentleman from Alabama, when they send it
back here the House is compelled to consider it in a different way from
that which the original bill required.
Again, to consider this amendment of the Senate to a private bill as
a public bill, the Chair is required to assume that the House will
adopt the amendment. To illustrate this, suppose this bill is sent to a
committee according to the view of the gentleman from Alabama, it must
go to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; a vote is
taken upon the amendment, and it is rejected, and then the bill is left
in an improper committee.
Mr. Houston having appealed, the appeal was laid on the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Thirty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 193; Globe, pp.
386, 387.
\3\ James L. Orr, of South Carolina, Speaker.
Sec. 3289
3289. A bill for the advantage of private individuals, even in
connection with a public object, has been trate bill.--On April 5, 1878
\2\ Mr. Charles 1858,\1\ Mr. Speaker Orr decided that a bill reported
from the Committee on the Library, to whom had been referred a memorial
of Messrs. Gales and Seaton, and providing for the collection and
publication of certain public documents, was a private bill. It was
objected that the bill was in no sense a claim bill, but that the
publication was for a public purpose, but the Speaker maintained his
decision, and was sustained on appeal.
3290. A bill authorizing one tribe of Indians to sue another in the
Court of Claims was held to be a private bill.--On April 5, 1878,\1\
Mr. Charles H. Morgan, of Missouri, from the Committee on Indian
Affairs, reported a bill (H. R. 228) to authorize and enable the
Eastern band of the Cherokee Indians to institute and prosecute a suit
in the Court of Claims against the Cherokee Nation.
Mr. Benjamin F. Butler, of Massachusetts, made the point of order
that, as the bill proposed to allow one nation with whom a treaty might
be made to sue another nation with whom a treaty might be made, it was
a public bill, and not in order in the class of business then before
the House.
The Speaker \3\ overruled the point of order, on the ground that the
bill proposed only to allow one band of an Indian nation to sue the
said nation. It was a private bill and in order.
3291. A bill prescribing the form of oath to be taken by a Member-
elect of the House was held to be a private bill.--On February 4,
1870,\4\ a Friday, when under the rule the Private Calendar was in
order, Mr. John A. Bingham, of Ohio, from the Committee on the
Judiciary, presented the following bill (H. R. No. 627):
That Francis E. Shober, claiming to be a Member of Congress-elect
from the Sixth Congressional district of North Carolina, upon admission
to his seat in the House of Representatives as a Member of the Forty-
first Congress, shall be released from taking the oath of office
prescribed by the act of July 2, 1862, and instead thereof shall take
and prescribe the oath prescribed for persons relieved from
disabilities by the act of July 11, 1868.
Mr. Halbert E. Paine, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that this
was not a private bill.
The Speaker,\5\ after reading from the digest the distinction between
public and private bills,\6\ said:
This is clearly a private bill. * * * The Chair will state that it
has been the practice of the House to regard measures like this as
merely affecting the right of the individual.
Mr. Paine appealed on the ground that the bill affected the
organization of the House, and was therefore a public bill.
The appeal was laid on the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Thirty-fifth Congress, Journal, pp. 968, 969;
Globe, p. 2518.
\2\ Second session Forty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 803; Record, p.
2317.
\3\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Forty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 265, 266;
Globe, p. 1044.
\5\ James G. Blaine, of Maine, Speaker.
\6\ See section 3285 of this chapter.
Sec. 3992
3292. A bill granting an American register to a foreign-built vessel
is classed as a private bill.
It is not in order to amend a private bill by adding provisions
general and public in character.
On July 20, 1892,\1\ the House was considering a bill (H. R. 8818) to
grant an American register to the steamship China.
Mr. George W. Fithian, of Illinois, submitted as a substitute a
provision to grant American register generally to foreign built vessels
owned by citizens of the United States.
Mr. Louis E. Atkinson, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
the substitute was not in order, for the reason that its effect was to
amend a private bill by inserting a provision of a general bill. Also,
that the substitute was not germane to the bill.
