<DOC>
[Cannon's Precedents -- Volume VIII]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:cannon_cclvi.wais]
Chapter CCLVI.\1\
THE HOUSE RULE THAT AMENDMENTS MUST BE GERMANE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The rule. Section 2908.
2. General principles. Sections 2909-2917.
3. Propositions to strike out not necessarily germane. Sections
2918-2921.
4. Amendments should be germane to the paragraph or section.
Sections 2922-2937.
5. Propositions to reenact or modify existing law. Sections
2938-2950.
6. One individual proposition not amended by another individual
proposition of same class. Sections 2951-2963.
7. Subjects not necessarily germane because related. Sections
2964-2994.
8. A bill for a specific object may not be amended by general
provisions. Sections 2995-3001.
9. A bill for general objects may be amended by specific
provision. Sections 3002-3020.
10. A private bill may not be made general by amendment.
Section 3021.
11. Amendments in the nature of a limitation. Sections 3022-
3037.
12. Decisions related to revenue subjects. Sections 3038-3044.
13. Decisions related to subject of immigration. Sections 3045-
3050.
14. Decisions related to general subjects. Sections 3051-3064.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2908. A former rule required that amendments to revenue bills be
germane not only to the subject matter in the bill but to the item of
the bill to which proposed.
History and form of former Section 3 of Rule XXI.
On April 5, 1911,\2\ the rule requiring that amendments be germane
was supplemented by a rule requiring germaneness to the specific
paragraph under consideration in amendments offered to revenue bills,
as follows:
No amendment shall be in order to any bill affecting revenue which is
not germane to the subject matter in the bill; nor shall any amendment
to any item of such bill be in order which does not directly relate to
the item to which the amendment is proposed.
This rule was adopted to expedite consideration of the several tariff
bills passed in the Sixty-second Congress revising the tariff by
schedules, and was designed to supersede special orders under which
tariffs had previously been revised by general bills including all
schedules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Supplementary to Chapter CXXVI.
\2\ First session Sixty-second Congress, Record, pp. 16, 80.
Sec. 2909
It was retained in the rules until the Sixty-eighth Congress, when
omitted in the adoption of the rules for that Congress on January 19,
1924.\1\
Notable decisions interpreting the rule were made by Speaker Champ
Clark, of Missouri, on May 8, 1911,\2\ May 8, 1913,\3\ July 10, 1916;
\4\ and February 1, 1917; \5\ Chairman Joshua Alexander, of Missouri,
May 8, 1911; \6\ Chairman Swagar Sherley, of Kentucky, April 21, 1911;
\7\ Chairman John C. Floyd, of Arkansas, January 27, 1912; \8\ Chairman
Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, April 29, 1913; \9\ May 6, 1913; \10\
and September 19, 1918; \11\ Chairman Martin D. Foster, of Illinois,
May 21, 1917,\12\ and May 22, 1917; \13\ Chairman Edward W. Saunders,
of Virginia, May 21, 1917,\14\ and September 19, 1918,\15\ Chairman Ben
Johnson, of Kentucky, September 5, 1917;\16\ Chairman Sydney Anderson,
of Minnesota, October 7, 1919,\17\ and December 22, 1920; \18\ Chairman
C. Frank Reavis, of Nebraska, May 27, 1920; \19\ Chairman Louis C.
Cramton, of Michigan, May 27, 1920; \20\ Chairman Philip P. Campbell,
of Kansas, April 15, 1921; \21\ Chairman Martin B. Madden, of Illinois,
May 12, 1921; \22\ and Chairman Horace M. Towner, of Iowa, October 24,
1921.\23\
2909. The rule of germaneness applies to the relation between a
proposed amendment and the pending bill to which offered and not to the
relation between such amendment and an existing law of which the
pending bill is amendatory.
On August 19, 1921,\24\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 8245) to amend the revenue
act of 1918, proposing the modification of section 200 of that act.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 1143.
\2\ First session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 1120.
\3\ First session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 1381.
\4\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 10767.
\5\ Second session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 2439.
\6\ First session Sixty-second Congress, Record, pp. 1092, 1110.
\7\ First session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 556.
\8\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 1410.
\9\ First session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 783.
\10\ First session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 1234.
\11\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 10522.
\12\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2664.
\13\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2724.
\14\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2686.
\15\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 10510, 10511.
\16\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 6635, 6638.
\17\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 6526.
\18\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 640, 658, 659,
662.
\19\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7745.
\20\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7765.
\21\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 353.
\22\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 1370.
\23\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6702.
\24\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 5276.
Sec. 2910
Mr. Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, offered an amendment to be inserted
as a separate paragraph further modifying section 200 of the original
act.
Mr. Otis Wingo, of Arkansas, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to section 200 of the revenue act of 1918.
After debate the Chairman \1\ ruled:
The gentleman from Arkansas makes the point of order to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio on the ground that the proposed
amendment is not germane to section 200 of the revenue act of 1918. The
Chair will state that the rule of germaneness applies to amendments
offered to a bill under consideration, but there is nothing in the
rules of the House that requires when a former act is sought to be
amended that the amendment under consideration should be germane to the
former act sought to be amended either to the paragraph or section. The
rule requires that the proposed amendment to the bill shall be germane
to the subject matter of the bill under consideration.
The rule of germaneness does not require a measure under
consideration, proposing an amendment to a former act, to be germane to
any part of the former act or the act itself. An entirely different
subject by way of amendment could be added to any particular section of
the former act by a bill under consideration. The Chair overrules the
point of order.
2910. In passing on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair
considers the relation of the amendment to the bill as modified by the
Committee of the Whole at the time at which offered, and not as
originally referred to the committee.
An amendment which would have been in order if offered when the bill
was first taken up for consideration, was held not germane to the bill
as modified after portions of the bill had been stricken out by
amendments in the Committee of the Whole.
On May 31, 1932,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 8174), to exempt
certain classes from the immigration quota.
The Clerk read in part as follows:
Sec. 2 Section 6 of the immigration act of 1924 is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) Fifty per cent of the quota of each nationality for such year
shall be made available in such year for the issuance of immigration
visas to the following classes of immigrants, without priority of
preference as between such classes: (A) Quota immigrants who are the
fathers or the mothers not over 60 years of age, or the husbands by
marriage occurring after May 31, 1928, of citizens of the United States
who are 21 years of age or over; and (B) in the case of any nationality
the quota for which is 300 or more, quota immigrants who are skilled in
agriculture, and the wives, and the dependent children under the age of
18 years, of such immigrants skilled in agriculture, if accompanying or
following to join them.''
Mr. Thomas A. Jenkins, of Ohio, proposed an amendment providing visas
should be issued to other quota immigrants.
Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, raised the question of
germaneness.
The Chairman \3\ ruled:
The bill as originally offered by the committee undertakes to amend
two sections of the immigration law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
\2\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 11691.
\3\ William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, Chairman.
Sec. 2911
If the gentleman from Ohio chosen in the first place to offer is
proposed amendment as a substitute for the entire bill, with notice
that if the amendment was agreed to he would then move to strike out
the remaining section, he would have offered a germane amendment, in
the opinion of the Chair; but the gentleman from Ohio chose to offer
his amendment as an amendment to section 1 of the bill. The Chair held
on the interposition of a point of order that it was not germane.
Thereupon the gentleman from Ohio elected to move to strike out section
1 of the bill. That motion prevailed, so that there is now left for the
consideration of the committee only section 2 of the bill, and, that
section undertakes only to deal with one class of persons, whereas the
proposed amendment of the gentleman from Ohio seeks to enlarge the
field of operation of the section now in the bill and include other
people in the proviso. The Chair is of opinion that it is not germane
because it deals with a number of subjects other than that provided in
the section of the bill now before the committee, and the Chair
sustains the point of order.
2911. The rule providing that amendments must be germane has been
construed as requiring that the fundamental purpose of an amendment be
germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill to which it is offered.
On September 19, 1918,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was considering the bill H. R. 12863, the revenue
bill, when Mr. J. Hampton Moore, of Pennsylvania, proposed the
following amendment to be inserted as a new title:
That to cooperate with the President in promoting efficiency and
preventing waste and extravagance in the conduct of the war with the
Imperial Government of Germany a joint committee shall be appointed,
composed of six Members of the Senate, including three Democrats and
three Republicans, and seven Members of the House of Representatives,
including three Republicans and four Democrats, to be known as the
joint committee on war expenditures. The membership of such committee
for the Senate shall be designated by the President of the Senate and
for the House of Representatives by the Speaker thereof. Such committee
shall sit during the sessions or the recesses of Congress, shall confer
and advise with the President of the United States and the heads of the
various executive departments on any or all matters relating to war
expenditures, and shall make report to Congress from time to time, in
its own discretion or when requested to do so by either branch of
Congress.
Mr. Claude Kitchin, of North Carolina, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \2\ ruled:
The Chair does not think it is necessary to go into any elaborate
statement. Even if it were not for the provision contained in clause 3
of Rule XXI, the Chair does not think that the amendment would be in
order.
The present occupant of the chair had the honor of presiding as
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole when the amendment was proposed
to create a tariff commission as a part of a revenue bill. The point of
order was made, and the Chair held generally that the meaning of the
expression ``germaneness'' under the facts that were then presented was
that the fundamental purpose of the amendment must be germane to the
fundamental purpose of the bill.
Subsequently, when the matter reached the House the Speaker of the
House, in a more elaborate and better reasoned ruling than the one
delivered by the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, sustained that
ruling and held that that amendment was out of order because it was not
germane. Under that general principle the Chair would certainly be of
the opinion that this would not be in order, and the Chair sustains the
point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session, Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 10522.
\2\ Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, Chairman.
Sec. 2912
2912. The mere fact that an amendment proposes to attain the same end
sought to be attained by the bill to which offered does not render it
germane.
One of the functions of the rule requiring germaneness is to preclude
consideration of legislation which has not been considered in committee
and for this reason the rule should be invoked with particular
strictness against amendments proposing substitutes for an entire bill.
To a proposition to effect a purpose by one method a proposal to
effect the same purpose by a different and unrelated method is not
germane.
To a bill designed to raise the price of agricultural products to a
ratio consistent with the price of other commodities by the creation of
a corporation authorized to deal in such products an amendment
proposing to accomplish the same result through a comprehensive system
of cooperative marketing was held not to be germane.
To a bill undertaking to advance the price of agricultural
commodities through the operation of a Federal agency with power to
control marketing conditions an amendment proposing to secure such
advance by granting a bounty to exporters of agricultural commodities
was held not to be germane.
To a bill proposing measures to meet a declared emergency and limited
in operation to a period of five years an amendment proposing permanent
legislation of the same character was held not to be germane.
An amendment being offered, and the reading having begun, a point of
order may interrupt the reading and the Chair may rule the amendment
out if enough had been read to show that it is out of order.
On May 24, 1924,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, was considering the bill H. R. 9033, the farm relief bill,
declaring an emergency in respect of certain agricultural commodities
and providing for the creation of a corporation to continue for a
period of five years with authority to buy and sell agricultural
products and authorizing an appropriation for that purpose.
The first section of the bill having been read, Mr. James B. Aswell,
of Louisiana, moved to strike out the section with notice as to
subsequent sections, and insert a new bill proposing to relieve the
declared emergency through a comprehensive system of cooperative
marketing.
During the reading of the proposed amendment Mr. Clarence Cannon, of
Missouri, interrupted the Clerk and submitted that sufficient had been
read to show that the amendment was not germane to the pending bill.
The Chairman \2\ ruled:
The question of whether the amendment will be read in full is largely
in the discretion of the Chair, and the Chair is inclined to think that
an important amendment like this should be read in full.
The gentleman's point is right on the proposition that when enough
has been read and the Chair is convinced it is out of order the entire
amendment does not have to be read. The Chair recognizes the rule as
stated, but in this case the Chair, in his discretion, is going to have
more read.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 9444, 9456.
\2\ Everett Sanders, of Indiana, Chairman.
Sec. 2912
The reading of the proposed substitute having been concluded Mr.
Cannon renewed the point of order.
After debate the Chairman sustained the point of order and said:
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana by way of a
substitute undertakes to deal with the agricultural problem. However,
the mere fact that it tackles the same problem does not necessarily
make it a germane amendment. The gentleman from Missouri calls
attention to some of the details of the bill offered by the gentleman
from Louisiana which make it, it seems to the Chair, not germane.
The bill under consideration by the committee creates a Government
corporation, and through the agency of that corporation--by the aid of
other agencies--undertakes to artificially provide a means of taking
care of the surplus exports in such way as to raise the price of
agricultural commodities up to the point where the ratio will be the
same on agricultural commodities as on other commodities over a fixed
period of time, and it carries out that plan. Now, this proposition,
while it undertakes to relieve agriculture, undertakes to do it in an
entirely different way and in such manner as would not be proper by way
of a substitute, because the committee would then have to vote upon the
adoption of an entire bill, which would have to be rewritten on the
floor and which has never been reported by any committee. The Chair
will sustain the point of order.
Subsequently, Mr. Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, offered an amendment
in the nature of a substitute for the pending bill proposing to
encourage the exportation of agricultural products and thereby relieve
the declared emergency by granting a bounty to exporters of
agricultural commodities.
Mr. Cannon made the point of order that the substitute was not
germane.
After further debate the Chairman ruled:
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois as a substitute
for the entire bill is more nearly germane than the former amendment,
but the Chair is of opinion that it does not come within the rule of
germaneness. The object sought, of course, is farm relief, but that
does not necessarily make the bill germane. The method is so entirely
different in the bill offered by the gentleman from Illinois from the
method of the bill under consideration that it seems to the Chair that
it is not germane. Both bills recognize that the question of price is
determined somewhat upon the exportable surplus, but the bill, with the
Chair has rather hastily read, offered by the gentleman from Illinois
by way of substitute, proposes to deal with this question of exportable
surplus by giving a bounty to the exporter, evidently with the view
that if the export brings a fair price, a fair price would result in
the domestic market; but that is such a departure from the plan of the
bill which creates a Government corporation, giving it power and
authority to export, that it would not come within the rules of the
House to hold it germane. The Chair therefore sustains the point of
order.
Thereupon, Mr. Morgan G. Sanders, of Texas, offered an amendment
intended to alleviate the declared agricultural situation by a method
similar in many respects to that provided by the pending bill but
proposed as a permanent legislation.
Mr. Cannon having again raised the question of germaneness, the
Chairman said:
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas seeks to effect the
same general purpose as the bill in question--that is, to relieve the
agricultural situation. It is true as suggested that the mere fact that
there is to an extent a departure from the bill under consideration
does not make it out of order because otherwise there would be no
necessity of offering a substitute or amendment of any kind. However,
it is not possible to offer a substitute for a bill which undertakes to
give the same relief and yet departs entirely from the method of the
bill under consideration. The Haugen bill, under consideration, is an
emergency measure and merely gives power to investigate and determine
when a special emergency exists with reference to any one of the
Sec. 2913
enumerated agricultural products, and then the corporation having
certain definite powers comes into action and by means of control of
exportable surplus relieves the situation. This substitute is permanent
legislation, giving the Government power to buy and sell farm products.
While the ultimate object is to relieve agriculture, it embraces a
method that does not come within the rules of the House in reference to
germaneness to the bill under consideration, and the point of order is
sustained.
2913. To a proposition to appropriate for a general increase in
salaries for one year an amendment to extend the increase to another
year was held not to be germane.
On December 19, 1916,\1\ while the legislative, executive, and
judicial appropriation bill was under consideration in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union, Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, offered the following amendment to be inserted as a new
section:
That to provide during the fiscal year 1918, for increased
compensation at the rate of 10 per cent per annum to employees who
receive salaries at a rate per annum less than $1,200, and for
increased compensation at the rate of 5 per cent per annum to employees
who receive salaries at a rate not more than $1,800 per annum and not
less than $1,200 per annum, so much as may be necessary is
appropriated.
To this amendment Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, proposed an
amendment reading as follows:
After the word ``provide,'' insert ``during the remainder of the
fiscal year 1917 and.''
Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
The chairman \2\ ruled:
The Chair thinks that the object of the special rule is to provide
for these increases for certain classes of employees for the fiscal
year 1918, and that if the proviso in the special rule cited by the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Mann, namely--
``Resolved, That no amendment shall be in order in the consideration
of the foregoing amendment changing existing law beyond the fiscal year
1918, nor shall any amendment be in order relating to the compensation
of employees not appropriated for in H. R. 18542''-- were not in the
special rule, an amendment would not be in order that would have
extended it beyond the fiscal year 1918. It would not, in that event,
be germane to this section. There is quite a difference, in the opinion
of the Chair, between an amendment making an appropriation immediately
available and in an amendment that provides for increasing the
appropriation during the remainder of the year 1917. The Chair can not
agree with the argument of the gentleman from Illinois that there is
any deficiency to be taken care of in this amendment. It proposes, on
the other hand, to increase an appropriation and change existing law.
The amendment, in the opinion of the Chair, is not germane to the
provision and sustains the point of order.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, having appealed, the decision of the
Chair was sustained by the committee--yeas 96, nays 79.
2914. To a section proposing legislation for the current year an
amendment rendering such legislation permanent was held not to be
germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 559.
\2\ Pat Harrison, of Mississippi, Chairman.
Sec. 2915
On December 19, 1922,\1\ the House was considering Senate amendment
No. 1 to the Treasury Department appropriation bill then in
disagreement between the two Houses and reading as follows:
Undersecretary of the Treasury, to be nominated by the President and
appointed by him, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, who
shall receive compensation at the rate of $7,500 per annum and shall
perform such duties in the office of the Secretary of the Treasury as
may be prescribed by the Secretary or by law, and under the provisions
of section 177, Revised Statutes, in case of the death, resignation,
absence, or sickness of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall perform
the duties of the Secretary until a successor is appointed or such
absence or sickness shall cease, $7,500.
Mr. Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, moved that the House recede from
its disagreement and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment
as follows:
In line 2 of the matter inserted by said amendment, after the word
``Treasury,'' insert the word ``hereafter.`` In line 4 of the matter
inserted by said amendment, after the word ``who,'' insert the word
``hereafter.''
Mr. Cassius C. Dowell, of Iowa, submitted that the insertion of the
word ``hereafter,'' as provided, would render the legislation permanent
and made the point of order that the proposed amendment was for that
reason not germane.
The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order and said:
It seems to the Chair that either the language is surplusage or it
does make it permanent law. In that case it would be subject to a point
of order.
2915. To a provision in an appropriation bill proposing legislation
for the fiscal year provided for by the bill, an amendment proposing to
make the provision permanent legislation was held not to be germane.
On February 6, 1925,\3\ during consideration of the District of
Columbia appropriation bill in the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, the Clerk read this paragraph:
Be it enacted, etc., That in order to defray the expenses of the
District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1926, any
revenue (not including the proportionate share of the United States in
any revenue arising as the result of the expenditure of appropriations
made for the fiscal year 1924 and prior fiscal years) now required by
law to be credited to the District of Columbia and the United States in
the same proportion that each contributed to the activity or source
from whence such revenue was derived shall be credited wholly to the
District of Columbia, and in addition, $9,000,000 is appropriated, out
of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and all the
remainder out of the combined revenues of the District of Columbia and
such advances from the Federal Treasury as are authorized in the
District of Columbia appropriation act for the fiscal year 1923.
Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, offered the following amendment:
Provided, That in order to defay the expenses of the District of
Columbia for each fiscal year after the fiscal year ending June 30,
1926, any revenue (not including the proportionate share of the United
States in any revenue arising as the result of the expenditure of
appropriations made for the fiscal year 1924 and prior fiscal years)
now required by law to be credited to the District of Columbia and the
United States in the same proportion that each contributed to the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 698.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3166.
Sec. 2916
activity or source from whence such revenue was derived, shall be
credited wholly to the District of Columbia; and, in addition,
$9,000,000 shall each such fiscal year be appropriated out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and all the remainder out
of the combined revenues of the District of Columbia and such advances
from the Federal Treasury as are authorized in the District of Columbia
appropriation act for the fiscal year 1923.
Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
effect of the proposed amendment was to render permanent the proposed
legislation carried by the pending paragraph, and the amendment was
therefore not germane to the bill.
After debate the Chairman ruled:
The paragraph which this amendment seeks to amend clearly embodies
legislation and would have been repugnant to the rule unless taken out
by some exception to the rule. Doubtless, it would have been claimed
that the Holman rule makes it an order. The present occupant of the
chair, not now being called upon to decide it, can say that as the
paragraph stood, if a point of order had been made against it, he would
have ruled it out of order as not coming under the Holman rule, because
of the indefinite, uncertain nature of the refund provision. If the
uncertainty had been removed by some provision making it readily
demonstrable that the amount appropriated in the paragraph is less than
the 40 per cent of the total amount of the bill to be paid jointly from
the General Treasury and from District funds, then the Chair would have
held it in order, because the existing law authorizes a contribution of
40 per cent from the Treasury.
No point of order was made, however. Now, the gentleman from Michigan
offers to amend by inserting a new paragraph, making permanent
substantially the same provision carried in the original paragraph as
applicable only to the year for which the appropriation is carried in
the bill.
The new paragraph would make permanent law, so far as we can make a
law permanent, whereas the paragraph in the bill relates only to the
year for which the appropriation is made. The gentleman from Michigan
claims that because the original paragraph is legislation, therefore,
it opens up the paragraph to amendment by anything that is germane. The
Chair agrees to this proposition as a general statement of the rule.
The amendment, however, must be germane in fact. The paragraph as it
stands deals with temporary legislation only, its force and effect
being limited to the year for which the bill appropriates. The
gentleman's amendment would make it permanent law. It seems to the
Chair that this introduces an entirely new element that is in fact ``a
subject different from that under consideration'' and, therefore,
repugnant to the rule relating to germane amendments.
The Chair cites one precedent only, and that was by Mr. Speaker
Gillett in the Sixty-seventh Congress, fourth session, on December 19,
1922. A bill was returned from the Senate carrying an amendment
providing for an Undersecretary of the Treasury, but for the current
year only. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Madden, moved that the
House recede and concur with an amendment adding the word
``hereafter,'' which would have had the effect of making it permanent
law. On this the Speaker indicated that the word ``hereafter.''
changing a temporary provision to a permanent one, made the amendment
subject to a point of order as not germane to the amendment as it came
from the Senate. The Chair sustains the point of order.
2916. To a bill amendatory of a existing law as to one specific
particular, an amendment relating to the terms of the law rather than
to those of the bill was held not to be germane.
To a bill amending provisions of a law providing for the measurement
of vessels to determine the tolls to be paid thereon an amendment
repealing provisions of the law establishing such tolls was held not be
germane.
In determining the germaneness of amendments offered to a bill the
title of the bill is not taken into consideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
Sec. 2917
On October 1, 1919,\1\ the House was in the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union considering the bill (H. R. 7015)
governing tolls to be paid at the Panama Canal.
Mr. Albert Johnson, of Washington, offered the following amendment:
Provided, That from and after the date of approval of this act no
tolls shall be levied upon vessels engaged in the coastwise trade of
the United States for the use of the Panama Canal, and all acts or
parts of acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
Mr. Everett Sanders, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
proposed amendment was not germane to the bill.
After debate the Chairman \2\ ruled:
There have been several arguments advanced in relation to the point
of order under consideration, and while the Chair, after consulting
precedents, feels that there are several counts on which the point of
order can be sustained will consider only one, that of germaneness. The
matter of germaneness, of course, is one that is filled at times with
some uncertainty. There are frequently twilight zones, but in this case
the mater seems clearly defined. There is one point the Chair wants to
speak about, however, before considering the main question. It was
advanced by the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Johnson, with reference
to the title to this bill. In the opinion of the Chair the title was
comparatively little to do with the body of the bill in this case. In
Hinds' Precedents, volume 5, page 411, that point is very thoroughly
brought out. The Chair will read that part of the decision which
pertains to the title of a bill. It states that the title itself does
not affect the essence of the bill. Regarding the interpretation of the
title, Speaker Henderson said:
``The question as to whether these sections are germane can not be
determined by the title alone, as had been suggested, because an act
amending an act will always describe the title amended, although it may
only touch one feature or part of the law; but the whole resolution has
to be considered and the amendments to the resolution. If this was not
clear, possibly the title would be brought into consideration.''
Now, as to germaneness: It seems to the Chair that this is a matter
of whether or not this particular amendment is properly related to the
bill itself. The bill provides certain rules for the measurement of
vessels using the Panama Canal, but it does not provide for the payment
of tolls. It merely establishes a standard of measurement for ships
going through and does not prescribe the amount of money which shall be
paid by the ships themselves. From rule 16, paragraph 7, it is very
clear, ``That no motion or proposition on a subject different from that
under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
Therefore it seems to the Chair that the two subjects, the subject
matter of the bill and the subject matter of the amendment, are not
related, and the Chair sustains the point of order.
2917. A proposal to strike out a portion of a text may not be germane
to the proposition involved.
A proposal to eliminate portions of a text thereby extending the
scope of its provisions to other subjects that those originally
presented is in violation of the rule requiring germaneness.
To a proposal to dismiss officers violating the ``Federal prohibition
laws'' an amendment striking out the word ``Prohibition'' was held not
to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 6225.
\2\ Frederick C. Hicks, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 2918
On February 8, 1930,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the bill H. R. 8574, the prohibition
reorganization bill, when the following committee amendment was read:
Provided, That all officers and employees of the Bureau of
Prohibition who the Attorney General finds have heretofore or shall
hereafter violate any penal provisions of the Federal prohibition laws
shall be dismissed.
Mr. Frederick Lehlbach, of New Jersey, offered an amendment proposing
to strike out the word ``prohibition'' where last occurring.
Mr. William Williamson, of South Dakota, having submitted a point of
order that the amendment was not germane, the Chairman \2\ said:
The amendment offered by the committee provides:
``That all officers and employees of the Bureau of Prohibition who
the Attorney General finds have heretofore or shall hereafter violate
any penal provision of the Federal prohibition laws shall be
dismissed.''
The Chair thought at first that the canceling in the amendment of the
word ``prohibition'' would be germane, but as he looks at it now he
believes it would be enlarging, and enlarging very greatly, the scope
of this amendment, and that it would be bringing into the amendment and
into the purpose of the amendment a vast variety of other acts which
are made crimes under the Federal law.
