<DOC>
[Cannon's Precedents -- Volume VIII]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:cannon_ccl.wais]
Chapter CCL.\1\
THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The rule and its development. Section 2661.
2. Use of for closing debate. Sections 2662-2671.
3. Applies to questions of privilege. Section 2672.
4. General decisions as to application of. Sections 2673-2681.
5. Rights of Members in moving. Sections 2682-2685.
6. Effect of in preventing debate and amendment. Sections 2686-
2689.
7. The forty minutes of debate after it is ordered. Section
2690.
8. Precedence after an adjournment, of a bill on which the
previous question is ordered. Sections 2691-2694.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2661. History of the process by which the House changed the previous
question of Parliament into an instrument of closing debate and
bringing a vote on the pending question.
On February 2, 1922,\2\ Mr. Ladislas Lazaro, of Louisiana, inserted
in the Record, by unanimous consent, excerpts from a report of a speech
delivered in the House by Mr. William Gaston, of North Carolina, in
1813, including a detailed and exhaustive history of the early use and
development of the previous question.
2662. The only motion used for closing debate in the House (as
distinguished from the Committee of the Whole) is the motion for the
previous question.
On February 10, 1910,\3\ the House was considering the resolution (H.
Res. 371) authorizing members on the part of the House of the Joint
Committee on Printing to appear in response to legal process served in
a suit brought against the members of that committee.
Mr. Champ Clark, of Missouri, asked unanimous consent that debate on
the pending resolution close at 9 o'clock.
Mr. Robert L. Henry, of Texas, having objected, Mr. Clark moved that
debate close at 9 o'clock.
The Speaker \4\ said:
That motion would hardly be in order under the rule. The right way to
close debate is by moving the previous question under the rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Supplementary to Chapter CXX.
\2\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2086.
\3\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1733.
\4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 2663
2663. The motion for the previous question is not admitted in the
Senate.\1\
Instances wherein Senators signed a ``round robin'' announcing they
would have voted to close debate had the rules of the Senate permitted.
On March 4, 1917,\2\ in the Senate, Mr. Joseph T. Robinson, of
Arkansas, submitted the following statement:
United States Senate,
Washington, D. C., March 3, 1917.
The undersigned United States Senators favor the passage of S. 8322,
to authorize the President of the United States to arm American
merchant vessels and to protect American citizens in their peaceful
pursuits upon the sea. A similar bill has already passed the House of
Representatives by a vote of 403 to 13. Under the rules of the Senate
allowing debate without limit it now appears to be impossible to obtain
a vote prior to noon, March 4, 1917, when the session of Congress
expires. We desire this statement entered in the Record to establish
the fact that the Senate favors the legislation and would pass it if a
vote could be had.
F. M. Simmons, Joe T. Robinson,
Henry Cabot Lodge, William E.
Borah, G. M. Hitchcock, George
Sutherland, Hoke Smith, George T.
Oliver, John W. Kern, J. W.
Wadsworth, jr., Thomas Sterling,
James H. Brady, William P.
Dillingham, LeBarron B. Colt, Frank
B. Brandegee, Clarence D. Clark, P.
J. McCumber, Morris Sheppard, Atlee
Pomerene, Willard Saulsbury,
Charles E. Townsend (with Cummins
amendment), Bert M. Fernald, Albert
B. Fall, Duncan U. Fletcher, Reed
Smoot, Ollie M. James, Claude A.
Swanson, Thomas S. Martin, N. P.
Bryan, Thomas W. Hardwick, E. D.
Smith, Charles Curtis, Knute
Nelson, W. G. Haring, T. B. Catron,
John Sharp Williams, Joseph E.
Ransdell, Blair Lee, J. Hamilton
Lewis, T. J. Walsh, J. C. W.
Beckham, H. L. Myers, Paul O.
Husting, Henry F. Hollis, James D.
Phelan, Miles Poindexter, John K.
Shields, George P. McLean, F. E.
Warren, Carroll S. Page, W. L.
Jones (with Stone, McCumber, or
Cummins amendment), James E.
Martine, Charles S. Thomas, George
E. Chamberlain, Lawrence Y.
Sherman, William Alden Smith, W. E.
Chilton, J. H. Bankhead, Henry F.
Ashurst, O. W. Underwood, John F.
Shafroth, William Hughs, John W.
Weeks, James A. Reed, John Walter
Smith, Luke Lea, Key Pittman,
Robert F. Broussard, James E.
Watson, H. A. du Pont, Robert L.
Owen, Francis G. Newlands, Lee S.
Overman, Ed. S. Johnson, William H.
Thompson.
Senator Lippitt is out of the city.
The following Senators are detained from the Senate on account of
sickness:
Mr. Gallinger and Mr. Goff.
Mr. Gore, Mr. Stone, Mr. Tillman, Mr. Johnson of Maine, Mr. Smith of
Arizona, and Mr. Culberson.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The rules of the senate as adopted at its organization in April,
1879, provided for the previous question, which, however, was resorted
to but four times in the succeeding seventeen years and was ruled out
of order on one of these occasions. In the revision of 1806 the
previous question was dropped and debates could be limited only by
unanimous consent. In 1841 Mr. Henry Clay, of Kentucky, proposed
without success, a rule for the limitation of debate as it then existed
in the House. In 1883 a general revision of the rules reported by Mr.
William Pierce Frye, of Maine, included a provision to close debate
which was stricken out by the Senate. On March 8, 1917, however, the
Senate rules were amended to provide a modified form of cloture which
may be invoked by two-thirds of those voting.
\2\ Second session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 4988.