The Speaker \2\ sustained the first-mentioned point of order, holding
that while the pending bill was on the House Calendar it was in effect
a private bill, its object being to grant an American registry to the
steamship China. The Speaker said:
In the Thirty-ninth Congress a decision was made, and since then, so
far as the Chair is advised, has been uniformly adhered to, that an
amendment proposing to engraft a general provision of law upon a
private bill is against order. The proposition of the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Fithian], is to make the provision general, and grant
American registry to any steamship of a certain class or burden.
Therefore the Chair thinks it is general in character, and is not in
order.
3293. The Committee of the Whole has decided that a bill to pension a
battalion of soldiers should be treated as a private bill.--On May 22,
1896, \3\ at a Friday evening session, Mr. Robert Neill, of Arkansas,
moved the consideration of the bill directing the Secretary of the
Interior ``to place on the pension roll the names of all the honorably
discharged surviving officers and enlisted men of Gray's battalion of
Arkansas volunteers.''
Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, raised the point that this was a
general pension bill.
The Chairman \4\ sustained the point, and ruled that the bill could
not be considered.
Again, on Friday evening, December 18, 1896,\5\ the bill came up and
Mr. George W. Ray, of New York, raised the point of order.
Mr. Neill cited the bill to pension Powell's Missouri battalion,
which passed as a private bill on March 1, 1891, and was included among
the private laws.
The Chairman \6\ said:
The Chair finds that on the 22d of last May this identical bill was
brought before the committee. At that time the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Hepburn] was in the Chair. A point of order was made upon the bill by
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Payne], and the point of order was
sustained.
Now, the Chair is inclined to think that if this question had not
been already adjudicated this should be held to be a private bill
because it applies to a specific battalion or regiment--not to a class,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 311, 312;
Record, p. 6474.
\2\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
\2\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 5598.
\4\ William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, Chairman.
\5\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 287-292.
\6\ John F. Lacey, of Iowa, Chairman.
Sec. 3294
but to the individuals in a certain military organization. * * * The
Chair, being inclined to take a view different from the former ruling,
will take the sense of the committee upon the question--will submit the
question to the decision of the Committee of the Whole.
The committee thereupon overruled the point of order, and decided
that the bill was private.
3294. A bill to create a corporation in the District of Columbia was
held to be a public bill.--On June 6, 1862,\1\ the House was proceeding
to the consideration of the bill (S. 265) to incorporate the Mount
Olivet Cemetery Company in the District of Columbia, when Mr. Ellihu B.
Washburne, of Illinois, made the point of order that the bill was a
private bill, and not a public bill.
The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order, saying that such bills
had always been treated as public.
Mr. Washburne having appealed, the decision of the Chair was
sustained, yeas 108, nays 5.
3295. It is not in order to move to commit a private bill with
instructions that the committee report a general bill relating to
subjects of the same class.--On February 1, 1886, \3\ the House was
considering a bill for the relief of George S. Hunt & Co., when Mr.
Lewis Beach, of New York, moved to recommit the bill to the Committee
on Ways and Means with instructions to report a general bill covering
all cases of a similar character.
Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, made the point of order that the motion
of Mr. Beach was not in order, for the reason that the rules excluded
amendments having the effect of changing bills of a private into bills
of a public nature.
The Speaker \4\ sustained the point upon the ground stated, and the
amendment was not received.
3296. A private bill for the relief of one individual may not be
amended so as to extend its provisions to another individual, even
indirectly through a motion to recommit with instructions.--On February
18, 1886,\5\ while the House was considering the bill for the relief of
Fitz John Porter, Mr. William Warner, of Missouri, moved to recommit
the bill with instructions to add to it sections placing Andrew J.
Smith upon the retired list of the Army.
Mr. Edward S. Bragg, of Wisconsin, made a point of order against this
motion.
The Speaker \4\ sustained the same, on the ground that it was the
well-established practice of the House that a bill for the relief of
one private individual could not be amended so as to extend its
provisions to another individual, and also on the further ground that
it was not in order to do indirectly, by way of commitment with
instructions, that which could not be done directly by amendment when
the bill was under consideration.
3297. The right of a Claims Committee to report with the status of a
private bill a resolution providing for sending a series of specified
claims to the Court of Claims has been affirmed.--On Friday, May 25,
1894,\6\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Thirty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 813, 814;
Globe, p. 2614.
\2\ Galusha A. Grow, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
\3\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 571, Record, p.