Therefore the Chair is inclined to hold, and does hold, that under
the conditions the striking out of the term is not permissible and that
the question of germaneness arises in the situation which confronts us,
and sustains the point of order against the language of the amendment.
2918. While an amendment proposing to strike out language in a
pending bill can not ordinarily be ruled out of order as not germane,
yet if the effect of striking out such language so affects the scope
and import of the text as to present a different subject from that
under consideration it is not germane.
To a bill relating to interstate commerce an amendment pertaining to
foreign commerce was held not to be germane.
On January 26, 1916,\3\ during consideration in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union of the bill (H. R. 8234) to
prevent interstate commerce in the products of child labor, the Clerk
read as follows:
That no producer, manufacturer, or dealer shall ship or deliver for
shipment in interstate commerce the product of any mine or quarry
situated in the United States which has been produced, in whole or in
part, by the labor of children under the age of 16 years.
J. Hampton Moore, of Pennsylvania, offered the following amendment:
After the word ``States,'' insert a comma and the words ``or any
foreign country.''
Mr. David J. Lewis, of Maryland, made the point of order that the
subject under discussion related exclusively to interstate commerce,
and the amendment proposing to add the products of foreign commerce was
not germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 3310.
\2\ Joseph L. Hooper, of Michigan, Chairman.
\3\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1598.
Sec. 2919
The Chairman \1\ ruled:
It will be understood that the Chair has nothing to do with the
merits of the feasibility of extending this act to foreign commerce.
His province is to determine whether or not the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Pennsylvania is germane to the bill now pending. The
House is familiar with the principle that to one specific subject
another specific subject is not in order. This has been held in the
House time and again. It seems to the Chair that most of the gentlemen
who have argued in favor of this proposition have discussed the power
of Congress to regulate both interstate and foreign commerce rather
than the question of whether a proposition regulating foreign commerce
is germane to a bill regulating interstate commerce. Two subjects are
not necessarily germane to each other because they are related. The
Chair believes that this is a bill to regulate child labor in
interstate commerce, and, therefore, that an amendment proposing to
extend it to foreign commerce is a different matter, and is not in
order. Therefore the point of order is sustained.
Mr. Moore then proposed this amendment:
After the word ``States,'' insert the words ``or imported from any
foreign country.''
Mr. Lewis interposed the same point of order made against the first
amendment.
The Chairman sustained the point of order and said:
The gentleman from Pennsylvania will observe that the committee has
limited this bill to child-labor goods produced in the United States.
The child-labor goods produced in foreign countries are another matter.
If the gentleman will turn to the Record of a year ago, he will find
where the Speaker overruled the Committee of the Whole on the same
identical proposition. In that case the Speaker held that where the
committee had limited the application of the bill to the products of
one kind of labor, a proposition to extend it to the products of
another kind of labor was not germane. The Chair thinks he ought to
follow the ruling of the Speaker where the Speaker was sustained by the
House and therefore sustains the point of order.
Mr. Edwin Yates Webb, of North Carolina, then asked, as a
parliamentary inquiry, if any amendment striking out words in the
pending paragraph would be in order, having reference to the words ``in
interstate commerce'' and ``in the United States.''
The Chairman replied tentatively in the affirmative.
Mr. Swagar Sherley, of Kentucky, submitted:
Mr. Chairman, I desire to be heard before the Chair makes a ruling
along those lines, because the Chair will find a long line of
precedents in rulings by Speaker Carlisle and Speaker Reed and several
other distinguished Speakers holding that where the effect of striking
out words is to change the scope of the bill it is not in order.
The Chairman said:
Upon reflection, the Chair thinks the gentleman from Kentucky is
correct. The Chair was in error in making his answer.
2919. An amendment which by striking out words would change a
privileged proposition to an unprivileged proposition was held not to
be in order.
On December 15, 1908,\2\ the House was considering a privileged
resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 447) requesting the Secretary of State
to inform the House if he had in his possession any information as to
whether or not the House of Commons of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John N. Garner, of Texas, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 276.
Sec. 2920
Great Britain had recently adopted a resolution to the effect that a
committee be appointed to consider changes in its rules.
Mr. Augustus P. Gardner, of Massachusetts, offered an amendment
striking out a portion of the resolution.
Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, made the point of order that the
elision of the language proposed to be stricken out would destroy the
privilege of the pending resolution.
After debate the Speaker \1\ ruled:
The motion to discharge the committee was privileged, and the
resolution, from the consideration of which the Committee on Foreign
Affairs was discharged, is privileged. The amendment strikes out the
following words:
``That the Secretary of State, and he is hereby, respectfully
requested, if not incompatible with the public interests, to inform the
House of Representatives whether he has in his possession any
information as to whether or not the House of Commons of Great Britain
has recently adopted a resolution to the effect.''
Those words are to be stricken out by the amendment, and the
amendment would then leave the words in the original resolution as
follows:
``That a committee of eight Members of the House be immediately
appointed, five to be selected by the Speaker and three by the leader
of the minority, to consider the existing rules of the House and to
report not later than February 1, 1909, what changes, if any, it is
desirable to make.''
Thus the amendment would change the character of the resolution,
which was one of inquiry and therefore privileged under the rule, by
striking out the matter inquired about and leaving in the resolution
matter that is not privileged. If the resolution had stood as the
gentleman now proposes by his amendment to have it stand, it would not
have been in order, because it would be shorn of all matter of inquiry
contained in the resolution. The precedents are quite numerous. I read
from the Digest, volume 7:
``A privileged proposition may not be amended by adding thereto
matter not privileged or germane to the original question.'' (Vol. 5,
sec. 5890.)
That was a ruling by the present Speaker of the House.
``It is not in order to amend a pending privileged proposition by
adding a matter not privileged and not germane to the original
proposition.'' (Vol. 5, sec. 5809.)
That was a ruling by Mr. Speaker Carlisle. Section 5810 contains a
similar ruling by Mr. Speaker pro tempore Blackburn:
``The next of a bill containing a nonprivileged matter, privilege may
not be created by a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
not containing the nonprivileged matter.'' (Vol. 4, sec. 4623.)
The precedents are numerous and to the point, and the Chair is
perfectly clear that the point of order is well taken, and sustains the
same.
An appeal by Mr. Gardner from the decision of the Chair was, on
motion of Mr. Payne, laid on the table--yeas 149, nays 136.
2920. An amendment which by striking out a portion of the text
changes the purpose and scope of the bill is not germane.
To a bill authorizing suit against a certain class of Government-
owned vessels an amendment striking out language designating the class
and making the bill applicable to all Government-owned vessels was held
not to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 2920
On January 19, 1920,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the bill (S. 3076) authorizing suits
against the United States in admiralty for salvage services; applying
exclusively to merchant vessels employed in carrying cargo for hire.
Mr. James W. Husted, of New York, proposed an amendment striking out
the language specifying the class of vessels to which the bill related.
Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane and said:
Mr. Chairman I make the point of order, that the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New York is not germane, in that this bill and the
section to which the amendment is offered is confined to a certain
class of Government-owned vessels. In line 10 and 11, on page 10 of
this bill, the proviso is ``that such vessel is employed or intended to
be employed in the carriage of cargoes or of passengers for hire.''
That certainly restricts the application of the act, if it becomes a
law, to a certain class of vessels. I submit that this amendment seeks
to strike out the language, and then provides for what shall be done
and how suit may be brought and proceedings had against all Government-
owned vessels, and that it is not germane to the purposes and
provisions of the bill. It goes far beyond the scope of its provisions.
It is a provision which if it were in the bill as originally introduced
would probably take the jurisdiction of the bill out of the Committee
on the Judiciary. I think it is well recognized that we can not include
by way of amendment in a measure restricted to one particular subject
or class, other classes. In other words, you can not, by amendment,
broaden the scope of a bill when by the terms of that bill it is
restricted to one particular class or subject. I submit that this
measure as it has been passed by the Senate and as it has been reported
by the Committee on the Judiciary to the House, is restricted in its
provisions to merchant vessels employed or intended to be employed in
the carriage of cargoes or passengers for hire. Under the amendment of
the gentleman from New York it strikes out that proviso, and permits
suits to be brought because of damage resulting from collisions with
naval vessels, or Army transports, or Coast Guard cutters, or Bureau of
Fisheries steamers and vessels under the jurisdiction of the Board of
Engineers in the War Department, and opens it to all Government-owned
vessels, whether they be employed or intended to be employed in the
carriage of cargo, and passengers for hire, or whether they be employed
or intended to be employed strictly on Government business, in which
they are not competing with any privately owned craft or any individual
enterprise.
Mr. Husted took the position that an amendment striking out words in
a bill is always germane.
In reply Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, argued:
Mr. Chairman, I do not know that I shall take part in this
discussion. I certainly would not but for the statement of the
gentleman from New York that the motion to strike out words is always
in order.
Now, I will give an illustration which I am sure the gentleman from
New York will say proves that a motion to strike out is not always in
order. Take, for instance, the Philippine tariff law. We had the right
to fix the rates of duty on goods coming from the Philippines into the
United States. We had the right to say that they should come in free
from the Philippines. That would be a bill relating wholly to the
question of tariff between the United States and the Philippine
Islands, a possession of the United States. As I recall--and I do not
give the reference--when that bill was up for consideration some one
moved to strike out the language that would confine it to the
Philippine Islands. If it had said ``goods coming from the Philippines,
imported into the United States from the Philippines,'' all that was
necessary to do was strike out the words ``coming from the
Philippines,'' and that would have made it a universal tariff bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1754.
Sec. 2920
Now, it is perfectly patent that the striking out of that language
was not a germane amendment. It had no relation to the subject matter,
because it was intended to change the subject matter wholly from a
tariff with the Philippine Islands, to a universal tariff law, and it
was held to be out of order.
The same thing was true when the Canadian reciprocity bill was before
the House. I can not cite the reference; I do not know whether it is
carried in the Record even, because some one who looked it up told me
that while the decision was made there was some error in recording, so
that it did not appear in the Record. I do not know as to that.
But a motion was made to strike out the language which would confine
the provision for reciprocity to Canada. That would have made it
universal and would have destroyed wholly the purpose of the bill in
the first instance, which was designed to operate with Canada only, and
would have made it a universal reciprocity proposition. It was held
there that the motion to strike out was out of order. I think it is the
general rule that where words of limitation are in a bill, limitating
the subject matter of the bill, and it is proposed to strike out those
words, so as to change the subject matter of the bill and enlarge its
scope, such an amendment is held not germane, because it is not germane
to that bill but would be germane to a bill involving the whole subject
matter. Now, a Member introducing a bill has the right to introduce it
in relation to a particular proposition. There are many adjectives of
definition constantly used in public bills and private bills which, if
you should strike them out, would make the bills universal in character
and entirely change their scope. I hope the Chair will not express the
opinion in ruling that it necessarily follows that a motion to strike
out is in order because of the general principle that it is within the
power of the House to strike out any language in a bill. It is
generally true that a parliamentary body can strike out any proposition
in a bill, but under the question of germaneness an amendment is not
permissible which by striking out language would change the purpose and
scope of the bill.
After further debate the Chairman \1\ ruled:
The Chair recognizes that this point is somewhat involved and
complicated and that it raises some new questions. The Chair has been
consulting some of the references, not only those mentioned by
gentlemen who have debated the point of order but some he has been able
to find independent of the argument. The gentleman from New York in
arguing to sustain his amendment bases it, as the Chair understands,
largely upon the fact that striking out any words in a bill is in
order, irrespective of what that effect will be. The Chair is aware
that Mr. Speaker Clark some years ago made a ruling of that kind, that
a motion to strike out, ``that is always in order--to strike anything
out of anything,'' and that since then, in a general way, we have
followed that ruling.
The present occupant of the chair, however, without the slightest
desire to take exception to the ruling of the former Speaker, believes
that that ruling is at times subject to qualification and modification,
and should properly be interpreted in reference to the subject matter
affected.
The Chair for the moment will pass that point, however, and will
consider the point of order from another angle.
A motion to strike out and insert is indivisible--paragraph 7, Rule
XVI--and the amendment of the gentleman from New York not only strikes
out certain words in the bill but inserts certain other words. It seems
to the Chair that we should analyze those words which the amendment
proposes for incorporation in the bill in conjunction with those that
are to be stricken out. If we refer to the words to be inserted we find
that while they are limitations to a certain extent, they refer
directly to a specific class of vessels. The Chair will quote one
sentence of the amendment to fortify his position:
``In the case of a vessel not employed as a merchant vessel.''
What is that class of vessels? They are the military ships of the
United States and vessels engaged in the public service of the United
States. The subject matter of the bill, as the Chair understands its
provisions, pertains solely to one class of ships, and what is that
class? They are
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Frederick C. Hicks, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 2920
the ships engaged in merchant service, publicly owned though they be.
Therefore it seems to the Chair that as the motion to strike out and
insert can not be divided we have in the words to be added a subject
which is not so related to the subject matter of the bill as to come
within the rule for germaneness.
To complete the record on the point of germaneness, the Chair cites
paragraph 7, Rule XVI, with which we are all familiar, ``that no motion
or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration
shall be admitted under color of amendment,'' and to cite the same rule
further: ``One individual proposition may not be amended by another
individual proposition, even though the two belong to the same class.''
There are so many noted precedents that have been established under
this rule that the Chair does not think it necessary to refer to them.
The Chair feels that the word ``proposition'' in paragraph 7 may be
considered as providing for a situation in which a motion to strike
out, while it does not in positive language add a new subject, does in
effect widen the scope of the bill beyond that contemplated if we
adhere too strictly to the theory ``that it is always in order to
strike anything out of anything.'' As a counter proposition to this--
and the Chair feels that both are rather general in their application--
the Chair refers to Hinds' Precedents, Volume V, section 5834, where,
on a motion to recommit, it was held ``that it is not in order to do
indirectly by a motion what may not be done directly by way of
amendment.'' The gentleman from New York in his able argument in
support of his contention refers to Hinds' Precedents, Volume V,
section 5805, ``where an amendment simply striking out words already in
a bill'' was held to be germane. The gentleman from New York will note
that the Chair in making that ruling was evidently not entirely sure of
his ground, for he says ``that this question is rather a question for
the committee to decide; a question of policy rather than a question
for the Chair to decide on a point of order.''
This brings us to a consideration of the thought suggested by Mr.
Mann, of Illinois, and Mr. Walsh of a single motion to strike out, if
by so doing the scope of the bill would thereby be enlarged. The point
of striking out certain words was the crux of the argument of the
gentleman from New York, and the Chair will now consider the principle
involved.
The points made in this feature of the discussion have opened up very
broad and in some respects comparatively undetermined questions, which,
since they have been brought forward, the Chair feels obliged to pass
upon.
The Chair realizes that the presiding officer is not called upon to
determine the effect of an amendment upon the law itself or to
interpret legislative propositions. In the precedents that have been
cited conflict of rulings appear, and the Chair thinks that when those
conflicts arise it is the duty of the Chair to apply the rule of
reason, and the Chair will endeavor to apply that in the present
instance. The Chair desires to cite from a precedent and read the
opinion of the presiding officer at the time, which has not been
referred to by gentlemen who have spoken to the point of order. It
seems to the Chair that his precedent is almost a parallel case to the
point of order now being discussed. The Chair reads from Hinds'
Precedents, Volume V, paragraph 5864. This was on December 16, 1898.
The House was in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, considering the bill to extend the laws relating to customs and
internal revenue over the Hawaiian Islands, and the first section of
the bill having been read--and here is the point that the Chair
especially wants to have emphasized--
``Be it enacted, etc., That the laws of the United States relating to
customs and internal revenue, including those relating to the
punishment of crimes in connection with the enforcement of said laws,
are hereby extended to and over the Island of Hawaii and all adjacent
islands and waters of the islands.''
After that had been read Mr. McRae, of Arkansas, offered an amendment
to strike out, after the words ``the United States,'' the following:
``relating to customs and internal revenue.'' Mr. Dingley, of Maine,
made the point of order that the amendment was not germane, and after
debate upon the subject the Chairman held as follows:
``The Chair thinks that the point of order is well taken. This bill
is to extend the laws relating to customs and internal revenue, and the
amendment seeks to open up the question of land titles and other laws
in the Territories, thus enlarging the scope and bringing in matter not
germane to the bill.''
The point of order was sustained.
Sec. 2921
In Hinds' Precedents, Volume IV, section 3596, is another case in
point which the Chair will cite. An amendment was offered which
contained, among others, these words, ``appliances for the automatic
control of railway trains.'' Mr. Crumpacker, of Indiana, moved to
strike out the word ``automatic,'' Mr. Mann, of Illinois, made a point
of order, and the Chair in ruling upon it said:
``I would like to ask the gentleman from Indiana whether or not his
description, by striking out the word ``automatic'' here, would not let
in a great many things? That is, would not the scope of the
investigation be much wider and more extended than if the term
``automatic'' is included?''
The ensuing debate having indicated that the effect of the amendment
might be to extend the scope of the investigation, the Chair sustained
the point of order, though evidently in some doubt.
The Chair feels that notwithstanding the general proposition that
parliamentary questions are usually determined by the form and not the
effect of an amendment, that when no rules are applicable the effect
should be taken into consideration as a determining factor, when by
striking out specific words new and different subjects are thereby
introduced, and the scope of the legislation under consideration is
broadened beyond that contemplated in the bill.
In line with what the Chair considers the most conclusive precedents
in reference to striking out words, following also the precedents
pertaining to germaneness, and in conformity with the views just
expressed by the Chair on the subject of scope of legislation, the
Chair feels that the point of order is well taken, and sustains it.
2921. Under circumstances where the omission of language would
sufficiently change the purport of the text to present another subject
a motion to strike out has been held not to be germane.
On March 27, 1920, \1\ during consideration of the District of
Columbia appropriation bill in the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, Mr. Charles R. Davis, of Minnesota, proposed the
following as a new paragraph:
The rate of taxation on real estate in the District of Columbia,
under the provisions of section 5 of the District of Columbia
appropriation act approved July 1, 1902, is hereby increased from 1\1/
2\ per cent to 2\1/2\ per cent, and the rate of taxation on tangible
personal property in the District of Columbia, under the provisions of
section 6 of the said act, is hereby increased from 1\1/2\ per cent to
2\1/2\ per cent.
Mr. William F. Stevenson, of South Carolina, moved to strike out the
word ``tangible.''
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, raised a question of order and said:
As a general thing, of course, it is in order to strike out, but it
has been held on a good many occasions that where a motion to strike
out a word, such as the word ``not,'' for instance so as absolutely to
reverse what was intended, it may not be in order. It sometimes is, but
it is here held not in order because it accomplishes something by
striking out that you could not accomplish by inserting. In this
particular case the Chair had already sustained a point of order to an
amendment to insert a specific provision with reference to the
intangible property. The effect of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina was to insert it, which amounted to the
same thing.
The Chairman \2\ sustained the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4937.
\2\ Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 2922
2922. An amendment must be germane to the section or paragraph to
which it is offered.
To a section of a revenue bill proposing definitions of terms an
amendment levying a tax was held not to be germane although germane to
the bill as a whole.
If any part of an amendment is out of order the entire amendment may
be ruled out.
On February 18, 1924, \1\ the bill H. R. 6715, the revenue bill, was
being considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, when the Clerk read the first section devoted exclusively to
the definition of terms used in the bill.
Mr. James A. Frear, of Wisconsin, proposed the following amendment to
be inserted as a new subdivision under the section:
The term ``taxable income from whatever source derived'' shall
include all incomes received from every source, including Federal,
State, and municipal securities, except where specifically exempted by
act of Congress, and shall be laid and collected the same as all other
taxes.
Mr. William R. Green, of Iowa, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the section.
After debate the Chairman \2\ ruled:
The rule has always been, ever since 1822, and has been repeatedly
held by succeeding Speakers and Chairmen from that time, that
amendments to be germane must not only be germane to the subject matter
of the bill also to the paragraph where offered. That is the rule now.
This particular part of the bill is headed ``Definitions,'' and thus
far in the reading certain terms are defined--for instances,
``fiduciary,'' ``withholding agent,'' ``paid or incurred,'' ``stock,''
and ``shareholder''--giving a definition of the terms as they are used
in the bill. When this amendment was first presented, the Chair on
hearing it read was of the opinion that it was a definition and
therefore proper and germane at this time. That would be true if it
were not for the closing language of the amendment, ``and shall be laid
and collected the same as all other taxes.'' Manifestly this goes
beyond a definition and imposes a tax, or attempts to impose a tax. If
so, and if it is germane to the subject matter of the bill, upon which
the Chair will not pass at this time, it ought to be offered to some
other section. If the amendment were without this language it would be
proper at this time. Having this language in it, the Chair is of the
opinion that it is subject to the point of order, and therefore
sustains the point of order.
2923. An amendment should be germane not only to the subject matter
of the bill but also to the particular section of the bill in which it
is proposed to insert the amendment.
An amendment to the second title of a bill was held not germane to
the first title of the bill.
On April 24, 1930, \3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 10381) to amend
the World War veterans' act of 1924, as amended.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2719.
\2\ Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 7641.
Sec. 2924
During the reading of Title I of the bill Mr. Robert A. Green, of
Florida, offered an amendment appending a new section of Title II of
the bill.
Mr. Royal C. Johnson, of South Dakota, submitted that the amendment
was not germane to Title I of the bill.
The Chairman \1\ sustained the point and said:
The offer proposes to amend a section of the law under Title II,
which comes in at a later point in the bill. The Chair does not think
it is germane to this portion of the bill. The Chair sustains the point
of order.
2924. It is not sufficient that an amendment proposed to a pending
amendment be germane to the bill but it must also be germane to the
amendment to which it is offered.
On February 28, 1924,\2\ during consideration of the bill H. R. 6715,
the revenue bill, in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, proposed the
following amendment:
No member of the board shall be permitted to practice before said
board or any official of the Treasury Department, or be connected,
directly or indirectly, with any person or any firm of lawyers,
solicitors, accountants, or agents practicing before said board or any
official of the Treasury Department on behalf of taxpayers for a period
of two years after his term of office terminates of from the time such
member resigns or otherwise leaves the service of the Government.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, moved to amend this amendment as
follows:
After the word ``board,'' in the first line of the LaGuardia
amendment, insert the words ``or any official or Government employee in
the Treasury Department.''
Mr. William R. Green, of Iowa, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the amendment to which offered.
Mr. Blanton submitted that it was germane to the original bill.
The Chairman \3\ held:
Heretofore the gentleman from Texas has offered an amendment, which
at time was discussed, and which the Chair held would be germane when
we arrived at the proper part of the bill, which the Chair thought at
that time would be Title X. The gentleman now offers an amendment to an
amendment. In order to ascertain whether or not it is germane to the
amendment to which it is offered, one must look to the amendment and
not to the bill. Now, what is the amendment? The amendment is that no
member of the board shall be permitted to practice, and so forth. To
that the gentleman from Texas seeks to add ``or any official or
Government employee of the Treasury Department,'' thereby interjecting
an entirely different class of people from those mentioned in the
amendment, namely the board. Therefore it is not germane to the
amendment, although it might be germane to the bill if offered as a
separate proposition. The point of order is sustained.
2925. An amendment must be germane to the particular paragraph or
section to which it is offered.
On June 10, 1921,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 6611) to establish in the
Treasury Department a veterans' bureau.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3287.
\3\ William J. Graham, of Illinois, Chairman.
\4\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2397.
Sec. 2926
Title II of the bill having read, Mr. C. William Ramseyer, of Iowa,
offered an amendment proposing a modify a section of existing law dealt
with in Title IV of the pending bill.
Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, made the point or order that the
amendment was not germane to the section to which offered.
After debate the Chairman \1\ ruled:
The war risk insurance act, as the Chair has already stated, is
divided into four titles. The first of those titles deals with
provisions that are more or less general to the entire act,
definitions, and general provisions of that sort. The second title
relates to allotments. The third title relates to compensation, and the
fourth relates to insurance. The general rules applicable to amendments
provides that an amendment must be germane not only to the bill but to
the section, if it is offered to a section, or, if offered as a new
section, it must be germane in the place where it is offered.
The provision under consideration amends but one section of the first
title of the war risk insurance act. It amends no other section of that
title. The Chair feels that the purpose of the rule requiring that an
amendment shall be germane at the place in which it is offered is to
preserve the proper order of the legislation, and that to permit the
introduction of an amendment to a portion of the bill under Title IV,
as an amendment to a section in Title I, for instance, of this bill,
would be to destroy the orderly sequence of the legislation. The Chair
is not now holding that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from
Iowa is not germane to the bill, but under the rules of the House the
Chair does not think the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Iowa
is germane to the section to which it is offered as an amendment, or as
a new section in the place in which it is offered, and therefore
sustains the point of order.
2926. On May 1921,\2\ during consideration of the army appropriation
bill in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, the
Clerk read this paragraph:
For construction and repair of quarters for hospital stewards at
military posts already established and occupied, $15,000.
Mr. C. B. Hudspeth, of Texas, offered an amendment as follows:
The sum of $10,000 for the erection of a natatorium adjoining the
Government base hospital at Fort Bliss, Tex., now in course of
construction. The said natatorium to be a part of said plant.
Mr. Daniel R. Anthony, Jr., of Kansas, raised the question of order
that the amendment while germane to the bill was not germane to the
particular paragraph to which it was proposed.
After debate the Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order.
2927. An amendment must be germane to the portion of the bill under
consideration.
On February 2, 1909,\4\ the Army appropriation bill was being read
for amendment in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 1236.
\3\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
\4\ Second session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 1732.
Sec. 2928
The last paragraph of the bill having been read, Mr. John J.
Fitzgerald, of New York offered the following amendment to be inserted
as a new section at the end of the bill:
No part of any appropriation made herein shall be expended in the
purchase of powder except powder for small arms at a price not in
excess of 64 cents per pound.
Mr. John A. T. Hull, of Iowa, made the point of order that the
amendment should have been offered when the paragraph relating to the
purchase of powder was under consideration, and was not now in order.