Sec. 2664
Mr. Gilbert M. Hitchcock, of Nebraska, said in explanation:
This is a statement which has been signed by nearly 80 Members of the
Senate, and it embraces about all the names of Senators who can be
reached this evening except 12. The statement is signed in this way by
virtually all but 12 Members of the Senate here present, and it speaks
for itself. It is desired to place it in the Record at this time, in
order that the country may know and a record may be made of the fact
that practically nine-tenths of the Senate of the United States are
anxious to proceed to a vote on the pending bill and that nine-tenths
of the Senate desire an opportunity to place the bill upon its passage.
2664. On October 24, 1921,\1\ in the Senate, the bill (H. R. 8245)
to amend the revenue act of 1918, having been under consideration
intermittently since September 26, Mr. Boies Penrose, of Pennsylvania,
announced:
Mr. President, I desire to announce to the Senate that I intend to
move that the Senate take a recess until 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.
Prior to making that motion I desire to state to the Senate, and I hope
the country will take note of it, that I propose to move to hold an
evening session to-morrow; and on Wednesday there will be submitted to
the Senate a resolution which I hope by that time will be indorsed by a
majority of the Senate in writing, and which has already been indorsed
by all Senators available this afternoon, pledging themselves to remain
in the Capitol and maintain a quorum night and day until the pending
bill is disposed of. That will be submitted to the Senate on Wednesday.
The resolution referred to was as follows:
We, the undersigned Republican Senators, agree that beginning
Wednesday, October 26, we shall remain continuously in the Capitol or
within call for quorum calls, or a vote until the pending tax bill is
finally disposed of.
On October 25, on motion of Mr. Penrose, by unanimous consent, the
following was agreed to:
It is agreed by unanimous consent that at not later than 4 o'clock
p.m. on the calendar day of Wednesday, October 26, the Senate will
proceed to vote without further debate upon any amendment that may be
pending or that may be offered to the committee amendement known as the
excess-profits tax: Provided, that any Senator proposing an amendment
after the said hour of 4 o'clock p.m., may explain the same for a
period not exceeding five minutes.
2665. On February 1, 1933,\2\ in the Senate, after extended debate on
the bill (H. R. 13520), the Treasury and Post Office Departments
appropriation bill, on motion of Mr. Frederick Hale, of Maine, by
unanimous consent, it was--
Ordered, by unanimous consent, That after the hour of 5:30 o'clock
p.m. to-day, no Senator shall speak more than once or longer than 15
minutes upon the pending bill (H.R. 13520), or any amendment or motion
relating thereto.
2666. Instances wherein Members of the Senate have taken advantage of
the privilege of unlimited debate.
On May 29, 1908,\3\ in the Senate, Mr. Robert M. La Follette, of
Wisconsin, was recognized at 12.40 p.m. o'clock and continued in debate
on the bill (H. R. 21871) to amend the national banking laws, until
7.05 a.m. May the 30.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6685.
\2\ Second session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 3006.
\3\ First session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 7161.
Sec. 2667
2667. On September 18, 1914,\1\ the Senate was considering the bill
H. R. 13811, the river and harbor appropriation bill.
Mr. Theodore E. Burton, of Ohio, being recognized at 5.55 o'clock
p.m., held the floor in debate until 6.05 o'clock a.m. on the
succeeding day.
2668. On January 29, 1915,\2\ Mr. Reed Smoot, of Utah, in debating
the bill (S. 6856) to authorize the United States, acting through a
shipping board, to subscribe to the capital stock of a corporation to
be organized under the laws of the United States, or of a State thereof
or of the District of Columbia to purchase, construct, equip, maintain,
and operate merchant vessels in the foreign trade of the United States
took the floor at 9.50 o'clock p.m. and relinquished it at 9.25 o'clock
the following morning.
2669. On February 8, 1915,\3\ in the Senate, Mr. Wesley L. Jones, of
Washington, discussed the bill (S. 6856) to authorize the acquisition
and operation of a merchant marine, from 6.45 o'clock p.m. until 8.40
o'clock p.m. on February 9.
2670. On February 20, 1923,\4\ during consideration in the Senate of
the bill (H. R. 12817) to amend the merchant marine act of 1920, Mr.
Morris Sheppard, of Texas, spoke for 11 hours, concluding his remarks
on February 21.
2671. Discussion of the rule for limiting debate in the Senate.
On March 4, 1925,\5\ in the Senate, the Vice President,\6\ in the
course of his inaugural address, said:
What would be the attitude of the American people and of the
individual Senators themselves toward a proposed system of rules if
this was the first session of the Senate of the United States instead
of the first session of the Senate in the Sixty-ninth Congress? What
individual Senator would then propose the adoption of the present Rule
XXII without modification when it would be pointed out that during the
last days of a session the right that is granted every Senator to be
heard for one hour after two-thirds of the Senate had agreed to bring a
measure to a vote, gave a minority of even one Senator, at times, power
to defeat the measure and render impotent the Senate itself? That rule,
which at times enables Senators to consume in oratory those last
precious minutes of a session needed for momentous decisions, places in
the hands of one or of a minority of Senators a greater power than the
veto power exercised under the Constitution by the President of the
United States, which is limited in its effectiveness by the necessity
of an affirmative two-thirds vote. Who would contend that under the
spirit of democractic government the power to kill legislation
providing the revenues to pay the expenses of government should, during
the last few days of a session, ever be in the hands of a minority or
perhaps one Senator? Why should they ever be able to compel the
President of the United States to call an extra session of Congress to
keep in functioning activity the machinery of the Government itself?
Who would oppose any changes in the rules necessary to insure that the
business of the United States should always be conducted in the
interests of the Nation and never be in danger of encountering a
situation where one man or a minority of men might demand unreasonable
concessions under threat of blocking the business of the Government?
Who would maintain that in the last analysis the right of the Senate
itself to act should ever be subordinated to the right of one Senator
to make a speech?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 15322.
\2\ Third session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 2592.
\3\ Third session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 3243.