1188.
\4\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\5\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Journal, pp. 702, 703.
\6\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Record, pp. 5279, 5286.
Sec. 3298
the House was in Committee of the Whole House, and the business in
regular order was the consideration of a resolution referring to the
Court of Claims 37 bills, each for the relief of an individual or
individuals, and each designated in the resolution by number and title.
Mr. Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, made the point of order that
these were referred to the Committee on War Claims as separate bills
and that that committee might not report such a resolution combining
them.
After debate, the Chairman \1\ ruled:
These bills, while of the same general character, do not in every
instance relate to the same species of property; and when the gentleman
from Michigan, Mr. Burrows, made the point of order that the committee
had no authority under the rules to report, in a single resolution,
this large number of bills, with the recommendation that they be
referred to the Court of Claims under the existing law, the Chair was
very strongly inclined to the opinion that the point of order was not
well taken, but the Chair had no recollection of ever having seen a
report considered by the House reported from the committee of exactly
this character.
But the Chair finds on investigation that in the Fifty-second
Congress, in reports 648 and 649, Mr. Stone, from the Committee on War
Claims, reported two resolutions embodying quite a number of bills to
be referred to the Court of Claims, in almost similar terms to the
resolution now before the committee. Neither of the reports was acted
upon by the Committee of the Whole or the House of Representatives, but
on June 3, 1892, in the House itself, on motion of Mr. Charles J.
Boatner, of Louisiana, that the Committee of the Whole be discharged
from the further consideration of a similar resolution reported from
that committee, it was, without objection, considered and passed by the
House. * * * The Chair feels constrained to follow the precedent set by
the House itself, and the Chair overrules the point of order.
3298. Reports from the Court of Claims do not remain on the Calendar
from Congress to Congress, even when a law seems so to provide.
The question as to whether or not the House, in its procedure, is
bound by a law passed by a former Congress.
On January 5, 1858,\2\ a question arose under the following section
of the act of 1855 constituting the Court of Claims:
That said reports and the bills (from the Court of Claims to
Congress) reported as aforesaid shall, if not finally acted upon during
the session of Congress to which the said reports are made, be
continued from session to session and from Congress to Congress until
they shall be finally acted upon, and the consideration of said reports
and bills shall, at the subsequent session of Congress, be resumed, and
the said reports and bills be proceeded with in the same manner as
though finally acted upon at the session when presented.
Debate arose as to the disposition of bills before the last Congress
under this law. Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, held that no
Congress could pass a law binding a succeeding; and Mr. Alexander H.
Stephens, of Georgia, held that the bills must begin de novo.
The Speaker \3\ said:
The Chair desires to call the attention of the House to the condition
of the bills from the Court of Claims which were not finally disposed
of at the last session of Congress. The law passed in 1855 requires
that the reports from the Court of Claims shall be taken up and
disposed of the same as if there had been no adjournment. In construing
that law the Chair has felt himself constrained to hold that where a
bill had received its first and second reading at a preceding Congress
it would be incompetent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ William H. Hatch, of Missouri, Chairman.
\2\ First session Thirty-fifth Congress, Journal, pp. 134, 135.
\3\ James L. Orr, of South Carolina, Speaker.
Sec. 3299
to resume the consideration of that bill at the point where it had been
left off. He has, therefore, held that it is necessary that these bills
shall be resumed and the proceedings commenced de novo. He had given
instructions to the Clerk in making up the Calendar not to place any of
these bills upon it, and if the House concurs with the Chair in the
views he has taken it will proceed to have all the bills undisposed of
at the last Congress read a first and second time and referred to the
Committee of Claims, so that they may be taken up in conformity to law.
3299. Under the present practice, reports from the Court of Claims
under the Bowman Act, which are also reported by a House committee and
sent to the Private Calendar, do not remain on that Calendar during a
succeeding Congress.--On December 19, 1887,\1\ Mr. Louis E. McComas, of
Maryland, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, said:
The Bowman Act, chapter 116, volume 22, of the Statutes at Large, in
section 7, provides--
``That reports of the Courts of Claims to Congress under this act, if
not finally acted upon during the session at which they are reported,
shall be continued from session to session and from Congress to
Congress until the same shall be finally acted upon.''