The Chairman \1\ said:
It seems to the Chair that the rule is well settled that an amendment
offered, or a provision made, must be germane to the portion of the
bill then under discussion. Specific appropriation has been made for
the manufacture and purchase of powder, and that has been passed, and
since then specific appropriations have been made for many other
subjects. It seems to the Chair, under the procedure of the House, that
the point made that this amendment now offered is not in order is well
taken, and the Chair must sustain the point of order.
2928. On February 18, 1933,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union was considering the District of Columbia
appropriation bill, when that portion of the bill dealing with
compensation for personal services under the Board of Public Welfare
was reached.
The Clerk read:
For personal services, $105,580.
Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York offered this amendment:
To enable the Board of Public Welfare to provide for the relief of
all needy persons not otherwise provided for by appropriations herein
made to such board, $625,000, payable wholly from the revenues of the
District of Columbia.
Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to this portion of the bill, and if
admissible should be appropriately offered when the section of the bill
providing for relief was reached.
The Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order.
2929. On May 24, 1910,\4\ the sundry civil appropriation bill was
being read for amendment under the five-minute rule in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union.
When the section of the bill devoted to items relating to the
Executive was reached, Mr. Gilbert M. Hitchcock, of Nebraska, offered
the following amendment to be inserted as a new paragraph.
bureau of labor
To enable the Commissioner of Labor to ascertain at as early a date
as possible the cost of producing articles at the time dutiable in the
United States in leading countries where such articles are produced by
fully specified units of production and under a classification showing
the different elements of cost, or approximate cost, of such articles
of production, including the wages paid in
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James B. Perkins, of New York, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 4433.
\3\ Anning S. Prall, of New York, Chairman.
\4\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 6819.
Sec. 2930
such industries per day, week, month, or year, or by the piece; and
hours employed per day; and the profits of the manufacturers and
producers of such articles; and the comparative cost of living, and the
kind of living. * * * what articles are controlled by trusts or other
combinations of capital, business operations, or labor, and what effect
said trusts, or other combinations of capital, business operations, or
labor have on production and prices, $100,000, to be immediately
available.
Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, made the point of order that the
proposed new section pertained to the Department of Commerce and Labor,
provision for which was made later in the bill, and that the amendment
was not germane to the pending section.
The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order and said:
In making up any appropriation bill it is essential, in the interests
of those who watch the proceedings of the House and in the committee,
that there be some order observed in an appropriation bill. Hence,
under the rules, any amendment that is offered must not only be
germane, but germane to that portion of the bill. In the sundry civil
appropriation bill for many years it has been the custom--and it seems
to the Chair a very proper one--to arrange items, as far as
practicable, under the head of the different departments of the
Government, commencing after some item for the Executive with the
Treasury Department, and running down according to the date of the
creation and priority of the department, and in that way the Department
of Commerce and Labor is reached in the bill.
It seems to the Chair that it would be not only inappropriate, but
out of order, to offer an amendment relating to some provision in the
bill under the head of Department of Commerce and Labor at some other
place in the bill. That seems too clear for argument, and it seems to
the Chair than an item not relating to any matter of the bill, but
germane to the bill and also germane to the Department of Commerce and
Labor, should be offered at that part of the bill.
The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
2930. An amendment inserting an additional section should be germane
to the portion of the bill to which offered.
The motion to return to a portion of a bill passed in reading for
amendment is not privileged and a paragraph or section so passed may be
again taken up by unanimous consent only.
On January 19, 1909,\2\ the urgent deficiency appropriation bill was
being considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
Union.
After the Clerk in reading the bill for amendment had passed the
section of the bill making appropriation for the Department of
Agriculture Mr. J. Thomas Heflin, of Alabama, asked unanimous consent
to return to that section for the purpose of considering an amendment
which he proposed to offer as follows:
To supply deficiency in the quota of vegetable and other valuable
seed authorized to be furnished each Senator and Representative, the
sum of $30,000, which the Secretary of Agriculture is required to
purchase.
Objection having been made to the request, Mr. Heflin moved to return
to the section for the purpose of permitting amendment.
Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, made the point of order that the
motion was not privileged.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James R. Mann, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 1121.
Sec. 2931
The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order and said:
The Chair sustains the point of order, because it is contrary to the
practice of the House. The practice of the House is that to return to a
section or paragraph can only be done by unanimous consent. Unanimous
consent was asked by the gentleman from Alabama and objection was made.
Then the gentleman from Alabama moved that the committee return to that
paragraph, whereupon the gentleman from Minnesota raised the point of
order, which was sustained by the Chair.
Mr. Champ Clark, of Missouri, called attention to an instance in
which a motion by Mr. Theodore E. Burton, of Ohio, to return to a
paragraph in the reading of a bill had been entertained and agreed to.
The Chairman differentiated:
The Chair will say to the gentleman from Missouri, in response to the
inquiry, that that was under different conditions. These conditions
were that the reading of the bill had been completed; and the gentleman
having the bill in charge moved that the committee rise and report;
this was voted down. Under those circumstances, the Chair held that a
motion to return to a paragraph was out of order, but the committee
reversed this decision on appeal from the Chair.
Mr. Heflin then proposed to offer the amendment as a new section.
Mr. Tawney raised a question of order against the amendment.
The Chairman ruled:
For a long period of years it has been the ruling of the Chair that
an amendment to be in order must be made in connection with the
portions or the paragraph of the bill to which it is germane. This
amendment would have been germane in connection with the paragraph
under the head of the Department of Agriculture. It was not offered
until the end of the bill.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
2931. An amendment should be germane to that portion of the bill to
which offered.
To a portion of a bill dealing with one class of Indian schools an
amendment relating to an Indian school of another class was ruled not
germane.
On December 10, 1929,\2\ during the consideration of the Interior
Department appropriation bill in the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union, Mr. Jed Johnson, of Oklahoma, offered this
amendment:
Concho, Okla.: For the construction of a shop building, $12,000;
employees' cottages, $4,500: barn and implement shed, $3,000.
Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the portion of the bill to which offered
and said:
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the amendment is not
germane at this place in the bill. the Concho School, as I understand,
is cared for in the item on page 38, the maintenance; the school
buildings are provided for on page 40.
The committee has taken a great deal of care to properly classify
items. I know of no way the committee could classify more carefully. We
first proceed with the general education items for day schools on the
reservations. First there is the maintenance; next care of school
buildings; and then we proceed for a number of pages to take care of
boarding schools that are not on the reservations. Then over at the
last are brought in those items that could not be taken care of in the
preceding items, the item, for instance, of the Osage children. That is
not out of the Treasury
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ David J. Foster, of Vermont, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 416.
Sec. 2932
of the United States; it is out of the Osage funds. The item
immediately before us, while it is out of the Treasury of the United
States--and I want to emphasize this to the Chair--is not for the
maintenance of schools by the Federal Government, but is its
contribution to the maintenance of schools that are conducted by the
State of Utah or subdivisions thereof. The bill is very carefully
arranged, but it amendments like this can prevail, and we can have on
page 40 an item for boarding schools on Indian reservations and for
their building and repair and expansion of plants, and then 10 pages
later one particular reservation boarding school have its plant
provided for, Members of this House will not know where to look to find
the things they are interested in.
That is the reason for the parliamentary rule, and that is the reason
why it ought not to be in order for this amendment to be inserted over
here in connection with items for the payment of tuition or
appropriations from tribal funds or appropriations to carry on State
and county schools where Indians attend. There is a place for it. That
is on page 40, relating to reservation Indian boarding schools provided
for out of the Treasury of the United States, where their physical
needs are set forth.
The Chairman \1\ ruled:
The Chair is very greatly impressed with the earnest argument of the
gentleman from Michigan as to the necessity of order and procedure in
the consideration of a bill, and, of course, has no purpose to consider
lightly the determination of an important point of order.
Since the debate began the Chair has considered all the various
paragraphs and finds that they are not as indiscriminate as they appear
to be. It is true, as the gentleman from Michigan states, that the
paragraph beginning on line 16 on page 40 was doubtless intended to be
exclusive in the matter of constructing and repairing buildings at
certain schools and like institutions, including the purchase of land
and the installation of apparatus and equipment. It would be exclusive
as to schools of a certain class, reservation, day or boarding school
maintained out of the Federal funds.
What kind of school is this? It is a reservation boarding school
maintained but of Federal funds.
On that statement the Chair feels constrained to sustain the point of
order. In addition, the amendment is clearly not germane to the
paragraph immediately preceding it, even though it relates to the
general subject matter of the education of Indians.
2932. While an amendment offered as a separate paragraph must be
germane to that portion of the bill to which proposed, it is sufficient
if offered to that portion of the bill relating to the department of
government under which it properly belongs and the fact that it is not
intimately related to the paragraphs immediately preceding or
immediately following does not render it subject to a point of order.
An amendment making appropriation for the bureau of mines is not
germane to provisions for the public land service of the United States
Geological Survey carried in the bill to which proposed, but the three
are under the Department of the Interior and as the last two were not
intimately related the first was held in order for insertion between
the other two and to be germane to that portion of the bill.
On May 31, 1910,\2\ the sundry civil appropriation bill was under
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union.
After the section of the bill providing for Public Land Service had
been read and before the following section relating to the Geological
Survey of the United States had been taken up, Mr. Albert Douglas, of
Ohio, offered as a new section to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 7164.
Sec. 2933
be inserted between the two an amendment making provision for the
Bureau of Mines.
Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to that part of the bill.
After debate, the Chairman \1\ ruled:
The gentleman from Ohio offers an amendment, which has been reported,
to come in immediately preceding the heading ``United States Geological
Survey,'' and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is
headed ``Bureau of Mines.''
The point of order is first made that the amendment is not in order,
being offered at this place in the bill, on the ground that it is not
germane to the provisions of the bill at this point.
The bill is divided into different parts, relating to a certain
extent, at least, to the different departments of the Government.
Beginning on page 92 of the bill, under the heading in large capital
letters, reading ``Under the Department of the Interior,'' is a
subheading ``Public buildings,'' in capital letters. On page 94 is
another subheading in capital letters, ``Public lands service.'' On
page 99 is another heading in capital letters, ``Surveying the public
lands,'' and on page 101 is a heading in capital letters, ``United
States Geological Survey.''
All of these branches of the service are under the heading
``Department of the Interior,'' and are all under the Department of the
Interior. The gentleman from Minnesota has insisted that the items
under ``Public lands service'' and those under ``United States
Geological Survey'' relate to surveying the public domain, but it seems
to the Chair that, even if the Chair were captious about it, that these
two branches of the service are under different bureaus or divisions of
the Department of the Interior which are in no way closely related,
except as other bureaus may be related, and it seems to the Chair
wholly for the Committee of the Whole to determine whether it prefers
the provision in one place or in another part of the bill, the
amendment being germane to these provisions of the bill under
consideration. This item is offered an as amendment under the head of
``Bureau of Mines,'' to come in between the items ``Public lands
service'' and ``United States Geological Survey,'' all three being in
the same department. That part of the point of order the Chair
overrules.
In the opinion of the Chair the amendment is in order at this place
in the bill.
2933. Amendments proposing new paragraphs should conform in
germaneness to the section of the bill to which proposed.--On March 21,
1930,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union was
considering the bill (H. R. 10288) to regulate the transportation of
persons in interstate and foreign commerce by motor carriers operating
on the public highways.
When that portion of the bill relating to mergers of interstate
carriers was reached, Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, proposed
an amendment inserting provisions of the United States Code relating to
hours of labor.
Mr. James S. Parker of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not in order at this place in the bill.
The Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order and said:
The Chair is of the opinion that the gentleman's amendment would have
been germane to subdivision 2 of section 2, but the Chair is of the
opinion that the amendment is not germane at the place offered and,
therefore, sustains the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James R. Mann, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 5878.
\3\ Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, Chairman.
Sec. 2934
2934. An amendment must be germane to the portion of the bill to
which offered but when proposed as a separate paragraph is not required
to be germane to the paragraph immediately preceding it.
On January 28, 1921,\1\ while the diplomatic and consular
appropriation bill was being considered in the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union, the Clerk read the section of the bill
providing for salaries of ambassadors and ministers.
Mr. John Jacob Rogers, of Massachusetts, offered the following
amendment to be inserted as a new paragraph:
For ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to Turkey, $10,000.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the paragraph just read which it was
proposed to immediately follow:
After debate the Chairman \2\ held:
The point of order made by the gentleman from Texas as he states it
himself regards the amendment as an amendment to the paragraph. The
gentleman from Massachusetts offers his amendment in a separate
paragraph.
The only question is as to whether or not it is properly with this
branch of the bill. Is it within this title of ``Salaries of
ambassadors and ministers''? Of course, it is. The ambassador paragraph
already passed was not necessarily exclusive. It was perfectly proper
that an amendment should have been offered to that, or its proper to
offer it as a separate paragraph, because of the fact that in the prior
paragraph the salary is fixed at $17,500 for all of the countries
therein enumerated. In this case provision is made for an ambassador,
but the salary is limited to $10,000. Therefore, the point of order
made by the gentleman from Texas is not sustained.
In response to an inquiry from Mr. Blanton the Chairman added:
A separate paragraph is certainly not a part of the paragraph that
precedes it.
2935. The rule on germaneness does not necessarily require that an
amendment offered as a separate section be germane to the preceding
section of the bill or to any other particular section of the bill, but
it is sufficient that it is germane to the subject matter of the bill
as a whole.
On September 29, 1919,\3\ while the bill (H. R. 9521) to regulate the
preservation and distribution of cold storage foodstuffs was under
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, the Clerk read this paragraph:
No person shall receive in commerce any article of food for cold
storage or transport any article of food in commerce in any
refrigerator vehicle, if such person has refused inspection, when
requested under this act, of such warehouse or refrigerator vehicle;
nor shall any person ship in commerce any article of food if he has
refused inspection of such article of food when requested under this
act.
To this paragraph Mr. Niels Juul, of Illinois, offered the following
amendment:
Nor shall any person ship in commerce any poultry or game if the
entrails of such game were not removed prior to the time of being
received for cold storage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2173.
\2\ Horace M. Towner, of Iowa, Chairman.
\3\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 6112.
Sec. 2936
Mr. Fred S. Purnell, of Indiana, raised the question of order as to
the germaneness of the proposed amendment.
After debate the Chairman\1\ held:
Members of the committee will recognize that the point of order does
not involve the merits of an amendment. The rules as to germaneness
require that an amendment must not only be germane to the bill but to
the section to which it applies. This provision that is sought to be
amended refers to inspection, while the amendment refers to the
conditions of shipment. Therefore the amendment is not germane to the
provision, and the point of order is sustained.
Whereupon, Mr. Juul proposed that the same amendment be inserted as a
new section.
Mr. Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the section of the bill which it was
proposed to follow.
After extended discussion the Chairman ruled:
The Chair stated in the preceding ruling that the rule governing
germaneness of amendments required that amendments be not only germane
to the bill but to the section under consideration. This amendment is
offered as a new section and stands not in the same relationship as if
it were an amendment to the section itself. The ruling referred to some
time ago referred to the question of whether when debate had been
closed on a section and all amendments thereto it would cover a new
section that was added or sought to be added, and the ruling of the
Chair was to the effect that it would. However, the Chair does not
think that that is on a parity with this. The amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois is germane to the bill if added as a new
section. It is not a part of the preceding section and does not need to
be germane to it, and therefore the Chair overrules that point of
order.
2936. An amendment to a Senate amendment must be germane not only to
the bill but to the Senate amendment to which offered.
On August 16, 1921,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering Senate amendment No. 32 to the bill (H. R.
7294) supplemental to the national prohibition act, when Mr. Andrew J.
Volstead, of Minnesota, moved to strike out the amendment and insert in
lieu thereof the following substitute:
Sec. 6. That no officer, agent, or employee of the United States,
while engaged in the enforcement of this act, the national prohibition
act, or any law in reference to the manufacture or taxation of, or
traffic in, intoxicating liquor, shall search any private dwelling
without a warrant directing such search, and no such warrant shall
issue unless there is reason to believe such dwelling is used as a
place in which liquor is manufactured for sale or sold. The term
``private dwelling'' shall be construed to include the room or rooms
occupied not transiently but solely as a residence in an apartment
house, hotel, or boarding house. Any violation of any provision of this
paragraph shall be punished by a fine of not to exceed $1,000 or
imprisonment not to exceed one year, or both such fine and
imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.
Mr. Hallett S. Ward, of North Carolina, proposed to add the following
to the substitute:
No execution or other process shall be levied on the property of any
person for collection of penalties or forfeitures alleged to have been
incurred by violation of this act or the national prohibition act until
such person shall be duly convicted or shall plead guilty to the charge
for which penalty or forfeiture shall arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Simeon D. Fess, of Ohio, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 5080.
Sec. 2937
Mr. Volstead having made the point of order that the amendment was
not germane to the substitute, Mr. Ward took the position that it was
sufficient if the amendment was germane to the original bill.
After further debate the Chairman\1\ held:
The committee is considering the Senate amendments and particularly
this amendment which relates to search and seizure and limits the
powers of Government officials in relation to search and seizures. It
appears to the Chair that any amendment offered which is not germane to
the subject covered by this amendment, even though it might be
legitimate to the bill as a whole, is not in order, and the Chair
sustains the point of order made.
2937. To a bill amendatory of existing law in one particular a
proposition to amend the law in another particular is not germane.
To a bill amending a section of a law designating and defining the
constituent ingredients of oleomargarine an amendment proposing a tax
on oleomargarine was held not to be germane.
On February 6, 1930,\2\ the bill (H. R. 6) to amend the definition of
oleomargarine contained in the act entitled ``An act defining butter,
also imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale,
importation, and exportation of oleomargarine,'' approved August 2,
1886, as amended, was under consideration in the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union.
The Clerk read:
Be it enacted, etc., That section 2 of the act entitled ``An act
defining butter, also imposing a tax upon and regulating the
manufacture, sale, importation, and exportation of oleomargarine,''
approved August 2, 1886, as amended, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2 That for the purposes of this act certain manufactured
substances, certain extracts, and certain mixtures and compounds,
including such mixtures and compounds with butter, shall be known and
designated as `oleomargarine,' namely: All substances heretofore known
as oleomargarine, oleo, oleomargarine oil, butterine, lardine, suine,
and neutral; and all mixtures and compounds of oleomargarine, oleo,
oleomargarine oil, butterine, lardine, and suine, and neutral.''
Mr. Jeremiah E. O'Connell, of Rhode Island, offered an amendment
proposing a new paragraph imposing a tax of 2 cents per pound on
oleomargarine.
Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, raised the point of order that
the amendment was not germane and said:
There is a specific decision bearing exactly on this point, but I
have not been able to find it at the moment; but when the House had
before it a proposition for measuring boats in the Panama Canal Zone
and an amendment was offered intended to repeal the charging of all
tolls, that amendment was immediately ruled out of order on the ground
that it tended to change the general provisions of the act and was not
germane to the provision before the House at that time.
I think that is certainly on all fours with the proposition of the
gentleman from Rhode Island. The proposition of the gentleman from
Rhode Island is not germane to the proposition pending before the House
at this time and is subject to a point of order.
The Chairman\3\ sustained the point of order and added:
On October 1, 1919--Sixty-sixth Congress, first session, Record, page
6225; Cannon's Precedents, section 9781--Mr. Frederick C. Hicks, of New
York, then Chairman of the Committee of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 3189.
\3\ Willis C. Hawley, of Oregon, Chairman.
Sec. 2938
the Whole House on the state of the Union, made the decision to which
the gentleman from new York has referred. In that case the Committee of
the Whole was considering a bill amending the provisions of a law
providing for the measurement of vessels to determine the tolls to be
paid thereon. An amendment was proposed amending the existing law to
the extent of repealing the provision dealing with tolls. The Chairman,
in ruling on the point of order raised against the amendment, said:
``The bill provides certain rules for the measurement of vessels
using the Panama Canal, but it does not provide for the payment of
tolls. It merely establishes a standard of measurement for ships going
through, and does not prescribe he amount of money which shall be paid
by the ships themselves. * * * Therefore, it seems to the Chair that
the two subjects, the subject matter of the bill and the subject matter
of the amendment are not related, and the Chair sustains the point of
order.''
The Chair sees a very great similarity between the proposition ruled
on by Chairman Hicks and the one presented to the Chair at this time.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island in effect
amends the act of August 2, 1886, but in a different section from that
under consideration in this bill. The bill before us amends section 2
of the act of August 2, 1886, which pertains merely to definitions. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island seeks to impose a
tax. The Chair does not think the amendment germane and sustains the
point of order.
2938. Where a bill proposes to amend an existing law in several
particulars, no arbitrary rule can be laid down either admitting or
excluding further amendments to the law not proposed in the pending
bill, but the question of the germaneness of such additional amendments
must be determined in each instance on the merits of the case
presented.
On June 10, 1921,\1\ the bill (H. R. 6611) for the establishment of a
veterans' bureau in the Treasury Department was under consideration in
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
This bill proposed to amend severally a number of sections of the war
risk insurance law.
Mr. John Jacob Rogers, of Massachusetts, proposed to amend the law in
a manner not provided for by the pending bill by inserting the
following as a new section:
Sec. 21\1/2\. Section 401 of the war risk insurance act, as amended,
is hereby further amended by adding at the end of said section the
following language:
``Provided further, That any person in the active service who while
in such service subsequent to the 6th day of April, 1917, and prior to
the 6th day of October, 1917, because totally and permanently disabled
without having applied for insurance shall be deemed to have been
granted insurance in the sum of $10,000, payments thereafter to be made
in accordance with existing laws and regulations.''
Mr. Everett Sanders, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
amendment was not in order because not germane to the bill.
In support of the point of order, Mr. William H. Stafford, of
Wisconsin, said:
Mr. Chairman, I should like to submit to the Chair an argument
against the propriety of considering amendments to other sections of
the war risk insurance act than those that are not included in the bill
under consideration. I question very seriously whether under the rules
of the House it is in order on a bill such as this, even though it
presents amendments to various sections of the war risk insurance act,
to present amendments like the one now proposed to this bill when such
sections are not under consideration in the bill as reported. This is a
large question that I do not
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2415.
Sec. 2938
believe has been passed upon except once, to my recollection in the
House. The question is, when a bill is presented like this one,
amending, say, two, three, or four specific sections of a certain
measure which contains perhaps a dozen sections, whether it is in order
for any Member to offer an amendment to a section that has not been
included for change. I take it that the reason for the rule of the
House based on the relation of germaneness to the subject matter under
consideration by the House is that it is founded on the idea that it is
intended to dispatch the legislation under consideration, and for the
further reason of protecting the House in the consideration of the
proposed legislation by having the proposed legislation given
consideration first by a committee as to whether it should be
considered by the House at all. Otherwise there would be no logic in
the rule which has been followed that when a Senate bill is presented
to the House and referred to a committee for consideration, even that
committee has no power to report any amendment except one that is
germane to the bill, even though it may have authority to report
legislation of a different character.
I call the attention of the chairman to a specific ruling by Speaker
Clark when this very question was up for consideration, in which the
Speaker upheld the contention of those protesting against the
innovation attempted here. The point was contested by Messrs. Sherley,
Fitzgerald, and myself, and also on the other side in support by Mr.
Crisp. The bill under consideration then was a Post Office
appropriation bill in which the Committee on the Post Office and Post
Roads had brought into the House substantive legislation amending three
sections of the criminal code. When the bill came back into the House
the gentleman from California, Mr. Randall, offered a motion to
recommit that had relation to other sections of the criminal code but
did not have any direct relation to the provision on which he sought to
hang his amendment.
The section of the criminal code that was amended and a part of the
bill under consideration was section 215. That related exclusively to
preventing the use of the mails for fraud. Mr. Randall offered an
amendment to forbid the use of the mail by the sending of literature
relating to liquor of any kind or any kind of advertisement relating to
the sale of liquor. Although that amendment would have been in order to
another section of the criminal code, but which, however, was not
attempted to be reviewed and was not under consideration by the House
in the amendments reported by the Committee on the Post Office and Post
Roads, after elaborate argument by Messrs. Fitzgerald, Sherley, Crisp,
and myself, the Speaker held that it was not germane to the subject
matter under consideration.
Mr. Chairman, if we are going to indulge in this practice that when
the committee brings in a bill amending say, two sections of a law that
comprises 20 or 30 sections, that because there is an amendment of two
sections it opens up for consideration every section in the original
law, amendments to other sections which have no relation to the section
attempted to be amended by the bill presented by the committee, then we
put behind us that safeguard and protection which is necessary in
legislation--that before legislation is considered in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union it must first be considered
by a committee of the House.
After further debate the Chairman \1\ said:
It is always difficult to lay down a general rule with respect to
admissibility of amendment which can be applied in every instance
without question of doubt or without exception. The Chair is of opinion
that, generally, it has been held that an amendment offered as a new
section must be germane to the preceding section, but the Chair thinks
that the rule is better stated by saying that the new section must be
germane to the bill at the place at which it is offered. The Chair
thinks that if the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts is in
order at all, it is in order at the place at which he offered it.
The next question that arises is whetter or not any amendment to
section 401 of the war risk insurance act, which is not amended by the
bill, as reported by the committee, is in order. The Chair confesses to
having a considerable degree of difficulty with that question. The
Chair does not think that the general rule can be laid down that where
several portions of a law are amended by a bill reported by a
committee, it is not in any case in order to amend another section of
the bill not included in the bill reported by the committee, nor does
the Chair think that the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, Chairman.
Sec. 2939
opposite rule can be laid down and rigidly applied in every instance.
The Chair thinks that a question of this kind must be determined in
every instance in the light of the facts which are presented in the
case.
In the particular case under consideration it appears that the
committee has reported a bill which amends several sections of Title IV
of the bill in various particulars. The Chair does not feel that he can
hold that no amendment to a section not dealt with by the committee is
in order. The question, therefore, comes down to whether or not the
particular amendment proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts is
germane to section 401, if any amendment to that section is permitted.
The Chair thinks that the amendment proposed is clearly germane to
that section, and the Chair thinks that the general character of the
amendments proposed by the committee to various sections of Title IV is
such that it is in order to amend section 401 in a germane way, even
though that particular section is not dealt with by the committee or by
the bill. The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.
2939. A proposed amendment to existing law so comprehensive in its
effect upon the law as to practically repeal it was held to admit as
germane amendments providing an entirely different method for
performing the functions of the original law.