\4\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4063.
\5\ First session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 3.
\6\ Charles G. Dawes, of Illinois, Vice President.
Sec. 2672
On March 4, 1927, the Vice President, in announcing the sine die
adjournment of the Senate for the Sixty-ninth Congress, said:
It is customary for the Vice President, at the beginning and ending
of a session of Congress, to address the Senate upon an appropriate
subject. The comments the Chair has to make on this occasion will be
very brief.
The Chair regards the results of the present legislative as primarily
due to the defective rules of the Senate, under which a minority can be
prevent a majority from exercising their constitutional right of
bringing measures to a vote. This is only great parliamentary body in
the world where such a situation exists.
On this the closing day of the second session of the Sixty-ninth
Congress, the Chair commends to the Senate the remarks upon the Senate
rules which he made on the first day of the first session of this
Congress.
The hour of 12 o'clock having arrived, the Senate stands in
adjournment sine die.
2672. The previous question applies to a question or privilege as to
any other question.
On December 9, 1913,\1\ Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, called up
the report of the select committee to investigate lobby activities and
charges against Members of the House.
Mr. Garrett then moved that the report of the committee and the two
accompanying resolutions be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary,
with directions to report to the House what action, if any, should be
taken thereon, and demanded the previous question on the motion to
refer.
Mr. M. Clyde Kelly, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that the
report and resolution involved a question of the privilege.
The Speaker \2\ ruled:
The Chair will decide two or three things at once. Both of these
resolutions are privileged. The motion of the gentlemen from Tennessee
is proper and in order, and on that he moves the previous question.
Mr. Victor Murdock, of Kansas, raised the further question that it
was not in order to demand the previous question on a matter of
privilege.
The Speaker held:
Section 1256, in Hinds' Precedents, Volume II, provides that the
previous question does apply to a question of privilege, and there can
not be any reason given against the rule, The question is on the
previous question on the motion to refer these resolution, testimony,
documents, and so forth, to the Committee on the Judiciary.
2673. When the previous question is moved on a bill without
designating the particular question on which demanded the Speaker
construes it as a motion for the previous question on the bill to final
passage.
On July 24, 1919,\3\ during consideration of the bill (S. 180) to
incorporate Near East Relief, Mr. George S. Graham, of Pennsylvania,
moved:
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 585.
\2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\3\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3113.
Sec. 2674
The House adjourned without final action on the bill, and when
consideration was continued on the following day Mr. Louis C. Cramton,
of Michigan, asked recognition for debate.
The Speaker declined recognition on the ground that the previous
question had been ordered and precluded debate.
Mr. Cramton made the point of order that the language in which the
previous question had been demanded did not specify any particular
question and therefore applied to the pending question only, and did
not include the vote on the final passage of the bill.
The Speaker \1\ ruled:
The Chair thinks when the previous question is ordered on a bill
without stating specifically what it is moved to, it is intended to be
moved to, it is intended to be moved to the passage of the bill:
2674. A demand for the previous question made at conclusion of debate
on a bill without specific designation of question on which moved was
held to apply to final passage of the bill and all intervening
questions.
A bill on which the previous question had been ordered at adjournment
on Wednesday was taken up as the unfinished business on Thursday and
took precedence of a motion to go into the Committee of the Whole for
the consideration of a bill privileged by special order.
On Wednesday, May 4, 1921,\2\ the Committee on the Judiciary, when
reached in the Calendar Wednesday call of committees, called up the
bill (H. R. 2376) providing that competency of witnesses to testify in
the Federal courts should be determined by the laws of the State in
which the court was held.
Debate on the bill having been concluded, Mr. Andre J. Volstead, of
Minnesota, offered the following motion:
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The previous question having been ordered, a question of no quorum
was raised and the House adjourned.
On the following day, after the reading and approval of the Journal,
Mr. James W. Good, of Iowa, 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 (S. 1084) to provide for a national
budget system, privileged under a special order providing that ``it
shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the
Committee'' for that purpose.
The Speaker \3\ declined to entertain the motion and said:
The Chair thinks that the previous question having been ordered on H.
R. 2376, that should be completed first. The question is on the passage
of the bill.
Mr. Merrill Moores, of Indiana, proposing to debate the pending bill,
Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, called attention to the language in
which the previous question had been proposed on the preceding day, and
raised the question as to whether the previous question so ordered was
still in effect and applied to the final passage of the bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 1052.
\3\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 2675
The Speaker replied:
The Chair thinks so. It is customary--perhaps it is an unfortunate
habit--instead of moving the previous question on the bill and
amendments to the final passage, simply to move the previous question,
but the Chair thinks that is the intent.
Mr. Walsh made the further point of order that the two hours debate
provided by the Calendar Wednesday rule had not been had on the bill.
The Speaker ruled:
It is a House Calendar bill, and the previous question can be ordered
at any time.
2675. The previous question when ordered on a motion to send to
conference applies to that motion alone and does not extend to a
subsequent motion to instruct conferees.
A motion to instruct the managers of a conference is debatable.
On February 25, 1919,\1\ the House was considering Senate amendments
to the bill (H. R. 13274) to invalidate informal war contracts.
The previous question having been ordered on motion of Mr. S. Hubert
Dent, jr., of Alabama, to send to conference, Mr. Martin D. Foster, of
Illinois, proposed to move to instruct the conferees.
Mr. Dent, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked if the motion to instruct
conferees was debatable.
The Speaker replied:
Yes; it is debatable unless the previous question is ordered.
Thereupon Mr. Joseph g. Cannon, of Illinois, inquired if the previous
question ordered on the motion to send to conference would also apply
to the proposed motion to instruct conferees.
The Speaker \2\ ruled:
The previous question operates on the motion of the gentleman from
Alabama and the proposed motion of the gentleman from Illinois, or
whoever offers it, and is a separate proposition and is debatable,
unless the previous question is ordered on it.