Now, in order to give effect and force to that continuance from
Congress to Congress, my question is, Will not claims thus reported
back from the Court of Claims to the last Congress and then reported by
its committee to the Forty-ninth Congress with an accompanying bill
standing on the Calendar the last Congress--will not those claims,
under the force of the terms of the section which I have read, be
placed upon the Calendar and be the first claims in priority on the
Calendar for consideration during the present Congress?
The Speaker \2\ said:
The Chair remembers the terms of the act. The practice in the House
has been when a report is received from the Court of Claims it is
referred to the committee which had original jurisdiction of the
matter--the Committee on War Claims or the Committee on Claims, as the
case may be. If that committee during that Congress reports the claim
back again to the House, the Chair thinks that the section of the act
to which the gentleman from Maryland refers requires the report to be
continued on the Calendar, and the Chair has so instructed the Clerk in
the present session to place on the Calendar in regular order all the
reports made by committees on reports from the Court of Claims. That
will be done.\3\
3300. On January 27, 1888,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House rose,
and the Chairman reported that they had had under consideration bills
upon the Private Calendar, and had reached the bill H. R. 6336,
entitled ``A bill for the relief of Martha J. A. Rumbaugh,'' whereupon
the question of consideration was raised, and the committee rose and
instructed its chairman to report the fact to the House.\5\
Mr. Samuel W. T. Lanham, of Texas, who had raised the question of
consideration, said:
I have objected in the Committee of the Whole House to the
consideration of bill No. 6336, introduced at the first session of the
Forty-ninth Congress, March 1, 1886. Accompanying this bill is a report
from the Committee on War Claims of the Forty-ninth Congress, first
session, April 6, 1886. This bill, as I am advised, has never been
introduced in the Fiftieth Congress, and no report in writing has ever
been made upon it by any committee of the present Congress. I maintain
that we have no jurisdiction in the Fiftieth Congress to pass upon a
bill of the Forty-ninth Congress and a report coming from a committee
of that Congress.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fiftieth Congress, Record, p. 110.
\2\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\3\ These reports from the Court of Claims, which are findings of
fact, are to be distinguished from judgments reported from the Court of
Claims, which are referred to the Appropriations Committee to be
included in the deficiency appropriation bill.
\4\ First session Fiftieth Congress, Record, p. 779; Journal, p. 572.
\5\ The rule is different now as regards consideration.
Sec. 3301
The Speaker pro tempore \1\ ruled:
The Chair is ready to decide the question. After hearing attentively
the argument in the Committee of the Whole, the present occupant of the
chair would decide that the class of bills of which the bill referred
to is one were reported to the Forty-ninth Congress with accompanying
reports from the Court of Claims. They were, by direction of the
Speaker during the present session, ordered to be placed on the Private
Calendar for consideration on Fridays. In the opinion of the Chair, it
does not follow that these bills of a former Congress are here for
passage by the present House without the formalities contemplated by
our rules. They are on the Calendar for appropriate action. What is
that appropriate action? It may be the reference of them to a
committee; it may be to lay them on the table. The reference of the
bills to the Calendar does not necessarily import that they are to be
passed or are to be considered with a view to their final disposition.
Even messages of the President are often directed to be placed on the
Calendar; but no one would suppose because a President's message is
placed on the Calendar of the Committee of the Whole that that
committee should at once consider, for instance, the question of a
tariff presented by that message without such preliminary steps as the
rules contemplate.
The Chair therefore holds that these bills of the Forty-ninth
Congress are before the House for appropriate action, but not for final
disposition, inasmuch as under the rules certain preliminary steps are
indispensable. There is nothing in the Bowman law, as the Chair
conceives it, which antagonizes this view.
The present occupant of the chair, holding this place only
temporarily, has some diffidence in deciding this proposition, and
would be glad if some gentleman who differs from this ruling would take
an appeal from the decision, so that the House may determine the
question.
An appeal being taken, it was laid on the table by a vote of 115 ayes
to 37 noes.