A Senate amendment under consideration in the House is treated for
purposes of amendment as an original bill.
On May 3, 1922,\1\ the House resumed consideration of Senate
amendments to the District of Columbia appropriation bill with a point
of order pending against an amendment offered on the preceding day to
Senate amendment No. 1.
The Senate amendment proposed to substitute for the current method of
taxation in the District of Columbia, known as the ``half and half''
plan, under which half of the expenses of the District was paid by the
District and half by the Federal government, a new system under which
all expenses of the District would be paid from the Treasury.
The pending amendment proposed by Mr. Charles R. Davis, of Minnesota,
by way of a motion to recede and concur and against which a point of
order had been lodged by Mr. R. Watson Moore, of Virginia, established
a new fiscal system for the District and provided a new ratio in the
propositions to be paid by the District and the Federal government.
After further debate on the amendment the Speaker \2\ ruled:
This question has occasioned the Chair considerable difficulty in
coming to a decision, for there are very strong arguments on both
sides, as has been illustrated to the Members who have listened to the
debate.
The Chair appreciates what has just been said, that if the Senate
puts on a legislative provision it may prevent the legislative
committee of the House from considering the proposition, and therefore
is not the proper way to have it brought up. But, after all, that can
not be prevented. That is still in the control of the House. If the
House does not like that method of legislating, it may simply refuse to
agree to the Senate amendment. But, after all, the Senate has a right
to put on a legislative amendment if it desires, just as the House has
that right, and when such a legislative amendment comes over to the
House from the Senate the House is obliged to consider it, and it is
just as properly before the House as if it had been reported from the
House legislative committee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6274.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 2940
It seems to the Chair that some of the arguments which have been
presented as to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
to the Senate amendment have been a little confused, because it has
been referred to as action by the conferees. It is not action by the
conferees. It is a motion made by the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr.
Davis, as a Member of the House. Any other Member of the House might
offer the amendment. Of course, the gentleman from Minnesota, being the
chairman of the subcommittee, would have the first right to
recognition; but the Senate amendment, being before the House, is
subject to amendment by any Member of the House. There were two grounds
stated for this point of order, first, that it was legislation, and,
second, that it was not germane. The first point has not been insisted
upon, and, of course, could not be, for there is no question that the
whole Senate amendment is legislation. It is practically nothing but
legislation. In fact, curiously enough, the Senate seems to have been
so absorbed by the fact that it was legislation that it forgot to put
on the appropriating clause. So that the Senate amendment is clearly
legislation, and legislation of a very broad and sweeping character. It
entirely changes the system under which taxation and appropriations in
the District of Columbia have been made. It has always been on a
proportional basis--half and half or some other ratio. This Senate
amendment simply says at the outset that all expenses shall be paid out
of the Treasury of the United States, and then it goes on to provide
the details. That is a radical change, and, of course, it is
legislation. Now, the Senate amendment comes before the House as an
amendment to the first section of the House appropriation bill and it
strikes out all of the House provision, and therefore, is a substitute.
It seems to the Chair that this being a substitute and the matter being
in the stage of disagreement any amendment can be offered which is
germane either to this substitute or to the original House proposition,
because it would be natural that a substitute should be offered which
would bring the two House together, which would harmonize the two,
which might contain part that was in one and part that was in the
other, and yet the part that was in the original House bill might not
be at all germane to the Senate amendment. But it seems to the Chair
that it could hardly be argued that such an amendment was not germane,
because the most natural amendment would be one tending to harmonize
the provisions of the House and the provisions of the Senate and
containing part of one and part of the other. Therefore, it seems to
the Chair that, this being a substitute, anything is germane, and
therefore in order, which is germane to either the original House
section or to the Senate amendment.
The question remains, Is this amendment offered by the gentleman from
Minnesota a germane amendment? The Chair having considered it overnight
confesses that the has had considerable difficulty. There are
provisions in this amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
which do not directly touch anything detailed in the Senate amendment.
But the Chair has come to the conclusion that the Senate amendment is a
complete and sweeping revision of existing law. It covers the whole
field of relationship between the District and the Government in the
affairs of taxation and expenditures. It practically repeals the
existing law and establishes a new basis and a new system. In doing
that the question arises whether only amendments can be offered which
are directly applicable to the specific provisions which are detailed
in the Senate amendment, or is the whole field so open that amendments
can be offered which, although not specifically mentioned in the Senate
amendment, apply to the changes made by the Senate amendment and are
incidental to its whole subject and purpose. It seems to the Chair that
the amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota contains such provisions
only; that they are fairly incidental to the expressed purpose of the
Senate amendment, and that the House has a right by amendment to adopt
such incidental changes. The Chair therefore rules that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota is germane and in order.
2940. To a bill reenacting in modified form an existing law, an
amendment proposing further modification of the law proposing to be
reenacted was held to be germane.
Sec. 2941
On June 10, 1921,\1\ the House was in the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union considering the bill (H. R. 6611) to
establish a veterans' bureau.
The Clerk read a section of the bill proposing to reenact with
amendments section 210 of the war risk insurance act.
Mr. Eugene Black, of Texas, offered an amendment proposing additional
modification of section 210 of the war risk insurance act proposed to
be reenacted.
Mr. Richard Wayne Parker, of New Jersey, made the point of order that
additional modification of the section of existing law was not germane
to the pending bill.
After debate the Chairman \2\ held:
The Chair is quite willing to confess that he has had a good deal of
difficulty in arriving at a general conclusion with respect to which
the proposed bill opens up the war risk insurance act for amendment
offered from the floor. The section under consideration amends section
210 of the war risk act, which section deals with the administration of
family allowances. The Chair thinks it would be rather an arbitrary
ruling to hold that where the committee has reported an amendment to a
section in a law no amendment can be considered to that section except
an amendment to the amendment proposed by the committee. The Chair is
of the opinion that where the committee proposes an amendment to a
section of the law in the nature of a substitute an amendment which is
germane to that section of the law and the amendment of the committee
is in order. The chair thinks that the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas is germane to the section of the law under
consideration and the amendment proposed by the committee, and the
Chair therefore overrules the point of order.
2941. An act continuing and reenacting an existing law is subject to
amendment modifying the provisions of the law carried in the act.\3\
The committee, overruling the decision of the Chair, held that an
amendment germane to an existing law is germane to a bill proposing its
reenactment.
On March 12, 1928,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the bill (S. 2317) continuing for one year
the power and authority of the Federal Radio Commission under the radio
act of 1927, when a committee amendment was read proposing modification
of the provisions of the law sought to be continued.
Mr. Frederik R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane to the bill because it referred to the
provisions of the law proposed for reenactment rather than to the terms
of the bill before the committee.
Mr. Wallace H. White, jr., of Maine, opposed the point of order and
explained:
The first section of this bill provides that all the powers and all
the authority vested in the Federal Radio Commission by the act of 1927
shall be vested in and exercised by the commission until March 16,
1929. It proposes in that language to extend for the period of another
year each and every one of the powers vested by the 1927 law in the
Radio Commission, and it does that by
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2398.
\2\ Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, Chairman.
\3\ Overruling sec. 5806 of Hinds' Precedents.
\4\ First session, Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 4585.
Sec. 2941
the general language as fully and effectually as though the portion of
the 1927 law were set out seriatim.
Now, paragraph 2 of section 9 of the 1927 law, one of the powers
which, if it were not for this amendment, would be extended by that
general language, is that the commission shall make such distribution
of wave lengths, licenses, power, and periods of time for operation
among the States and among the communities thereof as shall work out
equitable service to those States and to those communities.
That proposition is before us by the general language with which this
act starts. It is as fully and completely before us as though recited
word for word and letter for letter. This amendment to which the point
of order is directed seeks to amend that specific section and that
specific paragraph. It seems to me it is clearly germane, clearly
within the authority of the House and the committee to deal with that
specific power when we undertake to deal with all the powers.
Mr. Lehlbach argued:
Is it germane? Fortunately, the Senate bill is short and we can
examine it with a good deal of particularity. The radio act of 1927
covered the field of radio and laid down permanent substantive law in
accordance with which radio activities were to be governed and
regulated, and it provided for an authority to carry out that permanent
and substantive law. Certain of the functions of the commission created
by that act to carry out some of these functions and to put into
operation this permanent substantive law by limitation would expire on
the 15th of March next. The Senate passed this legislation for what
purpose? In section 1 it provides that the power and authority vested
in the Federal Radio Commission should continue until March 16, 1929,
and that is all that section 1 does. It does not in the slightest
particle alter the substantive permanent law that is written into the
radio act of 1927. Section 2 provides that these commissioners shall
continue to receive a salary at the rate of $10,000 a year while they
continue to exercise these functions. It does not in the slightest
particular touch the permanent substantive law written in the act of
1927. Section 3 provides that this commission during its functioning
and for a few months thereafter, until January 1, 1930, shall not issue
licenses under the act for more than six months and one year. It does
not in any way alter the permanent substantive law with respect to the
length of time for which licenses should be issued but merely restricts
the functioning for a short period of time and leaves the law
unchanged. That is all there is here. How an amendment that radically
and vitally changes the substantive law on the subject of radio can be
germane to such a proposition is more than I can see.
Mr. Lehlbach then cited section 5806 of Hinds' Precedents in support
of his position.
Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, answered:
When I was informed that there would be a point of order interposed
to the committee amendment, I made an examination of the precedents,
and, of course, I found there, as one of the first, the case which the
gentleman from New Jersey has cited, section 5806 of Hinds' Precedent.
I will say very frankly that when I came in to analyze that decision
and to analyze this situation more carefully than was done in a casual
reading it occurred to me that it was a precedent that might be
decisive of the question. But upon the examination of the Congressional
Record itself and a reading of the precise thing that was in the
resolution reported by the gentleman from Wisconsin I came to the
conclusion that the case at bar can be clearly differentiated from the
one which existed there. I have before me the Congressional Record of
April 24, 1900, and I should like to read the resolution which had
passed the Senate, and which was reported by the Committee on Insular
Affairs and presented by the gentleman from Wisconsin. I read:
``That until the officer to fill any office provided for by the act
of April 12, 1900, entitled `An act temporarily to provide revenues and
a civil government for Porto Rico, and for other purposes,' shall have
been appointed and qualified, the officer or officers now performing
the civil duties pertaining to such office may continue to perform the
same under the authority of said act; and no officer of the Army shall
lose his commission by reason thereof: Provided, That nothing herein
Sec. 2941
contained shall be held to extend the time for appointment and
qualification of any such officers beyond the 1st day of August,
1900.''
Now, to that the House committee adopted certain amendments, which
fell before the point of order, or rather would have fallen before the
point of order but for the fact that later on the Speaker held that the
point of order came too late.
Those amendments that were proposed by the committee I shall not
read, but there were two of them, and they went into section 32 of the
act apparently passed in that session of Congress, and undertook to
amend that section 32 by a very elaborate provision touching the
question of franchise to be granted in Porto Rico.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have before me the radio act of 1927 and I
desire to read section 9 thereof, which is very brief and which it is
proposed to amend here. I read:
``Sec. 9. the licensing authority, if public convenience, interest,
or necessity will be served thereby, subject to the limitations of this
act, shall grant to any applicant therefor a station license provided
for by this act.
``In considering applications for licenses and renewals of licenses
when and in so far as there is a demand for the same, the licensing
authority shall make such a distribution of licenses, bands of
frequency of wave lengths, periods of time for operation, and of power
among the different States and communities as to give fair, efficient,
and equitable radio service to each of the same.
``No license granted for the operation of a broadcasting station
shall be for a longer term than three years and no license so granted
for any other class of station shall be for a longer term than five
years, and any license granted may be revoked as hereinafter provided.
Upon the expiration of any license, upon application therefor, a
renewal of such license may be granted from time to time for a term not
to exceed three years in the case of broadcasting licenses and not to
exceed five years in the case of other licenses.
``No renewal of an existing station shall be granted more than 30
days prior to the expiration of the original license.''
That is all of section 9.
Now, Mr. Chairman, Senate bill 2317, the bill before the Committee of
the Whole, is not merely an extension of the time of the Radio
Commission. It contains positive, substantive matters of law changing
the existing law which I have just read to the Chair. In the first
place, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Maine, in the very
first section of the act there is the general extension of all powers
and authority vested in the Federal Radio Commission, including its
authority to issue licenses. But go to section 3 of the Senate bill.
There you find your modification and there you find legislation
entirely new in character changing the third paragraph of section 9 of
the law. This proposal changes the time which was there fixed and makes
what the gentleman from new Jersey is pleased to designate as
substantive, positive law.
Now, section 9 is being amended to a material respect, a very
material respect. The committee comes with a proposal to further amend
section 9, but not bringing in some new law, as was proposed to be done
by the Committee on Insular Affairs back in 1900, when they attached
extraneous matter to a simple resolution extending the time for the
appointment of certain officers in Porto Rico.
We have in section 3 of the Senate bill a change of existing law--law
asserted in section 9 of the original radio act. The committee simply
proposes to go further and by an amendment amend another clause of the
very same section brought before the House by the Senate bill both of
them embraced in the authority and the power of the Radio Commission,
which by the terms of the first section of the act is being extended in
this measure.
Now, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that unquestionably when we come
to examine the language of the law, the language of the proposed act,
we can differentiate from both the cases that are laid down in the
precedents, one of which has been cited by the gentleman from New
Jersey and the other of which was quoted in that same decision rendered
by Mr. Speaker Henderson in 1900.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that the committee
amendment is germane and is in order.
Sec. 2941
Mr. Charles R. Crisp, of Georgia, also dissented from the rule laid
down in the Precedents:
Mr. Chairman, I am familiar with the decision in which it was held by
Speaker Henderson that you could make a point of order against an
amendment added to a Senate bill by a House committee.
I think the Chair could render the House a service by overruling this
decision, for I do not believe the decision is well founded. What is
the object in parliamentary law of requiring that proposed amendments
be germane? It is to keep the House from being taken by surprise in
voting upon an amendment that has not been considered or digested or
reported by a committee of the House. The natural presumption is that
the committees of this House, whose members are intelligent men and
good legislators, would not report an amendment to a bill which they
were considering that did not relate, that was not relevant, that was
not germane to the matter they were considering.
Now, what does this Senate bill do, Mr. Chairman? This Senate bill
reenacts the radio control bill; and the body of the bill itself
expressly says that all powers conferred on the Radio Commission by the
original act are continued, with certain changes and limitations, and
the Senate limits it and changes section 9, dealing with the issuing of
licenses. The Senate bill itself, in section 3, in dealing with the
issuing of licenses for radio and the permits which were issued under
the original act, reduces and cuts down the time from three years and
five years to one year and six months. This is a substantive change.
The House committee proposed an amendment still further reducing the
time for which licenses may be granted.
Under the facts in this case this amendment, dealing with a bill
extending all the powers and all the provisions of the radio act is the
same as if every one of those sections was enumerated in the bill. The
amendment is unquestionably germane to the bill, and in my opinion
there is no merit in the point or order.
The Chairman \1\ decided:
The Chair was advised that this point of order would be made, and
therefore gave considerable study to it prior to the consideration this
afternoon. The Chair realizes the importance of the issue, so far as
the merits of the question before the committee are concerned, and has
attempted to divest himself of any interest in that question in the
determination of the point of order.
The bill, S. 2317, as it came from the Senate, read as follows:
``An act continuing for one year the powers and authority of the
Federal Radio Commission under the
radio act of 1927, and for other purposes.
``Be it enacted, etc., That all the powers and authority vested in
the Federal Radio commission by the radio act of 1927, approved
February 23, 1927, shall continue to be vested in and exercised by the
commission until March 16, 1929; and wherever any reference is made in
such act to the period of one year after the first meeting of the
commission, such reference shall be held to mean the period of two
years after the first meeting of the commission.
``Sec. 2. The period during which the members of the commission shall
receive compensation at the rate of $10,000 per annum is hereby
extended until March 16, 1929.
``Sec. 3. Prior to January 1, 1930, the licensing authority shall
grant no license or renewal of license under the radio act of 1927 for
a broadcasting station for a period to exceed six months and no license
or renewal of license for any other class of station for a period to
exceed one year.
``Sec. 4. The term of office of each member of the commission shall
expire on February 23, 1929, and thereafter commissioners shall be
appointed for terms of 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 years, respectively, as
provided in the radio act 1927.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 2941
The committee amendment, as to which a point of order has been made,
reads as follows:
``Sec. 4. The second paragraph of section 9 of the radio act of 1927
is amended to read as follows:
`` `The licensing authority shall make an equal allocation to each of
the five zones established in section 2 of this act of broadcasting
licenses, of wave lengths, and of station power; and within each zone
shall make a fair and equitable allocation among the different States
therefor in proportion to population and area.' ''
The Senate bill amended in certain particulars the radio act of 1927,
which the Chair has before him. The Chair believes it in point to
consider the structure and contents of that law. It is a large
enactment, covering 15 pages of the usual public law print, and
contains over 10,000 words. It relates to a large number of subjects in
connection with ``the regulation of radio communications.'' The first
section states the general purposes of the act. The second section
creates the five zones into which the country is divided for the
purposes of the act. The third section establishes the Federal Radio
Commission. The fourth section states the authority of that commission.
The fifth section provides for the transfer after the expiration of one
year of a large part of the authority granted to the commission to the
Secretary of Commerce. The law then contains numerous provisions
regarding radio stations owned by the United States and provides for
the use of private radio stations and facilities by the Government in
time of emergency. Then follow a number of sections relating to the
granting of licenses, beginning with section 9 and running through
sections 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, all of them relating to the matter of
granting licenses, not only to broadcasting stations but to other
stations. Section 15 relates to the matter of violations of law as to
unlawful restraints and monopolies. Section 16 relates to appeals to
the courts by persons dissatisfied with the action of the commission or
of the Secretary of Commerce. Thus, throughout the bill a large number
of subjects are treated, all relating to the general subject of radio
communication and the control of radio operations and facilities by the
Federal Government, including prosecutions and penalties for violations
of the act. It will be seen, therefore, that the pending bill affects
only a very small portion of the radio act of 1927 and can not be said
to be a general revision of that act.
There are two main questions involved here, one of which has been
raised only incidentally by the suggestion of the gentleman from
Georgia, that in his opinion it would be well if there would be a
reversal of the decisions heretofore made with reference to the rules
applicable to committee amendments, as affecting perhaps particularly
amendments to Senate bills. Of course, the present occupant of the
chair would not feel warranted in overruling a rather long line of
decisions by very distinguished Chairmen and Speakers. The Chair thinks
that it is clear that a committee amendment is subject to the same
rules with respect to germaneness and all other limitations as are
amendments proposed on the floor.
The gentleman from Tennessee made reference to the precedent in
Hinds' Precedents, volume 5, paragraph 5806, page 411, where the
introductory paragraphs read as follows:
``To a bill amendatory of an existing law as to one specific
particular an amendment relating to the terms of the law rather than to
those of the bill was held not to be germane.
``The rule that amendments shall be germane applies to amendments
reported by committees.''
It was the case in which the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Cooper,
offered amendments on behalf of the Committee on Insular Affairs to the
law relating to the government of Porto Rico. As the Chair understood
it, the gentleman from Tennessee said that at first he was quite
impressed with the force of this precedent as applicable to the instant
case. The Chair is quite impressed with the force of this precedent,
and wishes to call attention to the very close similarity of the case
now before the committee and that which then arose. It was on April 24,
1900, and the Chair now refers to the Congressional Record, volume 33,
part 1, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, page 4613. The gentleman
from Wisconsin obtained consent for the consideration of Senate Joint
Resolution 116, entitled:
``Joint resolution to provide for the administration of civil affairs
in Porto Rico pending the appointment and qualification of the civil
officers provided for in the act approved April 12, 1900,
Sec. 2941
entitled `Act act temporarily to provide revenues and a civil
government for Porto Rico, and for other purposes.' ''
The act itself provided as follows:
``That until the officer to fill any office provided for by the act
of April 12, 1900, entitled `An act temporarily to provide revenues and
a civil government for Porto Rico, and for other purposes,' shall have
been appointed and qualified, the officer or officers now performing
the civil duties pertaining to such office may continue to perform the
same under the authority of said act; and no officer of the Army shall
lose his commission by reason thereof: Provided, That nothing herein
contained shall be held to extend the time for appointment and
qualification of any such officers beyond the 1st day of August,
1900.''
It will be noted that here was a provision for the continuation of a
system of government in Porto Rico, with a limitation as to when that
system of government should expire, just as in the pending bill there
is a provision for a continuation of the work and authority of the
Radio Commission within the limit of the period of one year. Neither
the Porto Rican act nor the present bill, as passed by the Senate,
changed the permanent provisions of the laws whose operations were thus
temporarily extended.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, on behalf of the Committee on Insular
Affairs, offered two amendments relative to certain ``franchises,
privileges, and concessions,'' as to the granting and effect of which
various preliminary requirements and restrictions were proposed, and
subsequently the question arose as to the germaneness of those
amendments.
The question raised here in debate was as to whether the original law
which was then being extended in time of operation contained anything
with reference to the very franchises, and so forth, to which the
amendments referred. On that question the Chair will say that the
amendments were specifically directed to section 32 of the act, which
was then in question, and which read as follows:
``Sec. 32. That the legislative authority herein provided shall
extend to all matters of a legislative character, not locally
inapplicable, including power to create, consolidate, and reorganize
the municipalities, so far as may be necessary, and to provide and
repeal laws and ordinances therefor; and also the power to alter,
amend, modify, and repeal any and all laws and ordinances of every
character now in force in Porto Rico, or any municipality or district
thereof, not inconsistent with the provisions hereof: Provided,
however, That all grants of franchises, rights, and privileges or
concessions of a public or quasi-public nature shall be made by the
executive council, with the approval of the governor, and all
franchises granted in Porto Rico shall be reported to Congress, which
hereby reserves the power to annul or modify the same.''
So that in the act, which was amended by the Senate bill providing
for the temporary continuance in office of certain officers, there was
actually contained a provision with reference to the franchises,
privileges, and concessions to which the amendments offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin, on behalf of the Insular Affairs Committee,
related, and still the Speaker held that the amendments were not
germane.
The case referred to, in this decision, is discussed on page 412 of
Hinds' Precedents, Volume V, section 5807, where a Senate bill (S.
4814) was before the House, which was entitled ``An act to amend an act
to forfeit certain lands heretofore granted for the purpose of aiding
in the construction of railroads, and for other purposes.'' To this
bill Mr. Thomas H. Carter, of Montana, moved an amendment providing for
a method of classification to determine the mineral or nonmineral
character of lands selected by railroads. The Speaker (Mr. Thomas B.
Reed, of Maine) sustained the point of order in the following language,
which shows the similarity of that case to the one now pending:
``The Chair can only consider, in determining the question, whether
the amendment be germane to the bill before the House and the
proposition therein contained. The pending bill relates solely to the
time when a period named in the original act shall begin to run. The
amendment proposed relates to a reclassification of lands, a subject so
remote from that of the bill that it can be justified only by a claim
that any amendment germane to this act proposed to be altered would be
germane to this bill. But the very claim is its own answer. The test
must be the bill before the House, for that is the bill which is to be
amended.''
Sec. 2941
On March 9, 1898, the House was in Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union considering Senate amendments to an Indian
appropriation bill. One of those amendments read as follows:
``That the time fixed for the Indian appropriation act approved June
7, 1897, for opening for location and entry, under all land laws of the
United States, the lands of the Uncompahgre Indian Reservation in Utah,
under the limitations and exceptions as therein provided, is hereby
extended six months from the 1st day of April, 1898.''
To this amendment Mr. James S. Sherman, of New York, offered an
amendment, which provided, in substance, that the Secretary of the
Interior should be authorized to lease the said reserved lands
containing minerals upon such terms and conditions as to royalties,
length of leases, assignments of the leases, and other ``regulations
and limitations,'' as the Secretary of the Interior might determine.
Mr. King, of Utah, interposed a point of order, claiming, among other
objections, that the Sherman amendment was not germane to the Senate
amendment then under consideration.
The Chairman, Mr. Hepburn, of Iowa, sustained the point of order that
the Sherman amendment was not germane.
Reference has been made, in debate, to the decision of Mr. Speaker
Cannon on February 11, 1905, when the Committee on Naval Affairs, under
a special order of the House permitting the consideration, on that day,
of certain private bills, by a substitute for a bill not in the
privileged classes, under the order, sought to bring the bill within
the special order. Mr. Speaker Cannon then said (Hinds' Precedents,
Vol. VI, sec. 4623, p. 954):
``The substitute is a mere proposition of no higher grade than an
amendment that might be offered by any Member. * * * The amendment can
have no status and if it gets consideration at all it gets
consideration by virtue of the bill which was referred to the Committee
on Naval Affairs and reported back.''
Thus, in the case now before the committee, the amendments
recommended to the Senate bill by the Committee on the Merchant Marine
and Fisheries have no advantageous position on the question of
germaneness, notwithstanding that committee has jurisdiction of the
subject matter and the Senate bill was refereed to it. The amendments
must survive the same test as would amendments offered on the floor of
the Committee of the Whole or of the House. What, then, is that test?
The rule was never better stated than by the distinguished gentleman
from Tennessee, Mr. Garrett, when he said on September 19, 1918, as
reported in the advance sheets of Cannon's Precedents, in section 2911,
that--``the meaning of the expression `germaneness' ''--
(In the case then before him) was--``that the fundamental purpose of
the amendment must be germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill.''
The latest decision on a question of this sort was made in an
admirable opinion by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Lehlbach, on
the 8th of this month, which occurs on pages 4486-4488 of the current
Congressional Record.\1\ That decision was sustained by the Committee
of the Whole by the vote of 207 ayes to 33 noes.
That decision is almost on all fours with the pending question. What
is the fundamental purpose of this Senate bill 2317? Who will say that
it has any other purpose than to extend for another year the operation
and the work of the Radio Commission which, under the radio act of
1927, was limited to one year?
Section 1 does it in about the same language as is employed in the
other bills which have been heretofore quoted. Section 2 continues the
salaries of the commissioners for this same work for another year.