2678. In the consideration of Senate amendments a simple motion for
the previous question applies to the immediate question only and does
not include other pending questions.
On February 20, 1932,\3\ Mr. Daniel R. Anthony, jr. of Kansas, called
up the conference report on the War Department appropriation bill,
which was agreed to, and the House proceeded to the consideration of
Senate amendments remaining in disagreement.
Mr. Anthony moved that the House further insist on its disagreement
to Senate amendment No. 21.
Mr. John C. McKenzie, of Illinois, offered as preferential, a motion
that the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment and concur
therein.
Mr. Anthony demanded a division of the question on receding and
concurring and moved:
I move the previous question.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4259.
\2\ Champ Clark, Missouri, Speaker.
\3\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4125.
Sec. 2677
The question being taken, the motion to recede from disagreement to
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. Anthony moved to concur with an amendment.
Mr. Richard Wayne Parker, of New Jersey, made the point of order that
the motion to concur with an amendment was not in order after the
previous question had been ordered.
The Speaker pro tempore \1\ held:
The understanding of the Chair of the situation is this: The
gentleman from Kansas moved to further insist; the gentleman from
Illinois moved to recede and concur, on which a division was demanded,
and a division was ordered. The motion pending was the motion of the
gentleman from Illinois to recede, upon which after debate, the
gentleman from Kansas moved the previous question, as was stated by the
gentleman from Kansas. The Chair has been endeavoring to get the
stenographic notes to confirm his recollection as to the form of that
motion, but there has been a delay in securing them. The Journal clerk
has it that the motion was merely for the previous question, which the
Chair would hold had reference only to the question pending immediately
at the time, a motion to recede, and the Chair overrules the point of
order. The gentleman from Kansas has offered a motion to recede and
concur with an amendment, which the Clerk has reported, and which is
now pending.
2677. The previous question when ordered on a bill and amendments to
final passage continues in force until final disposition of the bill
and is not vitiated by recommitment with instructions to report
amendments.
On March 29, 1910,\2\ Mr. John A. Sterling, of Illinois, rising to a
question of privilege, submitted a resolution (H. Res. 543) for the
appointment of a select committee to investigate certain charges
against Members of the House.
To this resolution Mr. Sterling offered an amendment providing that
in event the charges under investigation were not substantiated the
committee should also investigate whether the authors of such charges
had sought to improperly influence Members and whether such action
constituted a violation of the privileges of the House.
On motion of Mr. Sterling, the previous question was ordered on the
resolution and amendment.
On motion of Mr. William Hughes, of New Jersey, the resolution was
recommitted to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to report
it back forthwith with an amendment adding to the powers of the select
committee authority to also investigate as to the existence and conduct
of any lobby.
Mr. Albert S. Burleson, of Texas, asked unanimous consent to offer a
further amendment.
The Speaker \3\ said:
The Chair is reminded that under the precedents the amendment was
reported back to the resolution as amended, which amendment was agreed
to. Now, when it is reported back under the order of the House the vote
would come on the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey, which was
inserted under the instructions of the House, and that would be first
in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, Speaker pro tempore.
\2\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 3896.
\3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 2678
The question being taken, the amendment proposed in the instructions
from the House was agreed to.
Mr. Burleson again proposed to offer his amendment when objection was
made that the operation of the previous question precluded it.
Mr. Joseph H. Gaines, of West Virginia, raised the question of order
that since the previous question was ordered the resolution had been
recommitted, again reported by the committee and the amendment reported
back had been adopted, and the previous question was no longer in
effect.
The Speaker ruled:
The previous question was ordered upon the resolution and amendment.
The amendment was agreed to; then came the motion to recommit and it
was recommitted, and technically the previous question is still
operating. Actually in fact it has not been to the committee, but the
instructions here were to report forthwith and the rule has been
construed as the Chair recollects, and very properly so, that this is a
method under the rule, by which the House, notwithstanding the
operation of the previous question on a motion, which is an anomaly in
parliamentary proceedings, may work its will, but the previous question
is evidently operating because the action of the committee does not
exist, in fact it is a method by which the House acts instanter upon
the subject in hand. The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
2678. The previous question may be moved on a resolution while a
motion to recommit it is pending.
On May 17, 1911,\1\ the House had under consideration the resolution
(H. Res. 172) naming a select committee to investigate the American
Sugar Refining Co.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, moved to refer the resolution to a
select committee of 15 members.
After debate, Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, moved the previous
question on the resolution.
Mr. Mann made the point of order that the previous question could
only be moved on the pending question, and as the motion to recommit
was the pending question it was not in order to demand the previous
question on the resolution.
The Speaker \2\ referred to section 5466 of Hinds' Precedents holding
that the previous question may be moved on both the motion to refer and
on the pending resolution, and overruled the point or order.
The Speaker then put the question on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit being rejected, the question recurred on the
adoption of the resolution.
2679. The previous question may be moved on a portion of the
amendments to a bill reported from the Committee on the Whole, leaving
the remaining amendments open to debate and amendment.
On February 29, 1924,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union reported to the House the bill H. R. 6715, the
revenue bill, with sundry amendments and with the recommendation that
the amendments be agreed to and the bill as amended be passed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 1294.
\2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\3\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3345.
Sec. 2680
Mr. William R. Green, of Iowa, moved:
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on all amendments to the
bill H. R. 6715, the revenue bill, up to and including line 17 on page
29.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made the point of order that the
previous question must be moved on all such amendments if on any.
The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order.
2680. The previous question may be ordered on a bill on the House
Calendar on Calendar Wednesday prior to the expiration of debate
allotted under the rule.
The House may by a two-third vote extend consideration of a bill to
the next Calendar Wednesday.