3301. On August 10, 1888,\2\ the House was in Committee of the Whole
House considering bills on the Private Calendar, when Mr. Barnes
Compton, of Maryland, made the point of order that there was now on the
Calendar a bill reported in the Forty-ninth Congress and also in this
Congress, from the Committee on War Claims, there having been a
favorable report also from the Court of Claims. He maintained that this
bill under the provisions of the Bowman Act, and under the ruling of
the Speaker, was entitled to preference.
After debate, the Chairman \3\ said:
The Chair has held, when bills have been reported from the Court of
Claims to this House and referred to appropriate committees and
reported back, they take precedence at the head of the Calendar, and
the Clerk therefore will be directed to report this bill.
3302. On March 12, 1890,\4\ Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee,
raised the question as to the cases reported from the Court of Claims
and undisposed of at the conclusion of the Fiftieth Congress.
After debate, and on March 14, the Speaker \5\ held:
Upon examination the Chair is unable to find that the provisions of
the Bowman Act or any rule of the House requires that the bills in
question should be placed first upon the Private Calendar. Whether the
House ought to make a rule to that effect or not the Chair can express
no opinion. It has not made a rule, nor does the law in terms require
it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Samuel S. Cox, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
\2\ First session Fiftieth Congress, Record, pp. 7436, 7437.
\3\ William. H. Hatch, of Missouri, Chairman.
\4\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, pp. 2159, 2239.
\5\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
Sec. 3303
3303. The Bowman and Tucker acts, so called, for assisting Congress
in the settlement of claims.
The statutes provide that the House or any one of its committees
having jurisdiction may transmit a claim to the Court of Claims for a
finding of fact, which shall be transmitted to the House through the
Speaker.
The act of March 3, 1883,\1\ entitled ``An act to afford assistance
and relief to Congress and the Executive Departments in the
investigation of claims and demands against the Government,'' and
commonly called the Bowman Act, provides that the House or any
committee of the House, whenever it has before it a claim or matter
involving the investigation or determination of facts, may transmit the
same to the Court of Claims.\2\ The court is not empowered to enter
judgment thereon, but may report its findings of fact to the House.
These findings are addressed to the Speaker and under his direction
referred as executive communications to the appropriate committees. The
jurisdiction of the court does not extend to claims growing out of
destruction wrought by the Army or Navy during the civil war, or the
occupation of real estate during that time, or to claims barred by
provisions of law. The reports to Congress, if not finally acted on at
one session are continued from Congress to Congress.\3\
The act of March 3, 1887,\4\ ``to provide for the bringing of suits
against the Govemment of the United States,'' known as the Tucker Act,
also provides that in any case referred by the House under the Bowman
Act wherein it appears to the satisfaction of the court that it has
jurisdiction to render judgment or decree it shall do so and report its
proceedings to the House.
The Tucker act further provides, in section 14:
That whenever any bill, except for a pension, shall be pending in
either House of Congress providing for the payment of a claim against
the United States, legal or equitable, or for a grant, gift, or bounty
to any person, the House in which such bill is pending may refer the
same to the Court of Claims, who shall proceed with the same in
accordance with the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1883,
entitled ``An act to afford assistance and relief to Congress and the
Executive Departments in the investigation of claims and demands
against the Government,'' and report to such House the facts in the
case and the amount, where the game can be liquidated, including any
facts bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches
in presenting such claim or applying for such grant, gift, or bounty,
and any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute
of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the
claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy.\5\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 22 Stat. L., p. 485.
\2\ The Court of Claims was established by act of February 24, 1855.
(10 Stat. L., p. 612.) The act of July 4, 1864, restricted its
jurisdiction in respect to war claims. (13 Stat. L., p. 381.) The
subject of claims commissions was considered and reported on in the
Twenty-ninth and Thirtieth Congresses, and in 1871 the Southern Claims
Commission was established. The rule of the House adopted March 16,
1860 (First session Thirty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 533; Globe, p.
1211), provided that bills from the Court of Claims should be read
twice and referred at once to the Committee of the Whole House. For
present usage see section 3299 of this work. The House Committee on
Claims was instituted very early. (See section 4262 of this work.) On
January 23, 1822 (First session Seventeenth Congress, Annals, p. 767),
the overburdened condition of the Committee on Claims led to a
discussion of some measure of relief. On July 21, 1842 (Second session
Twenty-seventh Congress, Report No. 937), the committee reported in
favor of a rule prohibiting the rehearing of claims, the argument being
made that such a rule would not abridge the right of petition.