Section 3 makes an incidental provision with reference to limiting
licenses during this enlargement of the activities of the Radio
Commission, and section 4, which the House committee struck out but
which must be considered in this connection was also a part of the
general scheme for continuing the life of the commission for more year
along the same lines and with the same powers and for the same purposes
as were contained in the original radio act of 1927, when the
commission was granted certain powers for one year only. Nowhere in the
original
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sec. 2995 of this work.
Sec. 2942
Senate bill is there any permanent fundamental change in the wide range
of the substantive provisions of the radio act of 1927, to which the
Senate bill is an amendment.
The amendment proposed by the House committee, which is now
designated as section 4, relates to an entirely different subject. It
provides for the permanent territorial distribution and allocation of
broadcasting licenses, in respect of wave lengths and of station power,
among the five zones created by the radio act of 1927, and to the
distribution and allocation of such broadcasting licenses, not all
licenses, but broadcasting licenses only, among the different States in
proportion to population and area.
It seems clear to the Chair that the fundamental purpose, in fact,
the sole object of the Senate bill is the temporary extension of the
jurisdiction of the commission and that the other matters which are
inserted by the Senate bill are merely incidental thereto. If that is
so, then section 4 is not germane, because it relates to an entirely
different subject matter.
The Chair therefore sustains the point of order that the committee
amendment, designated as section 4, is not germane to the Senate bill.
Mr. Crisp, appealing from the decision of the Chair, submitted:
The fundamental purpose of this bill is not to continue the life of
the commission but it is to continue this Radio Commission with all of
its powers, including the power for 12 months of continue to issue
licenses. The Senate bill not only extended all the powers for 12
months but it extended them with certain limitations. The Senate bill
amended section 9 of the original radio act by saying that this
commission, with its life extended, could only grant licenses for one
year and six months, instead of five and three years, and the House
committee still further amended it by striking out the one and three
years and putting in three months and six months.
Mr. Lehlbach submitted in rebuttal:
The gentleman stated correctly that the Senate bill was for the
purpose of extending the powers and authority of the Radio Commission
for 12 months with certain limitations. If section 4 were a limitation
upon the powers and authority of the Radio Commission during the period
for which their powers and authority are extended, it would be in
order, but it does not refer to the functioning of the Radio Commission
for the next 12 months. If changes, until amended, for all time the
basic law with respect to radio, no matter who exercises the function.
Consequently, it is in no sense germane.
The question being put on the appeal and the committee having
divided, tellers reported yeas 140, nays 168, and the decision of the
Chair was not sustained as the judgment of the committee.
2942. To a bill amending a law in several particulars an amendment
proposing modification in another particular was held to be germane.
On September 10, 1919,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 9065) proposing
modification of several sections of the Federal far loan act.
Mr. Melvin O. McLaughlin, of Nebraska, offered an amendment proposing
modification of a section of the law unprovided for in the pending
bill.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
Mr. Otis Wingo, of Arkansas, said:
Mr. Chairman, while I am opposed to this amendment, there is no
question that the proposed amendment is in order. It proposes to change
the figures of the original act. This bill proposes amendments to
several sections of the act.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 5204.
Sec. 2943
The Chairman \1\ affirmed:
It is clear to the Chair that the gentleman from Arkansas has stated
the effect of this amendment; and, if that be correct, the amendment is
certainly in order, and the Chair overrules the point of order. The
gentleman from Nebraska.
On September 12,\2\ when the same bill was again under consideration
in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, Mr.
Daniel A. Reed, of New York, proposed a further amendment of the
original act not provided for in the pending bill.
Mr. Burton E. Sweet, of Iowa, raised the question of order that the
proposed amendment was not germane to the bill.
The Chairman ruled:
It is well established by precedents that where it is proposed in a
bill to amend an act in a number of its sections, an amendment to amend
another section of the act is in order. A number of cases have occurred
in the consideration of this bill where amendments have been offered
which were not germane to any section included in the present bill but
were clearly germane to sections in the original law. It seems clear to
the Chair that this amendment is germane to a section of the original
law, which under the precedents may be repealed or amended in this
bill. The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.
2943. To a bill to modify a section of an existing law an amendment
proposing to repeal a portion of the section sought to be modified was
held to be germane.
On February 1, 1928,\3\ the House ordered to a third reading the bill
(H. R. 6491) to amend section 8 of the act entitled ``An act to
supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies and
for other purposes,'' approved October 15, 1914, as amended.
Thereupon Mr. T. Alan Goldsborough, of Maryland, moved to recommit
the bill to the Committee on Banking and Currency with instructions to
report it back forthwith with the following amendment:
Strike out all of the language after the enacting clause and insert
in lieu of the matter striken out the following language: ``That the
last proviso of the second paragraph of section 8 of the act entitled
`An act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and
monopolies, and for other purposes,' approved October 15, 1914, as
amended is hereby repealed.''
Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
the amendment proposed in the motion to recommit was not germane.
The Speaker,\4\ after ascertaining that the amendment proposed to
repeal only the provisions of the law which the pending bill sought to
amend, overruled the point of order and put the question on the motion
to recommit.
2944. Although a bill amending a general law in several particulars
is presumed to admit as germane an amendment providing for the repeal
of the whole law, in an instance wherein the modifications proposed by
the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
\2\ Record, p. 5311.
\3\ First session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 2339.
\4\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
Sec. 2944
pending bill did not vitally affect the entire law, an amendment
providing for repeal was held not to be germane.
On June 17, 1919,\1\ Mr. James W. Good, of Iowa, called upon the
conference report on the third deficiency appropriation bill, reporting
agreement on all votes in disagreement except on Senate amendment No.
21, directing the Secretary of the Treasury to acquire and complete a
hospital in Cook County, Illinois.
The conference report was agreed to, and the Senate amendment
remaining in disagreement was reported, when Mr. Good moved to recede
from disagreement and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment
repealing the entire law authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to
build such hospitals of which the Senate amendment was amendatory.
Mr. Alben W. Barkley, of Kentucky, raised the question of order that
the amendment proposing the repeal of the law was not germane.
Debate on the point of order having occupied the remainder of the
day, the Speaker \2\ took the question of order under advisement and
the House adjourned.
On the next day \3\ on which the business was again in order,
consideration of the Senate amendment having been resumed, the Speaker
said:
The point of order made by the gentleman from Kentucky is that the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa is not germane to the
Senate amendment. The rule on germaneness is very simple--
``No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
While the rule seems simple, of course the difficulty always lies in
deciding what is strictly the subject under consideration. In this
instance the original bill gave the Secretary of the Treasury power to
establish hospitals in several different places, and also other powers
in respect to hospitals. The Senate amendment compelled him to build
one of these hospitals, where before he simply was given authority to
build it. The gentleman from Iowa moves an amendment to the Senate
amendment to repeal the whole law which gave the Secretary the
discretion to build these hospitals. It seems very clear to the Chair
that if the only clause in the Senate amendment was to compel building
the Chicago hospital, then an amendment which repealed the whole law
giving the Secretary authority to build all these hospitals would not
be in order. Indeed, it would be questionable, under the precedents,
whether an amendment which forbade the Secretary to build the Chicago
hospital alone would be in order. That, at least, would be open to
debate, for although that in one sense is ``the subject under
consideration,'' yet it has been held, for instance, that a bill
authorizing the Court of Claims to adjudicate a claim can not be
amended to provide for payment of that same claim. The subject under
consideration was not simply the claim but the action to be taken
concerning the claim. And so it might be argued that to forbid the
Secretary of the Treasury to build one hospital is not germane to an
amendment which compelled him to build it. But the question here is
broader than that. The question here is, When an amendment orders the
Secretary to build the hospital, is it germane to repeal the whole law
under which the Secretary previously had power to build that hospital
and others? The Chair thinks it clearly would not be germane if that
was the only subject in the Senate amendment.
But in the Senate amendment there is another proposition which
applies to a different pay of the law to be amended. There is a clause
in the original law setting aside a special fund of $1,500,000 to
purchase land and buildings. That clause is amended by the Senate
amendment to authorize the Secretary not only to purchase buildings but
also to erect buildings. That, of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p.1231.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Record, p. 1393.
Sec. 2945
course, is a minor paragraph in the original law and this is a rather
insignificant amendment. Yet it is argued, and argued plausibly and
forcibly, that when more than one clause or section of a law is amended
that fact brings the whole law before the House, and an amendment would
then be in order to repeal the law. There is one notable precedent for
that, but the Chair thinks it is clearly distinguished from this. In
the case to which the Chair refers the amendments were numerous and
went to the heart of the bill, and changed the bill in a vital way. In
that case it was held that a motion to repeal the whole law was in
order, but it seems to the Chair that in the case before us the two
sections referred to by the Senate amendment are easily segregated from
the rest of the law, and that they do not affect the whole law, and
that a motion to repeal the whole law is not fairly germane to an
amendment which simply changes those two paragraphs. The Chair,
therefore, sustains the point of order.
2945. To a bill modifying existing law in a number of particulars an
amendment referring to the entire law is not necessarily germane.
On June 10, 1921,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 6611) to establish a
veterans' bureau.
This bill proposed the reenactment in modified form of a number of
sections of the war risk insurance act, but containing no reference to
the act as a whole.
Mr. Clay Stone Briggs, of Texas, offered the following amendment:
The provisions of this act, as well as those of the war risk
insurance act as amended, shall be liberally construed in favor of the
claimant within the class of beneficiaries entitled to relief under the
provisions of this act.
Mr. Everett Sanders, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \2\ ruled:
The amendment of the gentleman from Texas provides that the
provisions of this act, as well as the war risk insurance act as
amended, shall be liberally construed in favor of the claimant, and so
forth. The provision offered by the gentleman from Texas undertakes to
interpret not only the sections of the war risk insurance act as
amended but many sections of the war risk insurance act which are not
before the House now for amendment. The Chair thinks it is not in order
on this bill to amend sections or interpret sections of the war risk
act which are not before the House for amendment or interpretation.
Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.
2946. To a bill amending the Federal Reserve Act in a number of
particulars an amendment relating to the Federal Reserve Act but to no
portion provided for in the pending bill was held not to be germane.
On January 14, 1925,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 8887) to amend the
Federal reserve act and the national bank act.
Mr. W. A. Ayers, of Kansas, offered an amendment proposing
modification of a portion of the Federal reserve act not referred to in
the pending bill.
Mr. Carroll L. Beedy, of Maine, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
The Chairman \4\ held that the amendment was not germane to any
particular section of the pending bill and sustained the point of
order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2424.
\2\ Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 1833.
\4\ Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, Chairman.
Sec. 2947
2947. To a bill amendatory of an act in several particulars an
amendment proposing to modify the act but not related to the bill was
held not to be germane.
On May 14, 1924,\1\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 2169)
proposing to amend several sections of the national defense act, when
Mr. John J. McSwain, of South Carolina, offered an amendment proposing
to modify a section of the national defense act not referred to in the
pending bill.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, submitted that the amendment was not
germane either to the bill or to the pending section.
After a brief debate the Speaker \2\ ruled:
It does not seem to the Chair that this bill brings the whole
national defense act before the House. It only brings before the House
a very limited portion of it and not the portion affected by the
amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina. The Chair is
disposed to sustain the point of order. The point of order is
sustained.
2948. To a bill amendatory of one section of an existing law an
amendment proposing further modification of the law was held not be
germane.
On December 20, 1919,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 11224) to amend
section 1 of the act approved October 16, 1918, providing for
deportation of alien anarchists.
Mr. Benjamin F. Welty, of Ohio, offered an amendment proposing to add
to the existing law a new section to be known as section 4.
Mr. Albert Johnson, of Washington, made the point of order that the
amendment while germane to the existing law was not germane to the
pending bill.
After debate the Chairman \4\ sustained the point of order.
2949. To a bill amending a law in one particular an amendment
repealing the law is not germane.
To a bill amending a single feature of the war prohibition act an
amendment repealing the act was held not to be germane.
On July 14, 1919,\5\ during consideration in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union of the bill (H. R. 6810) the
prohibition enforcement bill, the Clerk read as follows:
That the term ``war prohibition act'' used in this act shall mean the
provisions of any act or acts prohibiting the sale and manufacture of
intoxicating liquors until the conclusion of the present war and
thereafter until the termination of demobilization, the date of which
shall be determined and proclaimed by the President of the United
States. The words ``beer, wine, or other intoxicating malt or vinous
liquors'' in the war prohibition act shall be construed to mean any
liquors which contain one-half of 1 per cent or more of alcohol by
volume.
To this paragraph Mr. William L. Igoe, of Missouri, proposed the
following amendment:
After the word ``States,'' strike out the remainder of the section
and insert the words ``and the same is hereby repealed.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 8554.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1000.
\4\ James W. Good, of Iowa, Chairman.
\5\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2555.
Sec. 2950
Mr. Andrew J. Volstead, of Minnesota, raised the question of order
that the amendment was not germane to the bill.
After debate the Chairman \1\ ruled:
The section reads as follows:
``That the term `war prohibition act' used in this act shall mean the
provisions of any act or acts prohibiting the sale and manufacture of
intoxicating liquors until the conclusion of the present war and
thereafter until the termination of demobilization, the date of which
shall be determined and proclaimed by the President of the United
States. The words `beer, wine, or other intoxicating malt or vinous
liquors' in the war prohibition act shall be construed to mean any
liquors which contain one-half of 1 per cent or more of alcohol by
volume.''
Under that section the gentleman from Missouri has offered the
following amendment:
``Page 2, line 1, after the word `States,' strike out the remainder
of the section and insert the words `and the same is hereby repealed.'
''
The part stricken out, according to this amendment, reads as follows:
``The words `beer, wine, or other intoxicating malt or vinous
liquors' in the war prohibition act shall be construed to mean any
liquors which contain one-half of 1 per cent or more of alcohol by
volume.''
The gentleman from Minnesota makes the point of order that this
amendment is not germane to the paragraph. It has been decided a number
of times by the House that to a bill amendatory of any existing law as
to one specific particular amendment relating to the terms of the law
rather than those of the bill are held not to be germane. I think that
is the well-decided opinion of the House and to that opinion I
understand the gentleman from Missouri does not object, but claims that
his amendment falls within the provision of the decision of this House
which was first made in 1902. I read from Hinds' Precedents, volume 5,
page 420, section 5824:
``To a bill amending a general law in several particulars an
amendment providing for the repeal of the whole law was held to be
germane.
It is the contention of the gentleman from Missouri that the bill
involves the war prohibition act in more than one particular, and
therefore is in order. The Chair has very carefully gone through this
bill, and is of the opinion that the language which reads: ``That the
term `war prohibition act' used in this act shall mean the provisions
of any act or acts prohibiting the sale and manufacture of intoxicating
liquors until the conclusion of the present war and thereafter until
the termination of demobilization, the date of which shall be
determined and proclaimed by the President of the United States'' does
not amend the war prohibition act. The Chair is of the opinion that the
bill amends the war prohibition act in only one particular, and that is
puts in an amendment commencing with the words in line 1, page 2,
reading as follows:
``The words `beer, wine, or other intoxicating or vinous liquors' in
the war prohibition act shall be construed to mean any liquors which
contain one-half of 1 per cent or more of alcohol by volume.''
That is the only amendment to the war prohibition act that the Chair
has been able to find which can be dignified by the term of an
amendment to the act, and the Chair therefore sustains the point of
order.
2950. To a proposition to extend for two years the operation of a
temporary act and declaring that conditions prompting its original
enactment still existed, an amendment germane to the existing act
sought to be extended was held to be germane.
On April 28, 1924,\2\ the bill (H. R. 7962) to regulate rents in the
District of Columbia was under consideration in the Committee of the
Whole House on the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James W. Good, of Iowa, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 7418.
Sec. 2951
state of the Union, when Mr. Florian Lampert, of Wisconsin, moved to
strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
That it is hereby declared that the emergency described in Title II
of the food control and the District rents act still exists and
continues in the District of Columbia and that the present housing and
rental conditions therein require the further extension of the
provisions of such title.
Sec. 2. That Title II of the food control and the District of
Colombia rents act, as amended, is reenacted, extended, and continued,
as hereinafter amended, until the 22d day of May, 1926, notwithstanding
the provisions of section 2 of the act entitled ``An act to extend for
the period of two years the provisions of Title II of the food control
and the District of Columbia rents act, approved October 22, 1919, as
amended, approved May 22, 1922, etc.
Mr. Henry L. Jost, of Missouri, proposed the following as a
substitute for the pending amendment:
It shall be unlawful for any corporation, firm, or individual owning,
managing, or controlling premises devoted to dwelling purposes and
offered for rental or rented to others for such purpose within the
District of Columbia after the passage of this act to charge or exact
therefor, either directly or indirectly, by any means, method, or
device whatsoever, for and during the period for which the same is
proposed to be or is rented, a rental in excess of an amount which,
calculated on the basis of 12 consecutive months, will produce and
yield the owner 12 per cent annually on the assessed value of said
property for the purpose of taxation, etc.
Mr. James T. Begg, of Ohio, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \1\ held:
Let the Chair make a suggestion to the gentleman from Ohio that may
bring the matter to a little closer issue, and that is that where it is
proposed to reenact a specific law and a resolution is introduced for
the purpose of extending the provisions of that act, is it in order
then as an amendment to such as act to make provisions that amend the
original act?
Now, the only proposition is whether the amendment as offered is a
proper amendment to the pending substitute. Chairman Burton, in
Committee of the Whole House on October 18, 1921, held that:
``To a bill extending the operation of a certain act, an amendment
excepting a certain portion of the act to be extended is germane.''
In other words, that on a proposition which has to do with the
reenactment or the prolongation of a pending act an amendment can be
offered which amends the language of the original act. This amendment
is germane to provisions of the present rent act. Aside from that, the
Lampert substitute does more than to merely extend the provisions of
the present law. It declares the continued existence of an emergency in
the District of Columbia. There might be some doubt on the subject if
this amendment did nothing but extend a certain act, but it does more
than that. That being true, the Chair thinks the gentleman's amendment
germane and the Chair overrules the point of order.
2951. An amendment proposing to add an individual proposition to a
bill embodying another individual proposition is not admissible even
though the two propositions belong to the same class.
To a bill providing insurance for crews of vessels an amendment
providing insurance for soldiers transported on such vessles was held
not to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ William J. Graham, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 2952
On June 2, 1917,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union resumed consideration of the bill (S. 2133) amending the war
risk insurance act, with the following paragraph pending:
The Bureau of War Risk Insurance, subject to the general direction of
the Secretary of the Treasury, shall, as soon as practicable, make
provisions for the insurance by the United States, as further provided
in section 3a, of masters, officers, and crews of American merchant
vessels against loss of life or personal injury by the risks of war,
and for compensation during detention following capture by enemies of
the United States whenever it shall appear to the Secretary that in any
trade the need for such insurance exists.
Mr. J. Willard Ragsdale, of South Carolina, offered this amendment:
After the word ``capture,'' insert: ``That the commanding officer of
each company of soldiers in the service of the United States Government
while being transported on the sea shall insure his officers and
soldiers on the same terms and in like amount as the officers and crews
of vessels.''
Mr. William C. Adamson, of Georgia, raised the question of order that
the proposed amendment was not germane.
The Chairman \2\ held:
The gentleman from Georgia makes a point of order against the
amendment. The bill among other things authorizes insurance against
loss of life and personal injury on account of war risks and so forth
on American merchant vessels. The amendment offered by the gentleman
from South Carolina proposes to include insurance for officers and
soldiers of the Army in like amount as the officers and crews of
merchant vessels. The chair thinks it is clear that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina is not germane to the
provision now under consideration. This is an individual proposition to
insure the lives of certain persons upon merchant vessels. It has been
held a number of times and there are a number of precedents to the
effect that it is not in order to amend one individual proposition by
another individual proposition, even though the two may belong to the
same class. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.
2952. It is not in order to propose to amend one individual
proposition by another individual proposition even though they be of
the same class.
To a proposition that the Secretary of War issue medals to personnel
of the Army an amendment proposing that Secretaries of other
departments issue similar medals to personnel of the Navy and Coast
Guard is not germane.
On March 19, 1928,\3\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 5789)
to authorize the award and supply of service medals to individual
soldiers as prescribed by Army Regulations for the rendition of certain
services, authorizing the Secretary of War to issue such medals.
Mr. J. Charles Linthicum, of Maryland, proposed an amendment to
authorize the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Treasury
to issue similar medals to the personnel of the Navy and the Coast
Guard, respectively.
Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 3252.
\2\ Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, Chairman.
\3\ First session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 5006; Journal, p.
1015.
Sec. 2953
The Speaker pro tempore \1\ sustained the point of order and said:
We have before us a proposition authorizing the Secretary of War to
do certain things. The gentleman from Maryland seeks to amend this
proposition by authorizing the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary
of the Treasury to do the same thing; in other words, the gentleman is
offering to amend an individual proposition by a general provision so
as to include several departments.
There is a long list of precedents which state that one individual
proposition may not be amended by another individual proposition even
though the two may belong to the same class, such as admitting a
Territory, an amendment providing for the admission of another
Territory is not in order; to a bill providing pensions for veterans of
the Indian wars, an amendment providing for pensions for veterans of
the Mexican War is not in order. Also, in section 9809 there is a
precedent exactly similar to the one pending, where to a bill for the
relief of dependents of men in the Regular Army, an amendment proposing
to extend the benefits of the act to dependents of men in the National
Guard and the Reserve Corps was held not to be germane. This decision
was afterwards upheld by Speaker Gillett.
The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
2953. To a proposition providing for a class, a proposition providing
for another related class is not germane.
To a bill for the relief of dependents of men in the Regular Army an
amendment proposing to extend the benefits of the act to dependents of
men in the National Guards and the Reserve Corps was held not to be
germane.
On December 3, 1919,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union had under consideration the bill (S. 2497) to provide six
months pay for dependents of men in the Regular Army dying of
disabilities incurred in the service.
Mr. Tom Connally, of Texas, proposed the following amendment:
After the word ``duty,'' insert ``or of the death from wounds or
disease not the result of his own misconduct, of any officer or
enlisted man in the National Guard or the Reserve Corps when in the
active Federal military service of the United States.''
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
After debate the Chairman sustained the point of order and said:
The bill under consideration is one to provide for the payment of
certain pay to the widow, children, or designated dependent relatives
of any officer or enlisted man of the Regular Army whose death resulted
from wounds or disease and not from his own misconduct. The amendment
offered by the gentleman from Texas would extend this same payment to
the widows and children and designated relatives of officers and
enlisted men of the National Guard or the Reserve Corps. Clearly the
amendment is subject to the point of order and is not germane to the
section, and the Chair sustains the point of order.
The bill having been reported to the House with favorable
recommendation and having been ordered to be engrossed and being read
the third time, Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, offered a motion to
recommit the bill to the Committee on Military Affairs with
instructions to report the same back forthwith with the amendment
previously proposed by Mr. Connally.
Mr. Mann again raised the question of order against the amendment
carried in the proposed motion to recommit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
\2\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 94.
Sec. 2954
The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order.
2954. To a provision authorizing distribution through the Red Cross
an amendment providing for distribution through the Salvation Army was
held not germane.
On March 3, 1932,\2\ the House resolved itself into the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the
joint resolution (S. J. Res. 110), authorizing the distribution of
Government wheat by the American Red Cross for the relief of distress.
The Clerk read in part:
Resolved, etc., That the Federal Farm Board is authorized and
directed to take such action as may be necessary to make available,
from time to time, to the American National Red Cross, or any other
organization designated by the American National Red Cross, wheat of
the Grain Stabilization Corporation, for use in providing food for the
needy and distressed people of the United States and Territories.
Mr. Louis Ludlow, of Indiana, offered this amendment:
After the word ``Cross,'' insert ``the Salvation Army.''
Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, having raised the question of
germaneness, the Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order.
2955. To a bill providing for the erection of a statue of General Von
Steuben an amendment substituting a proposition for the erection of a
statue of George Washington was held not to be germane.
On February 9, 1910,\4\ the House was considering the bill (H. R.
16222) providing for the erection of a statue of General Von Steuben to
be presented to the German Nation in return for the statue of Frederick
the Great presented by the German Emperor to the people of the United
States.
Mr. William Sulzer, of New York, proposed an amendment as follows:
Strike out the words ``Von Steuben'' and insert ``George
Washington.''
Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane.
The Speaker \5\ held:
The Chair sustains the point of order, as under the precedents it is
clearly not germane. The object of the bill is for the erection of a
replica of a statue of General Von Steuben. It is not a general bill to
erect a monument, but it is confined to a monument or a replica of
General Von Steuben.
2956. To a resolution providing a special order for the consideration
of one bill an amendment substituting another bill, even though
relating to the same subject, was held not to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\2\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 6216.
\3\ Schuyler Otis Bland, of Virginia, Chairman.
\4\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1655.
\5\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 2957
On February 17, 1923,\1\ Mr. Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, from the
Committee on Rules, reported the resolution (H. Res. 536) providing for
the consideration of the bill (H. R. 14041) to amend the Federal farm
loan act.
During debate it was explained that through inadvertence the
resolution designated H. R. 14041 although the intention had been to
provide for the consideration of H. R. 14270, which was a redraft of H.
R. 14041, and introduced under identical title.
Mr. Campbell, therefore, proposed to amend the resolution by striking
out ``H. R. 14041'' and inserting ``H. R. 14270.''
Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, raised a question of order against the
substitution.
The Speaker \2\ ruled:
The Chair thinks that it is not in order to amend a resolution naming
one bill by naming another bill. The Chair thinks the same result would
be accomplished by striking out the number entirely. Then it would be
designated by title.
2957. To a bill regulating the sale of friar lands in the Philippine
Islands an amendment including the Crown lands of the Philippine
Islands was held not to be germane.
On May 15, 1912,\3\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 17756)
to amend an act providing for the civil government on the Philippine
Islands and having particular reference to the disposition of the friar
lands of the islands.
Mr. John A. Martin, of Colorado, offered an amendment restricting the
amount of land which might be acquired by any one corporation or
individual.
Mr. Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
under the terms of the amendment the proposed legislation would apply
not only to the friar lands but to all lands in the Islands owned by
the Government.