Affirmative action on a motion to consider a bill on the next
Wednesday does not dispense with business in order on that day after
the bill continued under consideration has been disposed of.
On April 21, 1920,\2\ it being Calendar Wednesday, Mr. Edmund Platt,
of New York, asked unanimous consent for further consideration of the
bill (H. R. 13138) permitting private bankers to serve as directors in
two banking associations, on which the previous question had been
demanded at adjournment and against which motion a point of order was
pending at adjournment on the proceding Calendar Wednesday.
Objection being made, Mr. Platt moved to take up and conclude
consideration of the bill.
Mr. Otis Wingo, of Arkansas, raised a question of order against the
privilege of the motion.
The Speaker \3\ ruled:
The Chair thinks the gentleman is entitled to make that motion, but
it will require a two-thirds vote.
The Chair will state for the information of the House that the Chair
does not consider that this motion would dispense with Calendar
Wednesday. This would simply allow the Committee on Banking and
Currency to conclude one bill, concerning which the motion is made.
The question being taken and two-thirds having voted in the
affirmative, the motion was agreed to.
Mr. Otis Wingo renewed the point or order pending against the motion
for the previous question when the bill was last under consideration,
to the effect that the previous question might not be moved on a bill
considered under the Calendar Wednesday rule.
The Speaker said:
The Chair thinks that is the first business. The determination of
this point of order is not without difficulty. It is a puzzling
question. What the Chair should determine is, of course, the intent of
this new rule. It has never been interpreted. Under Speaker Clark the
question was once raised, but the Speaker reserved time for
deliberation, and then the question did not come up again, just as it
would not have come up to-day except for the two-thirds vote of the
House, and so it is a novel question.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 5945.
\3\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 2680
The purpose of the Chair will be to decide the question, both in
accord with what he thinks was the purpose of those who framed the
rule, and also in accord with what he thinks would be for the advantage
of the House in carrying out that purpose.
The original intention of the Calendar Wednesday rule was to force
the consideration upon one day of the week of a certain class of
business. Experience showed, however, that the rule was not
accomplishing what was hoped and planned, and accordingly the rule was
changed and the clause inserted which gives rise to the question before
us to-day.
The rule reads--
``Not more than two hours of general debate shall be permitted on any
measure called up on Calendar Wednesday, and all debate must be
confined to the subject matter of the bill, the time to be equally
divided between those for and against the bill.''
The phrase--
``Not more than two hours of general debate shall be permitted''--
has some uncertainty, for although the phrase ``general debate'' is
usually used as applying to debate in Committee of the Whole, where it
is not confined to the subject of the bill, yet it is also used as to
debate on a bill in the House, the initial debate covering the whole
subject of the bill, and the Chair does not think that phrase alone
determines the question, although it might be ruled that ``general
debate'' applied simply to debate in Committee of the Whole. The Chair
thinks it tends in that direction.
Then the phrase--
``All debate must be confined to the subject matter of the bill''--
applies simply to debate in Committee of the Whole, because in the
House without any such provision the debate must be confined to the
subject matter of the bill. But although that phrase applies simply to
the Committee of the Whole it does not necessarily follow that the
whole sentence has the same application. Then comes the phrase--
``The time to be equally divided between those for and against the
bill.''
That might apply as well to bills on the House Calendar as to bills
on the Union Calendar. But the main purpose of this clause was to
expedite the business of the House. The Calendar Wednesday rule had
fallen short of accomplishing the end for which it was originally
aimed, that of giving to relatively unimportant bills one day in the
week when they would be considered and removed from the calendar. By
tactics which might be called filibustering the purpose of that rule
had been evaded, and this provision was inserted to prevent those
delaying tactics. So the Chair thinks the main purpose of adopting this
rule was speed and expedition in the transaction of the business of the
House on Calendar Wednesday.
That being so, it seems to the Chair that the purpose will be best
furthered by holding that this clause applies to bills on the Union
Calendar only and that when bills of the House Calendar are brought up
on the Calendar Wednesday the previous question can be ordered at any
time. The only way in which that would at all controvert this rule
would be that it might interfere with the phrase--
``the time to be equally divided between those for and against the
bill''--
because the man who had the bill in charge might use five minutes and
then move the previous question. He might not give to those opposed to
the bill any opportunity for debate. But the Chair does not think that
argument has much practical force, for it is the custom for the man in
charge of a bill to recognize the equal claim to debate of those
opposed, and it is very rare that in debate the time is not fairly
divided. On this very bill, for instance, the gentleman having it in
charge, after having used 10 minutes himself, yielded 10 minutes to a
gentleman opposed to the bill. The Chair might suggest that this very
bill somewhat illustrates the fact that this ruling would not interfere
with fair play, but would further the main purpose of the rule and
prevent filibustering and hasten action, because the Chair has more
than a suspicion that the time desired in opposition was not really
because of antagonism to the bill, but was aimed at prolonging the
consideration of this bill, so as to occupy the Calendar Wednesday and
prevent the consideration of other bills which might follow it. So this
very case is an illustration of the way in which the purpose of
Calendar Wednesday is sometimes being obstructed and the rule availed
of for filibustering purposes.
Sec. 2681
Therefore the Chair thinks that it would best be carrying out the
intention of those who framed this provision and expediting the
business of the House to rule that the previous question can be
ordered. That leaves it all in the control of the House, because of the
House desires debate the previous question can be voted down. Therefore
the Chair rules that the previous question, which was moved by the
gentleman from New York is in order.
The Chair holds that the gentleman can move the previous question
after one minute's debate if he so desires; that he has the same power
in this case as to moving the previous question that he would have at
any time in the House.
On appeal by Mr. Wingo, the decision of the Speaker was sustained,
yeas 274, nays, 15.
2681. The previous question may not be moved on a motion against
which a point of order is pending.