\3\ See section 3297 of this work.
\4\ 24 Stat. L., p. 505.
\5\ After a claim has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction in a
case under the Bowman Act either of the Houses of Congress may refer it
under the Tucker Act. (26 C. Cls. R., Farrar v. United States, p. 151.)
Sec. 3304
The Attorney-General is required to report to Congress at the
beginning of each session of Congress the suits under this act in which
a final judgment or decree has been rendered, giving the date of each
and a statement of the costs taxed in each case.
By the act of March 3, 1891,\1\ jurisdiction was conferred on the
Court of Claims to adjudicate Indian depredation claims, including such
cases as were authorized to be examined by the Indian appropriation act
approved March 3, 1885; and all papers, records, etc., relating to such
claims and in the office of the Clerk of the House, or certified copies
of such papers, are to be furnished on the order of the court or at the
request of the Attorney-General.
The statute also provides for the transmittal of bills and petitions
with accompanying papers, by the Clerk of the House to the court in
cases where the claims are founded upon any law of Congress, or upon
any regulation of an Executive Department, or upon any contract
expressed or implied, with the Government of the United States; \2\ for
the use by the court of reports of the House; \3\ that Members of the
House shall not practice in the Court of Claims; \4\ and that on the
first day of every December session of Congress the clerk of the Court
of Claims shall transmit to Congress a full and complete statement of
all the judgments rendered by the court during the previous year,
stating the amounts thereof and the parties in whose favor they were
rendered, together with a brief synopsis of the nature of the claims
upon which they were rendered.\5\
3304. The second and fourth Mondays of each month are set apart for
business presented by the Committee on the District of Columbia.
Present form and history of section 3 of Rule XXVI.
Section 3 of Rule XXVI provides:
The second and fourth Mondays in each month, after the disposal of
such business on the Speaker's table as requires reference only, shall,
when claimed by the Committee on the District of Columbia, be set apart
for the consideration of such business as may be presented by said
committee.
This form of the rule dates from the revision of 1900.\6\
Previous to 1870 the District of Columbia Committee awaited \7\ with
other committees its turn to report in the morning hour for the call of
committees.\8\ On March 9, 1870, Mr. James A. Garfield, from the
Committee on Rules, reported a rule, which was adopted, omitting the
committee from the call and giving it the third Friday of the month.\9\
On May 8, 1874, it was found desirable to restrict the time given
private bills by taking Saturday for public business, leaving Friday
alone \10\ for private bill day,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 26 Stat. L., p. 851.
\2\ Revised Statutes, section 1060.
\3\ Revised Statutes, section 1076.
\4\ Revised Statutes, section 1058.
\5\ Revised Statutes, section 1057.
\6\ Report No. 23, first session Fifty-first Congress.
\7\ There was at least one temporary exception. On April 2, 1830
(first session Twenty-first Congress, Journal, p. 492; Debates, pp.
722, 734), the House, moved by the urgent Deed of legislation for the
District, set apart every second Thursday for the remainder of the
session for the consideration of District business.
\8\ This call has now been abolished.
\9\ Second session Forty-first Congress, Journal p. 446.
\10\ See section 3266 of this work.
Sec. 3305
and so District of Columbia business was transferred from the third
Friday to the third Monday.\1\ By the rule all of the third Monday from
2 p. m. until adjournment was given to this order of business.
In the revision of 1880 District day was abolished and the committee
was placed on the same footing with other committees which reported
under the call.\2\ The old arrangement was practically restored in the
following session, however.
In 1885 \3\ a rule was adopted giving to the District business the
second Monday of each month after the call of States and Territories.
Later the fourth Monday was added, the two days each month being
enjoyed during the Fiftieth Congress.
3305. Under a former condition of rule it was held that a motion to
go into Committee of the Whole to consider a general appropriation bill
was not privileged as against business in order on District of Columbia
day.--On February 13, 1893,\4\ Mr. William Mutchler, of Pennsylvania,
moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union to consider general appropriation bills.