The Speaker \4\ sustained the point of order and said:
The Chair will take judicial notice of the fact that from the
beginning of our occupancy of the Philippine Islands the Crown lands
have been considered as one thing and the friar lands as another; and
the rules and regulations touching the Crown lands are different from
the rules and regulations touching the friar lands. This bill, which
has been discussed for three days, has reference entirely to the friar
lands. The substitute offered by the gentleman from Colorado not only
affects the friar lands but it affects the Crown lands; it also
provides for an elaborate system of escheat, a subject that this bill
has nothing in the world to do with. It also makes certain acts crimes,
and provides penalties for the same. Therefore the substitute of the
gentleman from Colorado is ruled out and the point of order made by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania is sustained.
2958. To a bill providing for vocational rehabilitation in the United
States an amendment extending the provisions of the bill to Hawaii was
held not to be germane.
On October 16, 1919,\5\ the bill (H. R. 4438) to provide industrial
vocational rehabilitation in the United States (not including the
Territories or the District of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 3869.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 6522.
\4\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\5\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7026.
Sec. 2959
Columbia) was being considered in the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union.
Mr. J. Kuhio Kalanianaole, of Hawaii, offered an amendment to extend
the benefits of the proposed legislation to the Territory of Hawaii.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
After debate, the Chairman\1\ held:
The gentleman will observe that in line 10, page 2, the Territories,
outlying possessions, and the District of Columbia are specifically
excluded from the population ratio. Under those circumstances, the
Chair is inclined to think that the point of order is well taken, and
the Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from Texas.
2959. To a bill for the relief of women and children in Germany an
amendment providing similar relief for Porto Rico was held not to be
germane.
To a proposition to extend Federal aid to starving women and children
an amendment providing that such aid should not become effective prior
to a certain date was admitted.
On March 24, 1924,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 180) for
the relief of the distressed and starving women and children of
Germany, providing for the purchase in the United States of grains,
fats, milk, and other foodstuffs and its distribution in Germany and
authorizing an appropriation of $10,000,000 for that purpose.
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, offered an amendment providing
for extension of the benefits of the proposed legislation to Porto
Rico.
Mr. James T. Begg, of Ohio, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
The Chairman\3\ sustained the point of order.
Mr. Tom Connally, of Texas, proposed this amendment:
At the end of the paragraph, insert: ``Provided, That this act shall
not become effective until January 1, 1925.''
Mr. Rankin made the point of order that the amendment was not
germane.
The Chairman overruled the point of order.
2960. To a bill pensioning veterans of the Indian wars an amendment
pensioning veterans of the Texas rangers engaged in opposing ``Mexican
marauders and Indian depredations'' was held not to be germane.
On February 16, 1916,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 655) to pension
veterans of the Indian wars.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 4858.
\3\ William J. Graham, of Illinois, Chairman.
\4\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 2668.
Sec. 2961
Mr. William H. Murray, of Oklahoma, offered this amendment:
To the surviving officers and enlisted men of the Texas volunteers
who served in defense of the frontier of that State against Mexican
marauders an dIndian depredatiosn from January 1, 1859, to January 1,
1861, inclusive, and from the year 1866 to the year 1876, inclusive,
and
Mr. Edward Keating, of Colorado, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
The Chairman\1\ overruled the point of order.
Thereupon Mr. Robert Y. Thomas, jr., of Kentucky, proposed an
amendment to pension certain Kentucky troops engaged in the Civil War
``or in Indian depredations.''
Mr. Keating having raised a question of order against the amendment,
Mr. Thomas cited the decision just made holding Mr. Murray's amendment
in order.
The Chairman reversed the ruling on the previous point of order and
said:
The Chair will state to the gentleman and to the committee that at
the time of that ruling his attention was not called to the fact that
the amendment carried with it a provision concerning Mexican marauders,
but was under the impression it applied only to Indian depredations.
The Chair is therefore now of the opinion that his ruling at that time,
so far as Mexican marauders was concerned, was a wrong ruling, but a
wrong ruling in that instance would not now justify or cause the Chair
to make a similar ruling. The Chair therefore sustains the point of
order.
2961. To a proposition to pay employees of the House and Senate extra
compensation an amendment proposing to include clerks of Members was
held not to be germane.
On July 31, 1911,\2\ the House was considering the amendments of the
Senate to the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 130) making appropriation
for certain expenses of the House and Senate incident to the first
session of the Sixty-second Congress, when the Clerk read Senate
amendment No. 3 as follows:
To enable the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives to pay to the officers and employees of the Senate and
House borne on the annual and session rolls on the 1st day of July,
1911, including the Capitol police, the official reporters of the
Senate and House and W. A. Smith, Congressional Record clerk, for extra
services during the first session of the Sixty-second Congress, a sum
equal to one month's pay at the compensation then paid them by law, the
same to be immediately available.
Mr. John A. Thayer, of Massachusetts, moved to concur in the Senate
amendment with the following amendment:
After the words ``Sixty-second Congress,'' insert ``And to enable the
Secretary of the Treasury to pay to each Senator and Congressman for
extra services of his secretary.''
Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the Senate amendment to which offered.
The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pat Harrison, of Mississippi, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 3399.
\3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 2962
2962. To an item relating to carriers in the postal service an
amendment adding clerks in the same service was held not be germane.
On January 21, 1911,\1\ the post office appropriation bill was being
read for amendment in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, when Mr. William Hughes, of New Jersey, offered this
amendment.
Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be used to pay
carriers who are required or permitted to work for more than 48 hours
in the six working-days of a week.
Mr. Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, proposed the following amendment
to the pending amendment.
After the word ``carriers'' in the amendment insert ``and postal
clerks.''
Mr. John W. Weeks, of Massachusetts, raised a question of order.
The Chairman \2\ ruled:
The Chair is ready to rule. The paragraph in the bill now before the
committee provides for the pay of carriers. There are other paragraphs
in the bill which provide for the pay of clerks. The limitation which
is provided in this amendment concerns the pay of carriers, and there
has been no objection raised to it or point of order made against it.
The provision limiting the time of service of clerks would necessarily
concern other items in the bill, and therefore is not germane to the
amendment before the committee, and the Chair sustains the point of
order.
2963. One individual proposition may not be amended by another
individual proposition even though the two may belong to the same
class.
To a bill prohibiting the importation of products of convict labor,
pauper labor, and detained labor an amendment placing a like
restriction on the importation of products of child labor was held not
germane on the ground that the labor affected by the bill constituted a
single class of labor.
On March 18, 1914,\3\ the bill (H. R. 14330) to prohibit the
importation of certain goods, wares, and merchandise, was under
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union.
Mr. Patrick H. Kelley, of Michigan, proposed an amendment to extend
the restrictions imposed by the bill to products of labor:
By children under the age of 14 years.
Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
In debating the point of order, Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, said:
Mr. Chairman, the rule, as the Chair is aware, is well settled. Where
a bill relates to one particular thing you can not amend it by adding
another particular thing, or you can not amend it by adding a general
class.
The gentleman from Georgia, I think, cited a case of that sort, where
a bill related to the admission of one Territory and an amendment was
offered to add another Territory. But the gentleman did not refer to
the fact that where a bill proposes to admit two Territories you could
add a third. The rule is just as well settled one way as the other.
Now here is a bill that is not confined to one class but to several
classes, and there is a good deal closer connection between pauper
labor and child labor than there is between prison labor and pauper
labor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1239.
\2\ Frederick C. Stevens, of Minnesota, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 5481.
Sec. 2963
I remember the decision of Speaker Clark on that subject very well,
and he said if the bill covered two items you could add something more
if you wanted to; and Speaker Clark, in making the ruling that you
could not add grain to a bill relating to cotton futures said that to a
bill relating to wheat and corn you could add other articles
specifically.
That is the case here. This bill does not relate to one class. It
relates to several classes, and under the rule it is always construed
that where you have a bill realting to several classes you can add an
additional class. If this bill were confined solely to convict-made
goods, the amendment would not bin order to add pauper-made goods.
But the bill itself, covering both convict-made goods and pauper-made
goods, is open to the addition of another class. There is no great
distinction between the class that is sought to be added and one of the
classes that is in this bill. If the Chair holds that pauper-made goods
are entirely distinct and separate from child-labor goods made by
children under 14 years of age, the Chair will make a very strained
construction of the facts, in my opinion.
The Chairman \1\ approved that position taken by Mr. Mann, and said:
The Chair thinks that in this bill the committee enumerated the class
of persons whose labor was to be restricted from entry into the United
States, and under the rule which has been cited we have in this bill
already convict and pauper labor, making two classes, and the Chair
thinks it is germane to add another, and therefore overrules the point
of order.
The question was taken on agreeing to the amendment, and being
decided in the negative, the amendment was rejected.
The reading of the bill for amendment having been completed, the
Committee reported it back to the House and it was ordered to be
engrossed and was read the third time, when Mr. Mann moved to recommit
it to the Committee on Labor with instructions to report it back
forthwith with the following amendment:
Add at the end of section 1, as a part of said section, the
following:
``That no goods, wares, articles, and merchandise, except immediate
products of agriculture, forests, and fisheries, manufactured wholly or
in part in any foreign country principally by children under 14 years
of age, in countries where they have no laws regulating child labor,
shall be entitled to entry at any of the ports of the United States,
and the importation thereof is hereby prohibited. Any shipment
consigned for entry at any of the ports of the United States of goods,
wares, articles, and merchandise, except immediate products of
agriculture, forests, and fisheries, manufactured in any foreign
country, province, or dependency, where the industrial employment of
children not regulated by law shall be accompanied by an affidavit of
the shipper of such merchandise or his legal agent, to the effect that
the merchandise covered by the invoice has not been manufactured
principally by children under 14 years of age, the form of the
affidavit to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, who is
also authorized and directed to issue such further regulations and to
collect all information pertinent thereto through cooperation with the
Consular Service of the United States as may be necessary for the
enforcement of the provision.''
Mr. Bartlett made the point of order that the amendment proposed in
the motion to recommit was not germane.
After exhaustive debate, the Speaker \2\ ruled:
The title of this bill is ``A bill to prohibit the importation and
entry of goods, wares, and merchandise made in whole or in part by
convict, pauper, or detained labor, or made in whole or in part from
materials which have been made in whole or in part or in any manner
manipulated by convict or prison labor.''
The first section of the bill is--
``That all goods, wares, and merchandise produced in whole or in part
by convict, pauper, or prison labor, or in the production of which
convict, pauper, or prison labor has been employed,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Martin D. Foster, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 2963
either directly or indirectly, in any manner and for any purpose, * * *
shall not be entitled to entry at any of the ports of the United
States, and the importation thereof is hereby prohibited.''
Section 9, defining paupers. provides--
``That the term `pauper,' as used in this act, shall be limited to
those persons who are held or confined in eleemosynsary institutions at
the public expense in whole or in part.''
Now there is no dispute--the matter having been settled long ago and
having been ruled one way so often that there can not be any mistake
about it--that where one subject matter is mentioned--one class, and
only one--you can not add others, but if more than one are mentioned,
then you can add others. The only case of this kind that the Chair
remembers having ruled on himself was the cotton-futures case.
The only difficulty about the rule is in applying it. If it were not
for section 9 of this act, defining a pauper, the Chair would hold that
this motion of the gentleman from Illinois to recommit with
instructions is in order. But when you read the whole bill and listen
to the arguments pro and con it is clear to the mind of the Chair that
the one thing that this bill seeks to do is to shut out what might be
called State-expedited manufactured articles; that is, where the State
pays part of the cost.
The contention of the labor people has always been, as I understand
it, that their objection is not to convict-made goods per se. That is
not what they object to. They object to convict-made goods because the
convict-made goods may be made so much more cheaply by the aid of the
State, or county, or whatever it happens to be, than they could be made
by free labor; and, therefore, free labor can not compete with convict
labor. That is the whole of the contention, and the intent of this bill
goes to that, and to that alone.
The Chair thoroughly agrees with the gentleman from Illinois on the
proposition that no sane man would undertake to put convicts and
paupers on the same moral plane. It is a misfortune to be poor, and the
poorer you are the greater the misfortune. But the intent of this bill
is clearly to prohibit the importation into this country of goods,
wares, and merchandise or anything of the sort that is made by laborers
who do not receive the wages of free labor, but who are in some way
assisted by the State.
In addition to that, while it has nothing to do with the
parliamentary point, the popular acceptation of ``pauper labor'' in
this country has been that class of labor in foreign countries which
receives less wages than the American laborers get. There have been all
sorts of tales told about what the wages of workmen in foreign
countries are--some of them true and some of them not true--for
political effect. But this bill defines what ``a pauper'' is for the
purposes of this act.
I may be permitted to say that I am as much opposed to ``child
labor,'' as we use that term, as any living man.
There is no other remark that might be pertinent and that is if this
Mann amendment were adopted it would practically put an end to
commerce. So the Chair rules it out of order.
Mr. Mann then offered this motion:
I move to recommit the bill H. R. 14330 to the Committee on Labor,
with instructions to that committee to report said bill back forthwith,
with the following amendment:
Insert, ``by children under the age of 14 years or.''
Mr. David J. Lewis, of Maryland, having raised a question of order,
Mr. Mann cited the decision rendered by the Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole on the same amendment.
The Speaker said:
The Chair has a very high opinion of the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Foster, and this is simply a difference of opinion as to whether the
bill relates to two different classes or one class of labor. The Chair
remembers a certain occasion when, on the free-list bill, a
distinguished Missourian, who was chairman of the Committee of the
Whole, ruled one way, and ruled correctly, as far as that was
concerned. When we got back into the House the gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. Mann, moved to recommit, and stated that the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole had ruled one way, but that he would rather have
the ruling of the Speaker. The Chair dislikes very much
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2964
to disagree with the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union, Mr. Foster, but under the ruling which the
Chair made about 15 minutes ago he is compelled, unless he has changed
his mind in the meantime, which he has not, to rule this motion to
recommit out of order.
On appeal the decision of the Speaker was sustained.
2964. To a subject dealing with one class an amendment relating to
another class is not in order.
To a bill relating to interstate commerce a proposition relating to
intrastate commerce is not germane.
The Committee of the Whole having under consideration a measure
providing for issuance of certificates of convenience and necessity in
interstate traffic, an amendment dealing with issuance of such
certificates in intrastate traffic was not admitted.
On March 21, 1930,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 10288) to regulate the
transportation of persons in interstate and foreign commerce by motor
carriers operating on the public highways.
The Clark read as follows:
Sec. 4. (a) No corporation or person shall operate as a common
carrier by motor vehicle in interstate or foreign commerce on any
public highway unless there is in force with respect to such carrier a
certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing such
operation.
Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, proposed as an amendment the following
proviso:
Provided, That it shall not be necessary to procure such a
certificate in order to operate a common carrier by motor vehicle
wholly within any State, nor to operate an extension of any line where
such extension is wholly within any State, if a certificate or permit
for such purpose has been issued by the State commission or other duly
constituted regulatory authority of the State affected.
A point of order having been made that the amendment was not germane,
the Chairman \2\ rules:
The Chair is of the opinion that section 4 contemplates dealing with
interstate and foreign commerce only. In the opinion of the Chair, the
question of germaneness is involved here. The amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas seeks to bring within this section the subject of
intrastate commerce. The Chair does not think that where you have one
subject dealing specifically with one class that you may add another
specified class. It occurs to the Chair that interstate commerce is
quite different from intrastate commerce, and, in the opinion of the
Chair, the amendment is not germane. The Chair sustains the point of
order.
2965. One individual proposition is not properly subject to amendment
by including another individual proposition of the same class.
To a bill providing penalties for violation of Federal law an
amendment providing penalties for violation of State law was deemed not
germane.
On February 8, 1930,\3\ during the consideration of the bill H. R.
8574, the prohibition reorganization bill, in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union, a committee amendment was read
authorizing the dismissal of prohibition employees violating any
provision of the Federal prohibition law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 5861.
\2\ Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 3308.
Sec. 2966
Mr. Vincent L. Palmisano, of Maryland, offered an amendment extending
the provisions of the committee amendment to violation of State laws.
A point of order having been raised by Mr. William Williamson, of
South Dakota, the Chairman \1\ ruled:
The point of order arises on the committee amendment, which reads as
follows:
``Provided, That all officers and employees of the Bureau of
Prohibition who the Attorney General finds have heretofore or shall
hereafter violate any penal provisions of the Federal prohibition laws
shall be dismissed.''
The gentleman from Maryland offers an amendment to the amendment,
which reads as follows:
``Strike out down to and including the word `dismissed,' and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
``Have heretofore or shall hereafter violate any penal provision of
the Federal or State laws shall be dismissed.' ''
The point of order which is made against the amendment to the
amendment is that it is not germane to the amendment, and the
discussion on the matter has been an interesting one. The Chair is well
aware of the fact that questions of germaneness frequently are very
embarrassing and that it is frequently difficult to try to draw the
exact line between that which is germane and that which is not germane.
In Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives, page 124, it
is stated:
``One individual proposition may not be amended by another individual
proposition even though the two may belong to the same class.''
It is hardly necessary to say that under this particular rule there
have been many decisions in regard to germaneness. However, each
question naturally arises on its own base, under its own given set of
circumstances.
Germaneness means relevancy, relationship.
The question here is whether the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Maryland has such relationship, such relevancy to the committee
amendment as to permit it to stand in making it subject to a point of
order.
Now, to be brief about it, the Chair believes that where there is
introduced into the proviso which he has just read an additional
subject matter, such as it seems apparent to the Chair has been
introduced by bringing in State laws together with Federal laws, it
seems to the Chair that the rule as to relevancy and relationship has
been violated. It is not only an amplification as suggested here of the
subject matter of the amendment offered by the committee, but it seems
to the Chair that not only does it amplify but it brings in a new body
of matter, a new situation, that certainly is not relevant and not
germane, and the Chair sustains the point of order.
2966. A specific proposition of a class is not germane to another
specific proposition of the same class.
To a bill proposing farm relief through the agency of a Federal Farm
Board authorized to establish orderly marketing an amendment proposing
farm relief through the agency of a Federal Beverage Board authorized
to license the manufacture of alcoholic beverages was held not germane.
On April 24, 1929,\2\ while the bill (H. R. 1) to establish a Farm
Board to promote the effective merchandising of agricultural
commodities in interstate and foreign commerce, and to place
agriculture on a basis of economic equality with other industries, was
under consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, Mr. Loring M. Black, Jr., of New York, offered in lieu of
the first section of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph L. Hooper, of Michigan, Chairman.
\2\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 466.
Sec. 2967
the bill, providing for the establishment of a Federal Farm Board for
the orderly marketing of farm products, the following:
There is hereby established a Federal Farm Beverage Board in the
Department of Agriculture to consist of three members, to be appointed
by the Secretary of Agriculture.
The board may grant licenses, to expire at the end of one year from
the date of issuance, to farm organizations and cooperative marketing
associations for the processing and selling beer and wine containing
alcohol for beverage purposes, providing such are not intoxicating in
fact.
The revenue derived from licenses under this act shall be devoted to
agricultural relief generally in a manner directed by the Secretary of
Agriculture.
A point of order being raised by Mr. Fred S. Purnell, of Indiana, the
Chairman \1\ held that the amendment was not germane to the bill and
sustained the point of order.
2967. To a bill proposing to rise the price of agricultural products
to a basis of comparative equality with the price of other commodities
through the establishment of a Federal Farm Board authorized to promote
effective marketing an amendment proposing to raise agricultural prices
through the authorization of export debentures on agricultural products
was held not to be germane.
On April 25, 1929,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 1) to establish a Federal
Farm Board to promote effective merchandising of agricultural
commodities in interstate and foreign commerce, and to place
agriculture on a basis of economic equality with other industries, when
Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, offered an amendment reading in part as
follows:
Whenever the board finds it advisable, in order to carry out the
policy declared in section 1 with respect to any agricultural
commodity, to issue export debentures with respect to such commodity,
the board shall give notice of such finding to the Secretary of the
Treasury. Upon the receipt of such notice it shall be the duty of the
Secretary of the Treasury, commencing and terminating at such time as
the board shall prescribe, to issue export debentures to any farmer,
cooperative association, stabilization corporation, or other person
with respect to such quantity of the commodity or any manufactured food
product thereof as such person may from time to time export from the
United States to any foreign country.
Mr. Bertand H. Snell, of New York, interposed a point of order and
said:
We have before us at this time presented by the Agricultural
Committee a bill which has for its express purpose improving
agricultural conditions by a special and distinct method of promoting
and making more efficient the cooperative marketing associations of the
country. While there is a general purpose stated in the first section
of the bill, as there is in most all bills, the real heart of the bill
goes to the separate and distinct plan by which the Agricultural
Committee intends to accomplish these results. To that bill the
gentleman from Texas has offered an amendment rather in the form of a
substitute, which intends and provides for improving the conditions in
agriculture by providing for the issuance of export debentures upon the
exportation of such commodities. The two ways proposed to accomplish
the result are entirely distinct and start out in opposite directions.
For instance, individually, I think that you could improve agricultural
conditions by improving the internal waterways of the country, and
especially by improvement of the St. Lawrence River. I could introduce
a bill and make some general statement in the first section and provide
to accomplish that by improvement of the St. Lawrence River, but no man
in this House would have the temerity to stand up and state that it
would be germane to the proposition under consideration. Another man
may consider that the best way to accomplish this result
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, Chairman.
\2\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 566.
Sec. 2967
would be by a revision of the tariff, and if the gentleman's amendment
were in order--and you can add new methods to the one contained in the
bill--it would be in order to present here an entire revision of the
tariff schedules for the purpose of accomplishing that result.
Of course, no one would ever content that that would be possible.
There is an elementary principle in parliamentary procedure that merely
because amendments seek to accomplish the same result as the bill under
consideration, they are not necessarily germane to the bill. The
question of the germaneness has to be considered very carefully, for
the simple reason that it is necessary to keep out propositions that
have not been carefully considered before by the committee, and not
allow the House to pass snap judgment on entirely new matter.
Mr. Jones replied:
In the declared purposes of the bill it is provided:
``to protect, control, and stabilize the current of interstate and
foreign commerce in the marketing of agricultural commodities and their
food products''--
which is also applicable. In another place in the declared policy of
the bill we find the language:
``to prevent such surpluses from unduly depressing prices for the
commodity.''
It seems to me that the debenture plan comes within the all-covering
provisions of all three of those statements. I could not write a better
title for my amendment.
The Chair is familiar with the line of decisions that if a measure
may not be in line with any particular paragraph, it may be offered as
a separate paragraph where it is most nearly germane to the various
propositions. I have offered this debenture plan as an additional power
of the board following several other main powers. The line of decisions
is practically universal that you can not add one specific power to
another specific power, but that if you have two or more powers, in
other words, if you have general powers, you may add an additional
specific or general power.
Mr. Chairman, here are some seven or eight powers which this board
has been given in the bill. It has been stated, it has been repeated,
that it is the purpose of this measure to clothe the board with broad
powers, that the board may have power to handle the commodity so as to
relieve the situation presented by the farm problem which has been
puzzling those who have had to deal with it for several years. The
general purpose is farm relief. The general intention of this bill is
to provide for a relief of this situation. In order to reach that end
they establish a farm board. That board is given a number of enumerated
powers. I simply seek to give that board additional power and in line
with the general purposes of the bill and altogether in line with the
declaration of policy in the bill set out in the first paragraph.
The purpose of the rules of the House are to enable it to do
business, to enable it in an orderly way to do what it wants to, not to
keep it from doing so. This amendment is strictly in line with the
declared purposes of the bill.
The Chairman \1\ held:
The practice and the rule as to germaneness, so far as this farm
legislation is concerned, are pretty well fixed by the rulings that
have been made during the consideration of the legislation at different
times during the last few years. The gentleman from Texas says that the
general purpose of his amendment is the same as the general purpose of
the bill before the committee; that is, farm relief. But the Chair
thinks that that is not enough to make the amendment germane. It is not
enough to make the amendment germane to show that it seeks to
accomplish the same purpose as the legislation pending before the
committee if the method employed to accomplish that purpose is entirely
different. The rule has been often stated to be that if an amendment
proposes such modification of the bill that it could not reasonably
have been anticipated or can not be said to be a logical sequence of
the matter contained in the bill, or is not such a modification as
would naturally suggest itself to the legislative body considering the
bill, then it is not germane.
The Chair has read, in substance, from a decision rendered by a
former chairman of the committee, Mr. Fitzgerald, of New York, who was
one of the best parliamentarians in the House. I do not think that
anyone would seriously contend that the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas comes within the rule as stated in that decision
by Mr. Fitzgerald.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, Chairman.
Sec. 2968
As has been said, the pioneer in this legislation was the gentleman
from Indiana, Mr. Sanders, who was chairman of the Committee of the
Whole during the consideration of the original or first McNary-Haugen
bill. He announced several principles during the consideration of that
first bill, which have served as guides during the consideration of the
other bills.
The parliamentarian in his notes has made a digest of some of the
rulings made at that time which I would like to read:
``Simply because an amendment seeks to solve the same problem as that
sought to be solved by the pending bill does not make the amendment
germane.
``The purpose of the rule of germaneness is to prevent the
consideration of legislation which has not been considered in
committee, and therefore the rule may be applied more strictly to a
long amendment by way of a substitute for the entire bill under
consideration.
``To a bill undertaking to raise the price of agricultural products
to a ratio consistent with the price of other commodities, an amendment
seeking to relieve agriculture by a different plan--that is, by a
comprehensive system of cooperative marketing--was held not germane,
although one of the incidental features of the pending bill dealt with
cooperative marketing.''
The substance of what I have read has been incorporated in Cannon's
Precedents, section 2912.
In addition to announcing the general principles which I have read,
this precise question was passed upon by Chairman Sanders in an
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Henry T. Rainey,
to the bill then under consideration. As the gentleman from Texas has
said, the legislation differed somewhat in form, but the Chair thinks
it did not differ in substance.
The question came up again one year ago, and the Chairman at that
time, following the precedent of 1924, sustained the point of order and
declared the debenture plan not germane to that bill.
The gentleman from Texas says that the fund to be administered by the
Federal Farm Board in the pending bill comes out of the Treasury and
that the money to be paid to the exporters under the debenture plan
also comes out of the Treasury, which is quite true, but the benefit
which the farmer will receive under the pending bill is an indirect
benefit. The debenture plan provides for a direct payment out of the
Treasury to exporters, and is in effect if not in fact a direct subsidy
to the exporters.