On January 16, 1917,\1\ the House had under consideration the Post
Office appropriation bill.
Mr. Charles H. Randall, of California, moved to recommit the bill to
the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads with instructions to
report the same back forthwith with an amendment imposing a penalty for
sending through the mails and publication containing an advertisement
of intoxicating liquor.
Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that
the amendment included in the proposed instructions was not germane.
Mr. Randall demanded the previous question on the motion to recommit.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that it was
not in order to move the previous question on a motion against which a
point of order was pending.
The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order.
2682. The Member in charge of the bill is entitled to prior
recognition to move the previous question even after he has surrendered
the floor for debate.
On May 8, 1912,\3\ during consideration of the bill (H. R. 17756)
providing for civil government in the Philippines, Mr. William A.
Jones, of Virginia, being recognized for debate, concluded his remarks
and yielded the floor.
Subsequently Mr. Jones asked recognition to move the previous
question upon the bill and pending amendments.
Mr. Swagar Sherley, of Kentucky, made the point of order that Mr.
Jones having once spoken on the question was not gain entitled to
recognition while other members who had not been heard desired the
floor.
In speaking to the point of order, Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois,
said:
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia, this being a House Calendar
bill, when the bill first came up took the floor and occupied an hour.
Subsequent to that the gentleman from Pennsylvania was recognized to
offer an amendment, and of course under the rules was entitled to an
hour to discuss the amendment and to take the floor on the amendment,
and by that the gentleman from Pennsylvania lost the floor. Now the
gentleman from Virginia asks recognition for the purpose of moving the
previous question, not for the purpose of debate. I do not think he
would
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1484.
\2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 6075.
Sec. 2683
be entitled to recognition for the purpose of debate if anyone else was
asking for recognition, but it seems to me that the gentleman in charge
of a bill, with no one on the floor at the time when an amendment was
in order, is entitled to recognition for the purpose of offering an
amendment if he chooses to do so, or for the purpose of moving the
previous question. Because without that there would be no way of
closing debate for a month.
The Speaker \1\ ruled:
The parliamentary situation is this, and the Chair does not think
there is much difficulty about it: The gentleman from Virginia is in
charge of the bill. If the gentleman from Virginia had undertaken to
make a speech, he would have to postpone that speech until every Member
in the House who wanted to be heard had been heard, except that he
would have the right to conclude. But the gentleman from Virginia,
before anybody else gets recognition for a speech, has the right to
make this motion for the previous question.
2683. A demand for the previous question having been withdrawn, any
Member is entitled to recognition to renew the motion, although a
member of the committee reporting the bill demands the floor.
On February 17, 1911,\2\ the House was considering the conference
report on the Indian appropriation bill.
Mr. Charles H. Burke, of South Dakota demanded the previous question
on agreeing to the conference report, but, on request, withdrew it.
Whereupon Mr. Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, claimed the floor as a
member of the Committee on Indian Affairs, reporting the bill.
Simultaneously, Mr. Thetus W. Sims, of Tennessee, requested
recognition to renew the demand for the previous question withdrawn by
Mr. Burke.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that Mr. Sims
might not demand the previous question without having the floor, and
was not entitled to the floor against the demand of a member of the
committee for recognition.
The Speaker pro tempore \3\ ruled:
The gentleman from Tennessee moves the previous question. The
gentleman from South Dakota made the motion for the previous question
on the adoption of the conference report. Then he withdrew it, and the
gentleman from Tennessee renewed the motion for the previous question.
The motion for the previous question would be recognized in preference
to the recognition of the gentleman from Kansas. Upon the withdrawal of
the motion for the previous question by the gentleman from South
Dakota, the gentleman from Tennessee renewed the motion. The Chair will
put the motion for the previous question.
2684. A Member having the floor to offer a motion may move the
previous question thereon although another claims recognition to offer
a motion of higher privilege, but the motion of higher privilege must
be put before the previous question.
The motion to amend the Journal may not be admitted after the
previous question is demanded on the motion to approve.
On January 23, 1913,\4\ following the reading of the Journal, Mr.
John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, moved that the Journal be approved,
and on that motion demanded the previous question.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\2\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2791.
\3\ J. Van Vechten Olcott, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
\4\ Third session, Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 1922.
Sec. 2685
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, asked recognition to offer, as
preferential, a motion to amend the Journal, and being refused
recognition, made the point of order that a motion to amend the Journal
took precedence of a motion to approve it, citing section 2760 of
Hinds' Precedents in support of that contention.
The Speaker \1\ said:
In the ordinary procedure if the order of the three motions had come
right the gentleman's point would be well taken. But the order of the
procedure did not come so as to fit his case. The Chair recognized the
gentleman from New York and the gentleman from New York made two
motions before he sat down, one following the other, and the last one
was to move the previous question on his first motion. The previous
question is of the highest order, and the Chair has no doubt in his own
mind but that to maintain the contention of the gentleman from Illinois
would practically obliterate and annual the force of the motion for the
previous question; and the Chair so rules.
Mr. Mann moved to lay on the table the motion to approve the Journal.
The Speaker entertained the motion and put the question first on the
motion to lay on the table.
2685. A Member opposed to the pending bill is entitled to recognition
to move the previous question on a motion to postpone consideration in
preference to the Member in charge claiming the floor in debate.
On February 17, 1911,\2\ the conference report on the Indian
appropriation bill with Senate amendments, still in disagreement, was
under consideration in the House.
Mr. Charles C. Carlin, of Virginia, moved that consideration of the
conference report by postponed until the next legislative day.
After debate, Mr. Charles H. Burke, South Dakota, requested
recognition for debate.
Mr. Carlin claimed the floor to move the previous question on his
motion to postpone.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, submitted, as a point of order, that
Mr. Burke, as the member in charge of the bill, was entitled to the
floor notwithstanding the demand for recognition to offer a
preferential motion.