Thereupon Mr. John J. Hemphill, of South Carolina, in behalf of the
Committee on the District of Columbia, this being the second Monday of
the month, demanded that the House proceed under the rule to the
consideration of business reported by the Committee on the District of
Columbia, and made the point that the motion of Mr. Mutchler was,
therefore, not in order.\5\
The Speaker \6\ sustained the point of order, saying:
The practice has been, so far as the Chair is advised and believes,
to permit the Committee on the District of Columbia, on the second and
fourth Mondays of the month, when they claim the day, to call up such
business as they desire to have considered, and the only way to defeat
the purpose of the committee to occupy the day is to raise the question
of consideration on the bill which they call up. Such has been the
practice.\7\
3306. Unfinished business on a day assigned to a committee goes over
to the next day had by the committee.--On April 25, 1876,\8\ Mr. George
W. Hendee, of Vermont, made the point of order that the regular order
for that morning was the consideration, as unfinished business, of the
bill of the House (H. R. 2676) from the Committee for the District of
Columbia to regulate the assessment and collection of taxes for the
support of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, the
consideration of which bill was begun on the previous day, the day
assigned under the rules for the Committee for the District of Columbia
to report its measures to the House for consideration. Mr. Hendee based
his point
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Forty-third Congress, Record, p. 3692.
\2\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 200.
\3\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 3126, 3156.
\4\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 89; Record, p.
1534.
\5\ Under the old rule, which provided that the day should be
``devoted exclusively'' after 2 p. m., it was held that a roll call
might be interrupted in order to proceed to District business. (Second
session Forty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 262; Record, p. 395.)
\6\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
\7\ The rule relating to the motion to go into Committee of the Whole
to consider general appropriation bills has been changed somewhat since
this decision was made, and the motion to go into Committee of the
Whole to consider revenue or general appropriation bills is much more
highly privileged than then. See section 3072 of this volume.
\8\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 860; Record, p.
2737.
Sec. 3307
of order on the further fact that at the adjournment on the preceding
day the question on engrossment and third reading of the bill was
pending, and the previous question had been demanded and seconded.\1\
The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order on the ground that the
unfinished business of the committee at the adjournment on the
preceding day must go over and be disposed of as unfinished business of
the committee on the next day assigned to it under the rules for the
transaction of its business; and further because the rule assigning to
the committee the exclusive use of certain days for the transaction of
its business should be construed to be reciprocal in its relations to
the other committees of the House, so that the other committees of the
House are as much entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the time
allotted to them under the rules for the transaction of their business
as the Committee for the District of Columbia is entitled to be
protected in the exclusive enjoyment of the time assigned to it under
the rules.
3307. Business unfinished on a District of Columbia day does not come
up on the next District day unless called up.--On May 28, 1906,\3\ a
District of Columbia day, Mr. Joseph W. Babcock, of Wisconsin, chairman
of the Committee on the District of Columbia, proposed to call up the
bill (S. 5561) to amend an act entitled ``An act to amend an act
entitled `An act to incorporate the Masonic Mutual Relief Association
of the District of Columbia,' '' approved February 5, 1901.
Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, raised the question of order
that the first business in order would be a bill which was pending and
unfinished on the last District day.
After debate the Speaker \4\ held:
It occurs to the Chair that the Committee on the District of Columbia
has two certain days, Mondays, in the month. It also occurs to the
Chair that in the orderly transaction of business the bill which had
been considered in the Committee of the Whole House would have
precedence.
However, the Clerk calls my attention to a ruling upon this subject
in the Manual, as follows:
``Business unfinished on a District of Columbia day does not come up
on the next District day unless called up.'' \5\
And further, on page 759 of Parliamentary Precedents, is the
following:
``The Speaker held that, pursuant to Rule XXVI, it was in order for
the committee to present such business as they desired, and that the
unfinished business did not recur unless presented by the committee.''