The debenture plan would only benefit those who export surpluses, and
it has been repeatedly stated by different members of the committee
during the consideration of this bill under general debate that this
bill does not attempt to deal with the surplus; some say not at all,
but certainly it deals with it only incidentally.
There are a great many legislative proposals to relieve or aid the
agricultural situation which are not germane to the pending bill. The
Chair thinks that this debenture plan is one of them.
The Chair appreciates the earnestness with which the gentleman from
Texas advocates the debenture plan, but he feels that both on principle
and under the precedents the amendment is not germane to the
legislation under consideration, and therefore sustains the point of
order.
2968. On February 27, 1932,\1\ the House resolved into the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of
the bill (H. R. 9642), authorizing supplemental appropriations for
highway construction.
The Clerk read:
Be it enacted, etc., That there is hereby authorized to be
appropriated the sum of $120,000,000, to be immediately available for
expenditure in emergency construction on the Federal-aid highway
system, with a view to increasing employment. such sum shall be
apportioned by the Secretary of Agriculture to the several states by
the method provided in section 21 of the Federal highway act.\2\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 4879.
\2\ U.S. Code, Supp. V, title 13.
Sec. 2969
Mr. John C. Ketcham, of Michigan, offered an amendment as follows:
except that such apportionment shall be upon the basis of population
instead of area, population, and mileage.
Mr. Lindsay C. Warren, of North Carolina, made the point of order
that the amendment was not germane to the bill.
The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order and said:
The bill provides a specific method of distribution, to wit, that
contained in the highway act. The method of distribution in the highway
act is a specific method. It has been held many times that, where a
bill provides a specific method, an amendment providing a different
method is not germane. The Chair has before him a decision made by the
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Mapes, directly on the point. That
decision was made April 24, 1929. The Chair will quote the syllabus:
``To a bill seeking to afford agricultural relief by one specified
method, an amendment seeking to afford the same relief by a different
method was held to be not germane.''
The Chair will follow that decision and sustain the point of order.
2969. To a bill proposing farm relief through the refinancing of
farm-mortgage loans, an amendment providing for farm relief through
expansion of the currency was held not germane.
On April 13, 1933,\2\ the bill (H. R. 4795), to provide emergency
relief with respect to agricultural indebtedness, to refinance farm
mortgages at lower rates of interest and to amend and supplement the
Federal farm loan act, by the granting of credit through the Federal
Land Bank system, was read a third time.
Mr. Gerald J. Boileau, of Wisconsin, moved to recommit the bill to
the Committee on Agriculture with instructions to report it back
forthwith with an amendment striking out all after the enacting clause
and substituting a bill providing for the liquidation and refinancing
of agricultural indebtedness by the expansion of the currency through
issuance of bonds redeemable in Federal Reserve notes.
Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
The Speaker \3\ held:
The question presented has been passed upon two or three times and
presents nothing new. The bill under consideration provides a method of
farm relief, essentially by the issuance of bonds, to be marketed in
the ordinary way. The Frazier bill, which is the subject of the motion
to recommit, provides also for farm relief, also for bond issues, and,
in addition to that, provides a method of meeting the bond issues by
currency printed and issued, clearly inflation, which may amount to as
much as 3\1/2\ billion dollars. The two methods are as wide apart as
the poles.
The present Speaker of the House argued a like question back in 1924
when the very first farm relief bill was under consideration, the first
of the McNary-Haugen bills. That bill provided a method of farm relief,
fixing farm prices with reference to related products, and the present
Speaker of the House proposed an amendment to the bill which provided
an entirely different method, and the present Speaker agrees with the
gentleman from Texas when he said that his method was much better than
the method provided in that bill; but that did not make any difference.
A point of order was made against the amendment proposed by the present
Speaker, by Mr. Cannon of Missouri, the author of Cannon's Precedents,
and the gentleman from Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, Chairman.
\2\ First session Seventy-third Congress, Record, p. 1679.
\3\ Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 2970
argued the point of order and convinced the Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole, Mr. Sanders, although he did not convince me then, that
my amendment was not germane. The object of my amendment then and the
object of the bill under consideration at that time were to provide
methods of farm relief, but they were widely different, although not as
widely different as is proposed in the so-called ``Frazier bill'' and
in the bill under consideration.
Again, on April 24, 1929, the same question came up.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole at that time was Mr.
Mapes. He rendered a decision based upon the decision rendered by Mr.
Sanders in 1924. The opinion by Mr. Chairman Mapes was a well-
considered opinion covering the entire subject.
The Chair feels he cannot ignore the precedents that he has cited,
and he might add that he could call attention to a number of others.
The Chair, therefore, feels constrained to and does sustain the point
of order.
2970. The fact that two subjects are related does not necessarily
render them germane.
To a bill authorizing an investigation of the supply and demand for
foodstuffs, an amendment prohibiting waste, monopolies and hoarding of
foodstuffs was held not to be germane.
If any portion of an amendment is out of order the entire amendment
is subject to a point of order.
On May 24, 1917,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 4188) for the distribution of
agricultural products.
Mr. Gilbert N. Haugen, of Iowa, offered this amendment to be inserted
as a new section:
That it is hereby made unlawful for any person to commit or permit
preventable waste or deterioration of any necessaries; to hoard, or to
hold, or enter into any contract or arrangement for any necessaries in
excess of an amount reasonably needed to supply his individual or
business requirements for a reasonable time; to monopolize or attempt
to monopolize, either locally or generally, any such necessities; to
engage in any discriminatory and unfair or any deceptive practice or
device in handling or dealing in or with such necessaries; to enter
into any contract arrangement, or conspiracy to restrict the supply,
or, except as permitted by law, for preventing gluts and for effecting
equitable apportionment of perishable products among markets, to
restrict distribution, or to enhance the prices of any such
necessaries; to exact excessive prices for any such necessaries; or to
aid or abet the doing of any act made unlawful by this section. Any
person who violates any provision of this section shall be deemed
guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall upon conviction thereof, be punished
by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than two
years, or both.
Mr. Asbury F. Lever, of South Carolina, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane to the bill.
In debating the point of order. Mr. Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota,
said:
The rule provides that no motion or proposition on a subject
different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color
of amendment.
Under that rule the philosophy relating to germaness has been
developed. Now, we do not look to the title of this bill to determine
what the proposition under consideration is. We look to the contents of
the bill itself. The chairman of the Committee on Agriculture has
already gone over the bill section by section, with a view of stating
exactly what is involved in each proposition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2838.
Sec. 2971
Now, what does the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa do? It does
not facilitate, as section 3 does, the obtaining of certain information
relative to the food supply. It proposes 8 or 9 or 10 or a dozen new
crimes. It is purely a criminal statute. It proposes to create new
crimes which are in no way directly or indirectly connected with the
subject matter of this bill. For instance, the amendment proposed by
the gentleman from Iowa proposes to make it a crime to monopolize food.
There is not a single word in this bill about monopoly.
The amendment of the gentleman from Iowa makes it a crime to enhance
the price of food. There is not a word in this bill about regulating
the price of food. The amendment of the gentleman from Iowa, as I
recall it, makes it a crime to engage in any unfair or discriminatory
practices. Not a word in this bill about discriminatory or unfair
practices. It makes it a crime to enter into a contract, arrangement,
or conspiracy to restrict the supply of food. Not a word in this bill
relative to the restricting of the supply of food. There may be
propositions in the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa which are
germane to the bill, but there are also contained in his amendment
propositions which are not germane to the bill, and which do not relate
to the subject matter thereof.
It seems to me that the amendment is clearly out of order.
The Chairman \1\ ruled:
The Chair understands the gentleman from Iowa does not offer his
amendment to any particular section of the bill, but as a new section,
and puts it on the ground that it is germane to the subject matter of
the bill.
A hasty examination of the amendment leads the Chair to conclude it
deals with waste, hoarding, monopolizing, unfair and deceptive
practices, restricting of supplies, and restricting of distribution.
The bill itself, as it appears, deals with the question of authorizing
the Secretary of Agriculture to investigate and ascertain the demand
for and supply, and so forth, of foodstuffs, and for the purchase and
sale of seeds, cooperation with local officials, the appointment of
additional secretaries, and that the President is authorized to ask any
agency or organization of the Government to cooperate with the
Secretary of Agriculture in carrying out these purposes, and for the
purposes of this act the following sums are hereby appropriated, and so
forth.
Now, it seems to the Chair that while this amendment is somewhat in
line with the purposes of this bill, and related to them, but I find in
the rules these propositions laid down:
``Two subjects are not necessarily germane because they are related.
Thus the following have been held not to be germane: To a proposition
relating to the terms of Senators, an amendment changing the manner of
their election; to a bill relating to commerce between the States, an
amendment relating to commerce within the several States; to a
proposition to relieve destitute citizens of the United States in Cuba,
a proposition declaring a state of war in Cuba and proclaiming
neutrality.''
And yet they did relate to each other.
There is another proposition I would call the gentleman's attention
to. If any portion of the amendment is not germane, of course the whole
amendment must go out.
There is a portion of this amendment that does relate to food
distribution and waste, but there are incorporated in the amendment
certain matters that certainly are not referred to in the bill nor
germane thereto. The Chair thinks, therefore, that it is not in order
on this bill, and sustains the point of order.
2971. Two subjects are not necessarily germane because they are
related.
To a proposition to increase salaries of Government employees, an
amendment proposing the establishment of a minimum wage for such
employees was held not to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Courtney W. Hamlin, of Missouri, Chairman.
Sec. 2972
On December 19, 1916,\1\ the legislative, executive, and judicial
appropriation bill was under consideration in the Committee of the
Whole on the state of the Union.
Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, proposed the following to be
inserted as a new section:
That to provide, during the fiscal year 1918, for increased
compensation at the rate of 10 per cent per annum to employees who
receive salaries at a rate per annum less than $1,200, and for
increased compensation at the rate of 5 per cent per annum to employees
who receive salaries at a rate not more than $1,800 per annum and not
less than $1,200 per annum, so much as may be necessary is
appropriated.
Mr. John I. Nolan, of California, offered this amendment:
Provided, That during the fiscal year 1918 the minimum compensation
for any person provided for in this bill shall be not less than $3 per
day, or, if employed by the hour, not less than 37\1/2\ cents an hour,
and if employed by the month, $90 a month; or, if employed by the year,
$1,080 per annum.
Mr. Thomas U. Sisson, of Mississippi, made a point of order against
the amendment.
The Chairman \2\ held:
In the opinion of the Chair, the Byrns amendment simply proposed a
lump appropriation to increase the compensation of employees of the
Government provided for in this bill of a certain class, namely, those
receiving less than $1,800 per annum. The Nolan amendment proposes new
affirmative legislation, namely, to adopt a policy by the Government
that none of its employees appropriated for by this bill shall receive
less than $3 per day. The Chair can not see how the new affirmative
legislation is germane to the intent or spirit of the Byrns amendment.
Therefore, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order.
2972. To a proposal to reduce allowances a proposal to increase
allowances is not germane.
On April 28, 1932,\3\ the legislative appropriation bill was under
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when a paragraph providing for the reduction of travel
allowances was read as follows:
The traveling allowances provided for in the act approved February
28, 1925, shall not exceed $2 per day.
Mr. Tom D. McKeown, of Oklahoma, proposed this amendment.
After the word ``exceed,'' strike out ``$2'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``$4.''
Mr. Lewis W. Douglas, of Arizona, made the point of order that the
proposed amendment was not germane to the paragraph.
The Chairman \4\ sustained the point of order.
2973. Two propositions dealing with the same subject matter are not
necessarily germane.
To a proposition to use proceeds from the sale of battleships for the
construction of another battleship, a proposition to utilize such
proceeds in the construction of roads was held not to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 571.
\2\ Pat Harrison, of Mississippi, Chairman.
\3\ Lindsay C. Warren, of North Carolina, Chairman.
\4\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 9184.
Sec. 2973
On June 23, 1914,\1\ the House was considering the following Senate
amendment to the naval appropriation bill, remaining in disagreement
after the conference report on other disagreeing votes had been agreed
to:
The President may, in his discretion, direct the sale, in such
manner, at such price, and upon such terms as he shall deem proper, of
the battleships Idaho and Mississippi. All moneys received from the
sale of said vessels shall, after payment therefrom of the expenses of
such sale, be deposited by the Secretary of the Navy in the Treasury,
and shall, until expended, be available for the construction of such
other vessel or vessels, at least equal for purposes of offense and
defense to the most modern vessels of the same class now projected here
or abroad, as the President may in his discretion authorize.
Mr. Lemuel P. Padgett, of Tennessee, moved that the House recede from
its disagreement to the Senate amendment and concur therein with the
following amendment.
Strike out the Senate amendment and in lieu thereof insert:
``The President may, in his discretion, direct the sale in such
manner, at such price, and upon such terms as he shall deem proper, of
the battleships Idaho and Mississippi. All moneys received from the
sale of said vessels shall be deposited by the Secretary of the Navy in
the Treasury after said sale. In addition to the two battleships
hereinbefore authorized, the President is hereby authorized to have
constructed a first-class battleship carrying as heavy armor and as
powerful armament as any vessel of its class, to have the highest
practicable speed and greatest desirable radius of action, and to cost,
exclusive of armor and armament, not to exceed $7,800,000. Out of the
money when so deposited in the Treasury there is hereby appropriated
toward the construction of said battleship on account of increase of
the Navy, construction and machinery, $2,000,000; armor and armament,
$2,535,000; and equipment, $100,000.
Mr. John L. Burnett, of Alabama, offered the following as a
substitute for the amendment proposed by Mr. Padgett.
That the House recede and concur with an amendment providing for the
appropriation of the money, the proceeds of the sale of said
battleships, to the construction and maintenance of the public roads of
the country traversed by rural and star-route mail carriers of the
United States.
Mr. Padgett made the point of order that the proposed substitute was
not germane.
The Speaker \2\ ruled:
There are three propositions pending here. All of them would have
been out of order originally in the House. Part of them are in order by
reason of this Senate amendment. They all agree to sell these
battleships. When we get through selling them, then there is a dispute
about what we are going to do with the money.
There are three propositions. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Padgett, wants to build a new battleship. The proposition of the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Mann, is really to strike out. That is
always in order--to strike anything out of anything. Now comes the
gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Burnett, and wants to build wagon roads
with this money. It does not make any difference whether building roads
by the Government is a good thing or not. It might be a very
meritorious proposition, but it has nothing on earth to do with a naval
appropriation bill.
Now, let us see where we are on the road question. The pressure for
an appropriation from the Federal Government to build wagon roads
became so strong that the House created a Roads Committee. The House
created a special committee to take charge of this public wagon-road
business, and under the lead of that committee the House authorized an
appropriation of $25,000,000 at the beginning of this session.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 10962.
\2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 2974
Now, if you can build roads on the naval appropriation bill, you can
take charge of the entire business of the government under the naval
appropriation bill. The point of order is sustained against the
substitute of the gentleman from Alabama, and the question is on the
motion of the gentleman from Illinois to strike out.
2974. To an amendment relating to ``pineapples in barrels and other
packages'' a proposed substitute relating to ``pineapples in bulk'' was
held not to be germane.
On April 8, 1909,\1\ the House was considering the bill H. R. 1438,
the tariff bill, when Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, offered the
following amendment:
275. Pineapples in barrels and other packages, 8 cents per cubic foot
of the capacity of barrels or packages.
Mr. Swagar Sherley, of Kentucky, proposed the following as a
substitute for the pending amendment:
275. Pineapples in barrels and other packages, 6 cents per cubic foot
of the capacity of the barrels or packages; in bulk, $6 per thousand.
Mr. Payne made the point of order that the proposed substitute was
not germane to the amendment to which offered.
The Chairman \2\ ruled:
The gentleman from New York offers an amendment relating to
pineapples in barrels and other packages. The gentleman from Maryland
offers an amendment to that amendment, changing simply the rate of
duty.
Now, the gentleman from Kentucky offers as a substitute for the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland an amendment which
relates not only to pineapples in barrels and other packages, and which
in that regard is the identical amendment offered by the gentleman from
Maryland, but the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky goes
further and applies to a different item or subject-matter of duty, to
wit, pineapples in bulk. The Chair thinks that without any reference to
the special order or rule of the House under which we are now
proceeding that would not be properly a substitute and could not be
entertained as a substitute either for the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York or the amendment to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Maryland.
2975. To a proposition to punish for violation of a law a proposition
to award for action tending to achieve the purpose of the law is not
germane.
To a bill providing penalties for failure to comply with the draft
law an amendment to award with citizenship those volunteering for
service was held not to be germane.
On February 13, 1918,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union had under consideration the bill H. R. 5667, the
alien slacker bill, providing for the deportation of aliens failing to
comply with the draft law.
Mr. Henry I. Emerson, of Ohio, offered the following amendment to be
inserted as a new paragraph:
That any alien who enlists or is drafted into the military or naval
service of the United States and waives his exemptions, serves his time
of enlistment, and is honorably discharged, and is at least 21 years of
age at the time of his discharge, shall, because of such service,
become a citizen
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1211.
\2\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2075.
Sec. 2976
of the United States without complying with any of the naturalization
laws, and may vote on his discharge papers.
Mr. John L. Burnett, of Alabama, raised the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
The Chairman,\1\ after debate, held:
The point of order is made against this amendment, and after some
investigation by the Chair he finds that the section provides for
denying citizenship and for deportation, while this amendment provides
for creating citizens and giving them the right to vote, exactly at
cross-purposes with the section that it seeks to amend. The Chair
thinks the point of order should be sustained. The amendment is out of
order.
2976. To a bill providing for enforcement of a law an amendment
proposing modification of the law was held not to be germane.
On July 19, 1919,\2\ during the consideration in Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union, of the bill (H. R. 6810) the
prohibition enforcement bill, Mr. John F. Fitzgerald, of Massachusetts,
proposed the following to be inserted as a proviso:
Provided, That nothing in this act or in any title thereof shall
prohibit or make unlawful the making or possessing by any person at
this own home wine, beer, or cider for his personal use or for use of
his immediate family.
Mr. Andrew J. Volstead, of Minnesota, raised a question of order
against the amendment.
The Chairman \3\ held:
The gentleman from Minnesota makes a point of order to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts that it changes the law in
regard to war-time prohibition. This bill simply provides machinery for
enforcing that law. The point of order is sustained.
2977. To a section providing a penalty an amendment authorizing trial
to determine the imposition of such penalty was held not to be germane.
On July 19, 1919,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 6810) the prohibition
enforcement bill, when the Clerk read this section:
That any person violating the terms of the injunction as provided for
in this title shall be punished for contempt by a fine of not more than
$1,000, and by imprisonment of not less than 30 days nor more than one
year; and the court shall have the power to enforce such injunction by
such measures and means as in the judgment of the court may be
necessary.
Mr. Warren Gard, of Ohio, proposed the following amendment:
May try the accused, or upon demand of the accused, the trial may be
by jury, in which latter event the court may impanel a jury from the
jurors then in attendance on the court, or a judge thereof in chambers
may cause a sufficient number of jurors to be selected and summoned as
provided by law, to attend at the time and place of trial, at which
time a jury shall be selected and impaneled as upon a trial for
misdemeanor, and such trial shall conform as near as may be to the
practice in criminal cases prosecuted by indictment or upon
information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph J. Russell, of Missouri, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2864.
\3\ James W. Good, of Iowa, Chairman.
\4\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2898.
Sec. 2978
Mr. Andrew J. Volstead, of Minnesota, submitted that the proposed
amendment was not germane to the section.
After debate the Chairman \1\ said:
Section 25 of the bill provides for a penalty. The amendment offered
by the gentleman from Ohio provides for a method of trial. It has been
repeatedly held that where a provision in the bill provides for a
penalty, it is not in order to offer an amendment simply providing for
a method by which that penalty may be inflicted.
Mr. Gard appealed from the decision of the Chair, and the question
being submitted to the committee it was decided in the affirmative yeas
83, nays 27, sot the decision of the Chair stood as the judgment of the
committee.
2978. One method of attaining an object is not germane to another
method of attaining such object unless closely related.
To a bill providing for the distribution of coal by vesting in the
Interstate Commerce Commission power to establish priorities an
amendment providing for distribution through governmental purchase was
held not to be germane.
On August 30, 1922,\2\ The Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 12473) proposing
to prevent extortion in the sale of fuel, by authorizing the Interstate
Commerce Commission to declare car service priorities.
Mr. Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, offered an amendment proposing to
authorize the President within his discretion to buy coal and sell it
to consumers at a fair price.
Mr. Walter H. Newton, of Minnesota, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \3\ ruled:
The provision of our rules which is to be interpreted in this case is
as follows:
``No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
``No motion or proposition on a subject different shall be considered
germane.'' There have been many Speakers that have held that merely
because an amendment offered referred to a particular subject that was
under consideration in the bill did not necessarily make it germane.
For instance, in the consideration of the food control law several
provisions regarding the purposes for which food might be used were
offered. One prohibited the use of any food substance for the purpose
of manufacturing liquor. That was ruled out of order by the Chair as
not being germane. So that merely because the matter here relates to
coal would not bring it within the rule as germane, as that requirement
has been interpreted by prior occupants of the chair.
The provision of the bill under consideration is for regulation
regarding the transportation of coal. The object and purpose of it is
to prevent if possible extortionate charges and to see that there is an
equitable distribution of coal. I do not know how far it would be
proper to go as considering an extortionate charge a part of
transportation, but that has nothing whatever to do with the question
under consideration. The subject and object and purpose of the bill is
that which relates to the transportation of coal.
Now we have an amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
stating that if the emergency, which is referred to in the bill under
consideration, exists or is shown to exist, then
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James W. Good, of Iowa, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 11993.
\3\ Horace M. Towner, of Iowa, Chairman.
Sec. 2979
for purposes specified the President shall have power virtually to take
over the mines and run them, because the requirement that the output of
the mines be sold only to the Government is equivalent to taking over
the mines and the operation of them by the Government. It would have no
other foundation under the Constitution except that which would exist
under the right of eminent domain, so that we really have under
consideration a proposition here of whether or not it is germane within
the rules to offer an amendment involving the proposition that the
Government shall take over and operate the mines; whether such an
amendment shall be considered as germane to a bill regulating the
transportation of coal in interstate commerce. I do not think there can
be any question under the authorities that such an amendment is not
germane.
I want to call attention in this connection to a decision which was
rendered a good many years ago, in 1898. This is the statement, and
that is sufficient, I think, to indicate the full extent of it:
``To a bill granting a right of way to a railroad an amendment
providing for the purchase of the railroad by the Government was held
not to be germane.''
It seems to me that that is very nearly analogous to the case that we
have before us to-day. ``To a provision granting a right of way to a
railroad an amendment was offered providing for the purchase of the
railroad.'' Here we have a bill for the transportation of coal, to
which is offered an amendment for the purchase, sale, and distribution
of coal. Taking over and operating the mines would practically be the
effect. It seems to me that decision would be pertinent to the question
now under consideration. Let me also call attention to a case that is
numbered 5891 in the fifth volume of Hinds' Precedents:
``To a proposition for the appointment of a select committee to
investigate a certain subject an amendment proposing an inquiry of the
Executive on that subject was held not to be germane.''
Here we have a proposition for the control of interstate commerce by
the Interstate Commerce Commission. To that is offered an amendment
proposing that the President shall take charge of the entire matter,
not only controlling the transportation but the production and sale of
the coal. The Chair rules that the point of order is well taken and the
amendment is held not to be germane.
2979. To a proposition to effect a purpose by one method a
proposition to effect such purpose by another method wholly unrelated
is not germane.
To a bill providing for the conservation of food by educational and
demonstrational methods an amendment to conserve food by prohibiting
the use of food materials in the manufacture of alcoholic beverages was
held not to be germane.
On May 21, 1918,\1\ the House in the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 11945) to
stimulate food production and the distribution of agricultural
products, when Mr. Charles H. Randell, of California, proposed the
following amendment:
Provided, That in order to further eliminate waste and to promote
conservation of food, it shall be unlawful during the existence of the
war with Germany to use any food or food materials in the manufacture
or preparation of alcoholic beverages.
Mr. Ezekiel S. Chandler, of Mississippi, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \2\ held:
In order that the situation may be clearly apprehended by members of
the committee, the Chair will read, first, the language of the
paragraph and then the language of the proposed amendment. The language
of the paragraph is:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 6867.
\2\ Edward W. Saunders, of Virginia, Chairman.
Sec. 2979
``Fourth. For increasing food production and eliminating waste and
promoting conservation of food by education and demonstrational
methods, through county, district, and urban agents and others,
$6,100,000.''
The amendment proposed by the gentleman from California is in the
following words:
``That in order to further eliminate waste and to promote
conservation of food, it shall be unlawful, during the existence of the
war with Germany, to use any food or food materials in the manufacture
or preparation of alcoholic beverages.''
In order to ascertain whether or not this amendment is germane to the
paragraph, it becomes necessary to determine the purport, and effect of
the matter proposed to be amended. If the paragraph had concluded with
the word ``food'' in line 25, so that it would read as follows:
``For increasing food production and eliminating waste and promoting
conservation food, $6,100,000''--
there would be no doubt in the mind of any member of the committee that
the amendment would be absolutely in order. But that is not the
paragraph. The paragraph in its entirety proposes to increase food
production, eliminate waste, and promote conservation of food by
certain indicated processes, namely, by educational and demonstrational
methods, through county, district and urban agents. In other words,
lecturers are to be sent out to instruct the public with respect to
their farming activities and the household arts so that in the result
production will be increased, waste will be eliminated, and food will
be conserved. If it was proposed by the amendment that some of the
money which is appropriate should be utilized in the employment of
agents to instruct the public in the folly of converting food products
into alcoholic beverages for public consumption, such an amendment
would be in order and in perfect harmony with the avowed purposes of
the paragraph. It would come within the manifest scope and intent of
this particular portion of the bill. But that is not what is intended
to be done by the amendment. The amendment does not propose to educate
the public, or by demonstrational methods, convince them of the folly
of utilizing food products to produce alcoholic drinks, but to
absolutely inhibit the use of such products for alcoholic conversion.