The Speaker \3\ ruled:
The Chair desires to call attention to the general proposition--that
a Member may not, by offering a motion of higher privilege than the
pending motion, deprive a member of the committee in charge of the bill
of the floor.
That arises from a series of rulings relating entirely to motions
inhering in the particular bill, to enable the House, as promptly as
possible, to deal with Senate amendments to House bills. Now, the
ruling has been uniform that a Member can not take another in charge of
a conference report off the floor by making a preferential motion
touching the amendments of the other body. But this motion belongs to
an entirely different class of motions; that is, motions that affect
the general business of the House. It ought to be in the power of the
House to consider the Senate amendments to a conference report, and it
ought to be in the power of a majority of the House to postpone their
consideration with as little delay as practicable under the rules, and
the construction given to the rules by the Chair and the precedents
heretofore made. Now,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\2\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2796.
\3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 2686
the gentleman from Virginia makes this preferential motion, and is the
proposer and mover of the motion that this House shall not consider
these amendments, if it be agreed to today, but on the next legislative
day. That in no way affects the manner of dealing with the Senate
amendments to the bill. Therefore if the gentleman in charge of the
conference report should be entitled to the floor, he would be entitled
to the floor for an hour touching a motion that does not affect the
disposition of the Senate amendments to the House bill, but which does
tend to determine, and does determine, or give the majority of the
House the power to determine, whether they will consider it today or
tomorrow. The Chair therefore recognizes the gentleman from Virginia to
move the previous question on the motion to postpone.
2686. The ordering of the previous question after a resolution had
been read and before committee amendments had been reported was held to
preclude reading or consideration of such amendments.
On May 9, 1911,\1\ Mr. James. T. Lloyd, of Missouri, from the
Committee on Accounts, reported the resolution H. Res. 128, declaring
vacant certain offices in the service of the House.
The resolution was read by the Clerk, but before the committee
amendments recommended by the committee had been reported Mr. Lloyd
demanded the previous question, which was ordered.
Mr. Lloyd then asked for the reading of the committee amendments.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
previous question had been ordered and the resolution was not longer
open to amendment.
The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order.
2687. The vote having been taken on agreeing to a report of the
Committee of the Whole on which the previous question had been ordered,
it was held that the operation of the previous question had been
consummated and did not apply to related questions again brought before
the House.
The previous question covers the main question, but does not apply to
incidental questions arising therefrom.
On July 10, 1914,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union reported to the House the Senate amendments to the Indian
appropriation bill, with the recommendation that Senate amendments
numbered 6 and 13 be agreed to and the remainder be disagreed to.
On motion of Mr. John H. Stephens, of Texas, the previous question
was ordered.
The question recurring on the recommendation of the Committee of the
Whole, and being divided to permit a separate vote on each Senate
amendment, was decided in the affirmative with the exception of the
recommendation that the House disagree to Senate amendment No. 140
which was decided in the negative.
Mr. Pat Harrison, of Mississippi, then moved to concur in Senate
amendment No. 140.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, objected that the motion to concur
was not in order after the previous question had been ordered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-second, Congress, Record, p. 1163.
\2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\3\ Second session of Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 11942.
Sec. 2688
The Speaker \1\ ruled:
The Chair thinks that the motion for the previous question expended
its force when the vote was taken, and that this amendment is back in
the House in the same condition that it would have been if it had never
been sent to the committee, and that the motion of the gentleman from
Mississippi to concur in the Senate amendment is in order. The question
is on the motion of the gentleman from Mississippi to concur in the
Senate amendment.
2688. It is in order to debate a question of personal privilege after
the previous question has been ordered on a pending question.
On December 12, 1912,\2\ the previous question had been ordered on
the contested-election case of McLean against Bowman, when Mr. A.
Mitchell Palmer, of Pennsylvania, claimed the floor on a question of
personal privilege.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
previous question having been ordered, a question of personal privilege
could not be debated until the vote had been taken on the pending
question.
The Speaker \3\ ruled:
The Chair is of the opinion that if there is a question of personal
privilege involved, the gentleman ought to be heard on it,
notwithstanding the fact that the previous question has been ordered on
the pending resolutions.
2689. Forty minutes of debate are allowed on a proposition on which
the previous question is ordered without debate, one-half for those
favoring and one-half for those opposing, and where it developed, after
recognition, that both favored the proposition the Speaker required
each to yield half his time to those opposing the motion.
On January 30, 1923,\4\ Mr. Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, from the
Committee on Rules, by direction of that committee presented a
resolution providing for the consideration of the joint resolution (S.
J. Res. 12) relating to the importations of sugars from Argentina.
On motion of Mr. Campbell, prior to debate, the previous question was
ordered on the resolution.
The Speaker, under the rule, recognized Mr. Campbell and Mr. Edward
W. Pou, of North Carolina, the ranking minority member of the Committee
on Rules, for 20 minutes each.
Both Mr. Campbell and Mr. Pou having addressed the House in favor of
the resolution, Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made the point of
order that the Speaker in allotting the time for debate had not
complied with the requirements of the rule, and that half the time
should be yielded to members opposing the proposition.
The Speaker \5\ sustained the point of order and said:
The Chair had no knowledge how the gentlemen on the Committee on
Rules stood. The Chair recognized the chairman of the Committee on
Rules for 20 minutes and then the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Rules for 20 minutes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\2\ Third session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 549.
\3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\4\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2732.
\5\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 2690
The Chair was not aware that the gentleman from North Carolina was in
favor of the resolution. The Chair recognized him, as he always does
the ranking member of the minority.