That was the decision of Mr. Speaker Crisp. In light of this
precedent the Chair would hold, while the Chair would have been
inclined to hold that the question was open, according to the
contention of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Williams], as the
Chair finds the precedent, and in the absence of further authority, the
Chair will follow the ruling of Mr. Speaker Crisp and hold that it
rests with the committee to call at this stage the bill referred to by
the gentleman from Mississippi, and it is left to the Committee on the
District of Columbia to call up such business as it sees proper. It
rests not upon general parliamentary usage, but upon the special rule
that gives certain Mondays in each month to the committee, as follows:
``The second and fourth Mondays of each month are set apart for
business presented by the Committee on the District of Columbia.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The previous question does not now have to be seconded. (See
section 5443 of Vol. V.) When the previous question is ordered in such
a case, the bill is in order the next day. (See sections 5510-5520 of
Vol. V of this work.)
\2\ Michael C. Kerr, of Indiana, Speaker.
\3\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 7567.
\4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\5\ See Section 3308.
Sec. 3308
3308. The question of consideration may not be demanded against
District of Columbia business generally, but may be demanded against
each bill as it is presented.--On June 11, 1894,\1\ this being the
second Monday in the month, Mr. John T. Heard, of Missouri, in behalf
of the Committee on the District of Columbia, presented for
consideration the bill (H. R. 7238) making permanent provision for the
police fund of the District of Columbia.
Mr. William S. Holman, of Indiana, submitted the question whether the
question of consideration could be demanded against business presented
by the Committee on the District of Columbia.
The Speaker \2\ held that the question of consideration could be
demanded only against each bill as it was presented.
Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, made the point that the regular
order should be the unfinished business pending when the House
adjourned on the fourth Monday in May.
The Speaker held that pursuant to Rule XXVI \3\ it was in order for
the committee to present such business as they desired, and that the
unfinished business did not recur unless presented by the committee.
3309. On April 23, 1894,\4\ the committees were called for reports;
when, none being presented, Mr. John T. Heard, of Missouri, chairman of
the Committee on the District of Columbia, proceeded to present for
consideration business reported by that committee.
Mr. Thomas C. McRae, of Arkansas, made the point that such business
was not in order until after the consideration hour provided in clause
4 of Rule XXIV.\5\
After debate, the Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order, holding
that District of Columbia business, pursuant to clause 2 of Rule
XXVI,\6\ and the practice of the House thereof, was in order
immediately after the call of committees for reports,\7\ and that the
consideration of such District business could only be dispensed with by
demanding the question of consideration against each bill which might
be presented by the committee.
3310. On District of Columbia day a motion is in order to go into
Committee of the Whole House to consider a private bill reported by the
Committee on the District of Columbia.--On January 28, 1907,\8\ a
District of Columbia day, Mr. Joseph W. Babcock, of Wisconsin, asked
unanimous consent to discharge the Committee of the Whole House from
the consideration of the bill (S. 7028) for the relief of the Allis-
Chalmers Company, of Milwaukee, Wis.
Mr. Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, having reserved a right to object,
the Speaker \9\ said:
The Chair will state that on Mondays, notwithstanding this bill (S.
7028) is on the Private Calendar, under the rule and practice, as the
Chair is advised, the gentleman may call up the bill for
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 425; Record, p.
6121.
\2\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
\3\ See section 3304 of this chapter.
\4\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 350, 351;
Record, p. 3997.
\5\ This was the morning hour. (See see. 3118.)
\6\ See section 3281.
\7\ The morning hour for reports has been abolished.
\8\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 1848.
\9\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 3311
consideration. He might move to go into Committee of the Whole House
for the purpose of considering the bill; but now the gentleman asks
unanimous consent that the Committee of the Whole House may be
discharged from consideration of the bill, and that the same may be
considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
3311. The Committee for the District of Columbia may not, on a
District day, call up a bill reported from another committee.--On
January 18, 1897,\1\ a day devoted to business from the District of
Columbia Committee, Mr. Joseph W. Babcock, of Wisconsin, chairman of
that committee, stated that he was prepared to present a bill (H. R.
10023) setting apart a plot of public ground in the city of Washington,
in the District of Columbia, for memorial purposes under the auspices
of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution,
which was reported by the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds,
but by an error was placed upon the Calendar as having been reported by
the Committee on the District of Columbia.
Mr. Alexander H. Dockery, of Missouri, made the point of order that
the bill was not in order.
The Speaker \2\ held that the rule applied exclusively to business
reported by the Committee on the District of Columbia.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 913.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.