The rule provides that one-half of such time shall be given in favor
of and one-half in opposition. As the House is aware, it is always the
custom in the House to recognize the ranking member of the Committee on
Rules in favor and the ranking member of the minority against. When the
gentleman from Kansas had finished and reserved the balance of his
time, the Chair recognized the gentleman from North Carolina for 20
minutes.
The Chair assumed that he was against the rule. Then the first
knowledge the Chair had that the gentleman from North Carolina was in
favor of the rule was when he took the floor and occupied time for 10
minutes. The Chair thinks the point of order should be made when
recognition is had. When the Chair recognized the gentleman from North
Carolina, the Chair sanctioned that. But the Chair thinks that in
fairness to the rule and in fairness to the House, the gentleman from
North Carolina having yielded half of his time in opposition, it would
be but fair that the gentleman from Kansas should yield half his time
also in opposition to the rule.
Thereupon, Mr. Campbell and Mr. Pou yielded 10 minutes each to
Members opposed to the resolution.
2690. The rule permitting forty minutes debate does not apply when
the question on which the previous question is ordered without debate
is otherwise undebatable.
On January 27, 1912,\1\ Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, moved
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill H. R. 18642,
the metal schedule tariff bill, and on that motion demanded the
previous question.
The previous question being ordered, Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois,
demanded recognition for twenty minutes under the rule permitting forty
minutes debate when the previous question is ordered on a proposition
without previous debate.
The Speaker \2\ held:
It seems to the Chair that if the motion to close debate were a
debatable motion, the gentleman from Illinois would undoubtedly be
correct in his point of order, but the motion to close debate is not
debatable under any circumstances whatever, and therefore the point of
order is overruled.
2691. If the House adjourn without voting on a proposition on which
the previous question has been ordered, the question comes up as
unfinished business on the next legislative day, Wednesday excepted.
On February 21, 1912,\3\ the day being Calendar Wednesday, Mr. Oscar
W. Underwood, of Alabama, asked unanimous consent to take up for
further consideration the bill H. R. 20182, the chemical schedule
tariff bill, on which the previous question had been ordered at
adjournment on the preceding day.
Objection was made and Mr. Underwood moved to interrupt proceedings
in order on Calendar Wednesday for that purpose.
The question being put, the Speaker \4\ announced:
Two-thirds having voted in favor thereof, the motion is agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record p. 1407.
\2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record p. 2293.
\4\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 2692
2692. On June 18, 1919,\1\ the Speaker announced that the day was
Calendar Wednesday and the regular order was the call of the committees
under the rule.
Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, as a parliamentary inquiry,
desired to know if the conference report on the bill (H. R. 3417) for
the repeal of the daylight saving law, on which the previous question
had been ordered at adjournment on the preceding day, was not the
unfinished business.
The Speaker \2\ held:
It will not be in order until to-morrow.
2693. A resolution coming over from the preceding day with the
previous question ordered was held to take precedence of a motion for
disposition of a veto message from the President.
On August 19, 1919,\3\ Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, requested
recognition to move to further postpone consideration of the message
from the President returning without approval the daylight-saving bill,
consideration of which had been postponed to that day.
The Speaker \4\ said:
The regular order is the unfinished business, House resolution 217,
directing the Federal Trade Commission to inquire into the proposed
increase in the price of shoes and the increased price of sugar,
clothing, and coffee, which was pending when the House adjourned last
night, on which the previous question was ordered. When the House
adjourned last night a motion to recommit was pending, and on that the
previous question had been ordered, as well as on the resolution. So,
the first question is on the motion to recommit.
2694. Business in order on Friday and on which the previous question
was pending at adjournment on that day comes up as the unfinished
business on the next legislative day.
When the House adjourns on days set apart for special business
without ordering the previous question, the pending measure comes up as
the unfinished business on the next day on which that class of business
is again in order.
The motion to recommit is not in order until the bill has been read
the third time.
On Saturday, January 11, 1913,\5\ following the reading and approval
of the Journal, the Speaker \6\ announced, as the unfinished business
the bill (H. R. 27475) increasing Civil War pensions, which had been
considered under the rule on Friday and had come over from the
preceding day, with the previous question ordered.
Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, made the point of order that the
bill might not be again taken up for consideration until the next
Friday on which that class of business was in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record p. 1303.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record p. 3979.
\4\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\5\ Third session Sixty-second Congress, Record p. 1405.
\6\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 2694
The Speaker ruled:
The gentleman from Tennessee is a very careful student of the rules,
and the Chair dislikes to summarily overrule any point he makes, but
this matter has been decided several times, and at least once by
Speaker Carlisle, who is universally admitted to be one of the greatest
Speakers of the House. It has always been ruled against the contention
of the gentleman from Tennessee, and the line of demarcation is that if
the previous question is ordered on Friday it comes up as unfinished
business on the next legislative day. If it is not ordered then, it
will go over until the next Friday on which the committee has the right
of way. The unfinished business is House bill 27475. When the House
adjourned last night the previous question had been ordered on the bill
and amendments to the final passage. Then the gentleman from Georgia,
Mr. Roddenbery, made a motion to recommit with instructions, and the
gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, raised the point of order that
the bill was not in the stage where a motion to recommit could be
offered, and the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Russell, made a motion
for the previous question on the motion to recommit.
The question had never been raised before during the service in the
House of the present occupant of the chair, and the practice of the
House has been to offer the motion to recommit after the third reading
of the bill. On a hasty reading of the rule it seemed to indicate that
the motion to recommit might be offered at any time after a bill was
reported back to the House, and the rule itself would bear that
construction, so the Chair ruled that the gentleman from Georgia had
the right to offer it when he did.
Since that the Chair has investigated the matter and is quite certain
that the gentleman from New York was right and the Chair was wrong in
that ruling and that the motion to recommit is not in order until after
the third reading. The Chair makes this statement so that nobody will
quote the ruling made last night hereafter as a precedent.