The Chair does not think that it can be successfully maintained that
the chief purpose of this paragraph is to increase food production,
eliminate waste and promote the conservation of food. If that was the
chief purpose of the paragraph then it would end with the word ``food''
in line 25, thereby rendering possible an infinite variety of methods
to accomplish the purposes indicated. Eliminate the words providing the
methods by which production is to be increased, waste eliminated and
food is to be conserved, and the amendment of the gentleman from
California would be plainly germane and in order. But the committee
evidently did not intend that the department should have free rein to
accomplish the results intended, and secure the elimination of waste by
any means that seemed good to them. Hence the use of the restrictive
language confining the activities of the department to certain
indicated lines of accomplishment. The one and only meaning of the
paragraph therefore is to provide the means whereby the results
intended may be secured on certain restricted lines of endeavor. The
Agricultural Department is ``cabin'd, cribbed, confined,'' so to say,
to the restricted paths of activity marked out for them to pursue.
As to the suggested meaning of the word ``others,'' it occurs to the
Chair that this word ought to be interpreted to mean ``other
educational and demonstrational methods,'' in view of the general
meaning of the paragraph. For instance bulletins might be sent out. It
is perfectly true that a general subject may be amended by a specific
subject of the same character, but the amendment of the gentleman from
California is not a specific subject of this general subject. This
amendment does not propose to eliminate waste, to increase food
products, or to promote conservation by any educational process, but is
a flat legislative inhibition upon certain practices. Therefore it is
not a specific subject of the same character as the general subject.
The general subject is to increase food production, and so forth, by
educational and demonstrational methods.
The methods indicated are not illustrative of what may be done, but
are restrictive, confining the expenditure of the money appropriated to
them, and them only. The department could not expend this money
otherwise than as indicated, namely, on educational and on
demonstrational methods. The suggestion has been made that certain
legislation in this bill has been made in order by the rule, and that
this amendment would be in order to this legislation. In this con-
Sec. 2980
nection the Chair will say that if there is any legislation in this
bill, made in order by the rule, to which this amendment would be
proper, relevant, and germane, then the amendment can be offered when
that legislation is reached, and will then be in order. This matter has
been very earnestly argued by gentlemen who have taken a different view
of the meaning of the paragraph from that held by the Chair. If their
interpretation of the paragraph is correct, then the Chair will admit
that the amendment is in order. Hence the propriety of the ruling on
this point depends upon the meaning proper to be imputed to the
paragraph. In that view it might be well to take an appeal from the
decision of the Chair so as to afford the opportunity for full
discussion of the paragraph on the appeal, and thereby secure an
authoritative disposition of this question by the committee itself. The
Chair has sought to set out in full the reasons for the conclusion
reached and in view of that conclusion is constrained to sustain the
point of order.
2980. To a proposition to attain a definite purpose by a designated
method an amendment proposing another method entirely remote is not
germane.
To a bill proposing to increase the food supply by educational and
demonstrational methods an amendment proposing to effect such increase
through sale of nitrate of soda was held not to be germane.
If a portion of an amendment is inadmissible the entire amendment is
subject to the point of order.
On May 26, 1917,\1\ while the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 4188) for the
distribution of agricultural products, the following paragraph was
reached:
For increasing food production and eliminating waste and promoting
conservation of food by educational and demonstrational methods,
through county, district, and urban agents and others $4,500,000.
Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, offered an amendment reading in
part as follows:
Sec. 5. That whenever the Secretary of Agriculture shall find that
there is or may be a special need in any restricted area for nitrate of
soda necessary for the production of food or feed crops he is
authorized to purchase such nitrate of soda, store it, and sell it to
the farmers at cost, including transportation and all other expenses,
such cost price to be payable in advance. The Secretary of Agriculture
is authorized to require any person having at his disposal a supply of
nitrate of soda to furnish the whole or any part thereof to the
Secretary of Agriculture in such quantities, at such times, and at such
price as shall be determined by him to be reasonable. Upon failure of
the person to comply with such requirement the Secretary of Agriculture
is authorized to requisition and take possession of such nitrate of
soda and pay for it at the price so determined. If the price so
determined be unsatisfactory to the person entitled to receive the
same, such person shall be paid for such nitrate of soda on delivery
the amount prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture and shall be
entitled to sue the United States to recover such further sum as, added
to the amount so paid, will be just compensation for such nitrate of
soda; and jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the United States
district courts to hear and determine all such controversies. For the
purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section the Secretary of
Agriculture is authorized to cooperate with the Secretary of the Navy
or any other agency of the Government, and for such purpose there is
hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, available immediately and until expended, the sum of
$10,000,000. Any moneys received by the United States from the sale of
nitrate of soda to farmers under this section may, in the discretion of
the Secretary of Agriculture, be used as a revolving fund for further
carrying out the purposes of this section. Any balance of such moneys
not used as part of such revolving fund shall be covered into the
Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2933.
Sec. 2980
Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order and said:
The Chair realizes that it is not always an easy matter to determine
just what is germane and what is not. This amendment is not offered as
an amendment to any particular section in the bill, but as a new
section. The Chair also realizes that there is a well-established
principle that one individual proposition may not be amended by adding
another individual proposition.
The Chair is also aware of the fact that a single proposition may be
added to a general proposition if it is otherwise germane. The Chair is
not prepared to discuss generally the rules governing the proposition
of germaneness, except in a general way, but will offer this
suggestion: The Chair thinks, in order to be germane to the subject
matter of the bill, an amendment must relate directly to something in
the bill, and is not germane simply because it relates to some similar
subject, or to the same kind of a subject covered by the bill. It seems
to the Chair that if this amendment should be held germane it would
throw open the floodgates. In other words, if this amendment is
germane, then a proposition for the Government to purchase mules or
horses or wagons or plows or harrows, or even land itself, or to
reclaim land, and sell these things to the farmer at cost would be
germane, because that might tend generally to stimulate agriculture or
the production of food products. If this is germane, either one of
those other propositions would unquestionably be germane, and the Chair
does not think that the bill contemplates anything of the kind. The
Chair realizes that it is rather a close question and he realizes that
he may be wrong, and would be glad to leave it to the judgment of the
committee. If the gentleman desires to appeal from the decision, the
Chair would be very glad to have him do so. But it is the opinion of
the Chair that the amendment is not in order on this bill, and the
Chair sustains the point of order.
Mr. Byrns modified the amendment and again offered it in this form:
The Secretary of Agriculture is empowered, whenever he shall find
that there is or shall be a special need in any restricted area for
nitrate of soda for the production of food or feed crops, to purchase
such nitrate of soda, store it, and sell it to farmers at cost,
including transportation and all other expenses, such cost price to be
payable in advance. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to
require any person having at his disposal a supply of nitrate of soda
to furnish the whole or any part thereof to the Secretary of
Agriculture in such quantities, at such times, and at such price as
shall be determined by him to be reasonable. Upon failure of the person
to comply with such requirement the Secretary of Agriculture is
authorized to requisition and take possession of such nitrate of soda
and pay for it at the price so determined. If the price so determined
be unsatisfactory to the person entitled to receive the same, such
person shall be paid for such nitrate of soda on delivery the amount
prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture and shall be entitled to sue
the United States to recover such further sum as, added to the amount
so paid, will be just compensation for such nitrate of soda, and
jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the United States district courts
to hear and determine all such controversies. Any moneys received by
the United States from the sale of nitrate of soda to farmers under
this section may, in the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture, be
used as a revolving fund for further carrying out the purposes of this
section. Any balance of such moneys not used as part of such revolving
fund shall be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. For
carrying out the purposes of this section, $4,500,000.
Mr. Anderson having again raised a question of order, the Chairman
ruled:
The gentleman from South Carolina offers an amendment to which the
gentleman from Minnesota makes a point of order. The Chair has before
him the rule to which attention has been called. It is in this
language:
``No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Courtney W. Hamlin, of Missouri, Chairman.
Sec. 2981
The paragraph sought to be amended reads as follows:
``For increasing food production and eliminating waste and promoting
conservation of food by educational and demonstrational methods,
through county, district, and urban agents and others''--
And so forth.
The gentleman's amendment provides for the Government buying nitrate
of soda and selling to the farmers, and argues that it is in order for
the reason that such action would tend to increase food production.
Clearly the food production provided for in this paragraph is in a
specific way, and that is by ``educational and demonstrational
methods.'' The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Saunders, fair, as he
always is, admits that unless certain language now in the paragraph is
stricken out the amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
Byrnes, would not be in order, but contends that the language now in
the paragraph which stands in the way of the amendment, in the face of
a point of order, can be stricken out and the other language contained
in the amendment inserted at the same time. The Chair does not think
that this can be done. In the face of a point of order the affirmative
matter contained in the amendment offered can not even be considered.
You can not do by indirection that which can be done directly. A motion
to strike out certain language in the bill would, of course, be in
order, but the very fact that that motion has coupled with it matter
which is not in order renders the whole amendment out of order. If this
amendment is in order, you could amend the bill by providing for the
purchase of a million acres of land to be given to the farmers of the
country to encourage food production. The Chair thinks this is clearly
out of order and sustains the point of order.
2981. To a proposition to pay wages a proposition to pay a bonus is
not germane.
To a bill establishing a minimum wage scale an amendment to add a
bonus was held not to be germane.
On July 16, 1919,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 5726) to establish a minimum
wage for certain employees of the Government.
The Clerk having read a section providing for salaries of employees
of the Post Office Department, Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, offered this
amendment:
Provided, That fourth-class postmasters shall hereafter be paid the
sum of $240 per year in addition to the compensation paid them under
existing law.
Mr. John I. Nolan, of California, raised a question of order against
the amendment.
The Chairman \2\ sustained the point of order.
Subsequently,\3\ Mr. Martin L. Davey, of Ohio, proposed the following
amendment:
And provided further, That the minimum wage of temporary clerks and
carriers of the Post Office Department shall be 50 cents per hour, and
that each permanent employee of the Post Office Department in the
classified service shall receive the special bonus of $240 per annum
during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1920, as provided for other
Government employees, and this shall be in addition to the amount
otherwise provided.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2681.
\2\ William R. Wood, of Indiana, Chairman.
\3\ Record, p. 2684.
Sec. 2982
Mr. Nolan having again raised the question of germaneness, the
Chairman said:
The first part of the gentleman's amendment is in order, but that
portion with reference to the bonus is not in order.
Mr. Davey then offered an amendment in this form:
And provided further, That that minimum pay of temporary clerks and
carriers of the Post Office Department shall be 50 cents per hour, and
that the minimum salaries of permanent employees of the Post Office
Department in the classified service shall be not less that $240 per
annum above the amount already provided by law during the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1920.
The Chairman held the amendment to be in order.
2982. To a bill establishing telephone rates an amendment prohibiting
reductions in wages of telephone employees while such rates remained
effective was held not to be germane.
On June 19, 1919,\1\ the bill (S. 120) to amend the telephone,
telegraph, and radio control act was read a third time.
Mr. John A. Moon, of Tennessee, moved to recommit the bill to the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce with instructions to that
committee to report it back to the House forthwith and with the first
section of the bill continuing current telephone rates amended by the
addition of the following proviso:
Provided further, That no reduction of wages of telephone or
telegraph employees now in effect shall be made so long as the orders
of the Postmaster General fixing present rates are effective.
Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, raised a question of order
against the motion on the ground that the amendment proposed in the
motion to recommit was not germane to the bill.
After debate the Speaker \2\ held:
The Chair has no right to consider the merits of the amendment. The
only question before the Chair is whether it is germane. This bill
simply provides that the telephone rates as established in the existing
law shall continue, to which the gentleman from Tennessee makes the
motion that no reduction of wages shall be allowed. The bill does not
refer at all anywhere to the question of wages, and therefore that
question is obviously not germane to the bill, and it is clear that the
Chair must sustain the point of order.
An appeal by Mr. Moon was, on motion of Mr. Walsh, laid on the table
by a vote of 189 yeas to 161 noes.
2983. To a bill granting soldiers the right to retain Government
clothing an amendment to grant them extra pay was held not to be
germane.
On December 18, 1918,\3\ the House was considering the bill (H. R.
13366) authorizing the retention of uniforms and personal equipment by
discharged soldiers.
Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, proposed an amendment as follows:
And all persons honorably discharged from the military or naval
service should receive one month's extra pay on discharge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1395.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 523.
Sec. 2984
Mr. S. Hubert Dent, jr., of Alabama, made the point of order that the
proposed amendment was not germane.
The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order.
2984. To a plan providing for acquisition by gift a substitute
providing for acquisition by purchase is not germane. To a bill for the
acceptance as a gratuity of a tract of land as a site for a sanatorium
an amendment providing for the purchase of a tract of land for that
purpose was held not to be germane.
To a proposal to establish an institution in one location a
proposition to establish it in another location is germane.
To a bill providing for the establishment of a sanatorium at Dawson
Springs, Ky., an amendment to establish it on public lands in the State
of Minnesota was held to be germane.
On December 4, 1918,\2\ the House was in the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union considering the bill (H. R. 12917)
providing for the establishment of a sanatorium for discharged soldiers
and sailors on a tract of land to be donated for that purpose near
Dawson Springs, Ky.
Mr. Cassius C. Dowell, of Iowa, proposed an amendment to strike out
the provision for the acceptance of land near Dawson Springs, Ky., and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
That the United States is authorized to acquire by purchase or
otherwise a tract of land to be selected by the Secretary of the
Treasury in either of the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, or
Texas suitable.
Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, made the point of order that as
the bill provided for acquisition by gift, an amendment providing for
acquisition by purchase was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \3\ ruled:
The Chair begs to state that this bill now before the committee
provides for the building of a sanatorium at Dawson Springs, Ky., and
the land can only be secured at Dawson Springs, Ky., by gift. There is
no provision in the bill saying that this land can be purchased; so
that if the people of Dawson Springs, Ky., should conclude after the
bill has become a law that they would not give the Government this
land, then, in the opinion of the Chair, it would not be possible to
establish the sanatorium there without further legislation, because it
says that it must be acquired by gift and that the land can only be
secured in that way. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Iowa
says that this sanatorium may be established in either the State of
Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, or Texas by purchase or otherwise. The
Chair begs to state that so far as he has been able to ascertain from a
brief time spent in looking up the precedents this is the only one
where it was proposed to offer an amendment to give away public land,
and the Chair at that time held that that was not in order.That
decision is found in Volume V of Hinds' Precedents, paragraph 5877. The
point of order was made on January 20, 1859, by Mr. Cobb, of Alabama,
and the decision was rendered by Speaker Orr, of South Carolina.
The Chair believe, in the view he takes of this amendment, that if
this bill should pass with this amendment in it the Secretary of the
Treasury might go to either one of these States and if
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\2\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 108.
\3\ Martin D. Foster, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 2985
he was unable to secure the land otherwise than by purchase the
sanatorium would not be built, and then that would compel the purchase
of ground upon which to place the sanatorium, so that it would change
the entire scope of the bill as now proposed, which is specifically to
provide for the establishment of the sanatorium by gift. Under these
circumstances, the Chair thinks that the amendment of the gentleman
from Iowa would not be in order.
Mr. Halvor Steenerson, of Minnesota, then offered an amendment
proposing as a site for the sanatorium.
One hundred thousand acres of the national forest bordering on Tuck
Lake and Cass Lake and Lake Winnibigoshish, in Minnesota, or so much
thereof as may be required, be set aside.
Mr. Frank Clark, of Florida, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
The Chairman held:
The Chair is ready to make up his mind. The Chair begs to state that
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota proposes to
strike out all of lines 5, 6, 7, and 8 and the first three words of
line 9 and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``One hundred thousand
acres of the national forest bordering on Tuck Lake and Cass Lake and
Lake Winnibigoshish, in Minnesota, or so much thereof as may be
required, be set aside.'' Now, the Chair thinks this bill provides for
the location of a sanatorium at Dawson Springs. That is a particular
point. The Chair thinks it would be in order to change the location of
the same sanatorium and believes that this provides only for a change
of location, not for the buying of any land, but that it shall be
established where the Government buys no land, and the Chair begs to
call the attention of the committee to the fact that in the case of the
canal decision, which has been quoted here many times, that it was in
order to change the location of a canal, and therefore, believes this
amendment is in order and overrules the point of order.
2985. To a proposition to sell a commodity, service, or equity a
proposition to give such commodity, service, or equity is not germane.
To a bill providing for the payment of compensation under certain
circumstances as a part of the benefits of insurance policies to be
issued by the Government in consideration of the payment of annual
premiums an amendment providing for the payment of such compensation as
a pension was held not to be germane.
On September 12, 1917,\1\ while the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 5723) to
amend the war risk insurance act, the following paragraph was read:
compensation for death or disability
Sec. 300. That for death or disability resulting from personal injury
suffered or disease contracted in the course of the service by any
commissioned officer or enlisted man or by any member of the Army Nurse
Corps (female) or of the Navy Nurse Corps (female) when employed in the
active service under the War Department or Navy Department, the United
States shall pay compensation as hereinafter provided.
To this paragraph Mr. Richard Wayne Parker, of New Jersey, offered
the following amendment:
After the word ``compensation,'' insert the words ``by way of
pension.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 7061.
Sec. 2986
Mr. William C. Adamson, of Georgia, having made the point of order
that the amendment was not germane, the Chairman \1\ held:
The Chair thinks that the amendment is not germane, and sustains the
point of order.
2986. To a proposition to market a commodity for a consideration a
proposition to donate such commodity as a gratuity is not germane.
To a law providing for the sale of insurance to soldiers in
consideration of the payment of annual premiums an amendment proposing
to grant such insurance for two years without payment of premiums was
held not to be germane.
On September 13, 1919,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on that
state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 8778) to amend the
war risk insurance act, when Mr. Roscoe C. McCulloch, of Ohio, proposed
an amendment providing insurance for persons honorably discharged from
the Army or Navy to continue for a period of two years after such
discharge without cost to the insured.
Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
After extended debate the Chairman \3\ held:
As we all know, there is a tendency in this House and in the body at
the other end of this Capitol to attach all sorts of legislation to
bills in the form of what are called riders. This has been carried to
such an extent that sometimes matters entirely unrelated and
incongruous are combined in the same bill, to the detriment of the law
as to clearness of meaning and to the despair of persons trying to find
the law after it is enacted.
Rule XVI, paragraph 7, provides that--
``No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
What is the subject under consideration? The subject under
consideration is a bill amending the war-risk insurance act in several
respects. Section 400 of article 4 of the war-risk insurance act
provides--
``That in order to give to every commissioned officer and enlisted
man, etc., when employed in active service under the War Department or
Navy Department greater protection for themselves and their dependents
than is provided in article 3, the United States, upon application to
the bureau and without medical examination, shall grant insurance
against the death or total permanent disability of any such person in
any multiple of $500, and not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000,
upon the payment of the premiums as hereinafter provided.''
The words ``as hereinafter provided'' evidently refer to sections
401, 402, 403, 404, and 405.
Section 401 prescribes the time for making applications. It also
makes provision for persons in service disabled or dying without
applying for insurance, allowance if disabled, allowance in case of
death, and limitation of payments of 240 installments.
Section 402 provides the form of policy, viz:
``That the director, subject to the general direction of the
Secretary of the Treasury, shall promptly determine upon and publish
the full and exact terms and conditions of such contract of
insurance.''
Section 402 also provides that the insurance shall be nonassignable
for alternative policies, the basis of premiums, and the beneficiaries.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 5343.
\3\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
Sec. 2886
Section 403 provides--
``That the United States shall bear the expenses of administration
and the excess mortality and disability cost resulting from the hazards
of war. The premium rates shall be the net rates based upon the
American Experience Table of Mortality, and interest at 3\1/2\ per cent
per annum.''
Section 404 provides for term insurance during the war, for
conversion after the termination of war, and for conversion rights.
Section 405 provides for disagreements, attorney fees, and so forth.
The subject under consideration is not ``insurance,'' nor even ``war-
risk insurance,'' but the ``granting of insurance by the United States
upon the payment of premiums.'' In short, article 4 provides for
insurance upon the payment of premiums. There is nothing in the law
which would indicate that it was the intention of Congress to give
insurance or to fix premium rates or payments, except by means of the
American Experience Table of Mortality.
The joint amendment of the gentleman from Ohio proposes to amend the
bill by adding a new section as follows:
``The term insurance in force on the life of every commissioned
officer and enlisted man or member of the Army or Navy Nurse Corps
(female) on the date he leaves the active military or naval service
shall continue in force for two years after the end of the calendar
month in which he is separated from the active service, without the
payment of premium by the insured: Provided, however, That in the case
of the persons who are or have been so separated from the service and
who have paid their premiums after being so separated the period of two
years herein provided shall begin to run on the first day of the
calendar month succeeding the passage of this act or on the first day
of the calendar month succeeding the month for which the premium was
last paid, whichever date was the earlier: Provided further, That every
person who converts or has converted his term insurance before the
expiration of the two-year period herein provided shall, during such
period or the remainder thereof, be entitled to a commutation credit on
his term or converted insurance equivalent to what the monthly premium
on his term insurance would have been during the said two-year period
if he had not converted it and if this amendatory act had not bee
passed.''
What is the subject of the proposed amendment? ``The term insurance
in force shall be continued in force for two years without the payment
of premiums.'' The object of this amendment, when stripped of all
verbiage and reduced to its last analysis, is to give to the insured
two years' free insurance.
In other words, the present law, as well as the bill under
consideration, provides for insurance upon the payment of premiums,
while the amendment provides for insurance without the payment of
premiums. Surely such a radical change of the policy of the Government
presents a different subject within the inhibition of the rule.
In Hinds' Precedents (v. 5877) is cited a case in point:
``To a bill relating to the sale of the public lands an amendment
proposing to give them to settlers was held not to be germane.''
Clearly the two propositions are related, but ``two subjects are not
necessarily germane because they are related.''
Many other cases can be cited.
The Chair is not altogether able to follow the logic of the gentleman
from Iowa, Mr. Towner, in his contention that the proposition of the
amendment is not the granting of free insurance, but is to prevent the
lapsing or forfeiture of policies. If the gentleman will refer to the
act, section 401, he will find this provision:
``Any person in the active service on or after the 6th day of April,
1917, who while in such service and before the expiration of 120 days
from and after such publication he becomes or has become totally and
permanently disabled, or dies or has died, without having applied for
insurance, he shall be deemed to have applied for and to have been
granted insurance, payable to such person during his life in monthly
installments.''
On June 17, 1919, the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Good, offered an
amendment to the Senate amendment No. 21 on the deficiency
appropriation bill. The Senate amendment directed the Secretary of the
Treasury to complete the hospital at Broadview in Chicago, and also
amended section 6 of the act approved March 3, 1919, creating an
emergency fund of $1,500,000 for the
Sec. 2987
United States Public Health Service. Mr. Good's amendment restricted
the Secretary of the Treasury as to taking further action under a
number of sections of the above act.
The Speaker sustained the point of order, setting out his reasons in
a carefully prepared ruling. If the present occupant of the Chair would
follow the long line of precedents clearly established, he must of
necessity sustain the point of order.
The Chair sustains the point of order made by the gentleman from New
York.
2987. To a joint resolution repealing declarations of war an
amendment authorizing the negotiation of treaties of peace was held not
to be germane.
It is not in order to strike out an amendment already agreed to by
the House.
On June 13, 1921,\1\ the House was considering the joint resolution
(S. J. Res. 16) repealing the joint resolution of April 6, 1917,
declaring a state of war to exist between the United States and
Germany, and the joint resolution of December 7, 1917, declaring a
state of war to exist between the United States and the Imperial and
Royal Austro-Hungarian Government.
The question being on the passage of the joint resolution, Mr. Henry
D. Flood, of Virginia, moved to recommit it to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs with instructions to that committee to forthwith report the
joint resolution back to the House with an amendment striking out all
after the enacting clause and inserting the following:
That the President be, and he is hereby, requested and authorized to
enter into negotiations with the Government of Germany and her allies
and with the powers associated with the United States in the European
War with a view to concluding a settlement of all controversies between
the United States and Germany and her allies, and to conclude, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate, any and all international
acts or agreements necessary to reach a definite adjustment with all of
the powers engaged in the European War in respect to any questions or
controversies relating to the conflict.
Mr. John Jacob Rogers, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that
the amendment proposed in the motion to recommit was not germane to the
joint resolution.
After extended debate the Speaker \2\ ruled:
The Chair will not consider the suggestions that this motion refers
to the Allies of the United States and the Allies of the other nations,
because, as the gentleman from Virginia suggested, he could withdraw
his motion to recommit and amend it and remedy that defect. The Chair
will base his ruling upon the main question, and the Chair will state
frankly that he would prefer to hold that it is germane, because, as he
understands, those have been the two contentions, one that peace must
be secured by a treaty and the other that it can be secured by
declaration, and the Chair would be glad to allow the issue to be
settled by a vote, and appreciates the force of the suggestion that a
motion to recommit is intended to allow the minority to express its
views. But the Chair thinks he ought to not depart from parliamentary
precedent even to accomplish what the general intent of the rules of
the House may have been, and it seems clear to the Chair that a
resolution declaring that a war is at an end can not, if the point of
order be made, be amended by the recommendation that a treaty shall be
entered into. The very issue that has been made is that the House has
no right to declare peace; that that is an entirely different
proposition from making a treaty of peace, so different that the House
has no right to do it; and that the only way to secure peace is by a
treaty. Therefore the Chair feels constrained to rule that the motion
to recommit is not in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2546.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 2988
There is another ground on which the Chair perhaps could easily base
his decision, and that is the well-established rule that where the
House itself has adopted an amendment as it has in this case, then that
amendment can not be stricken out by a motion to recommit, as is
attempted by this motion; but the Chair prefers to base his ruling on
the general proposition of germaneness. The Chair therefore sustains
the point of order.
2988. To a proposition to attain a definite object by a specific
method a proposition to achieve the same object by another unrelated
method is not germane.
To a bill proposing to regulate grain exchanges by taxation an
amendment proposing to regulate them by prohibiting the transmission of
messages was held not to be germane.
On May 12, 1921,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 5676) taxing contracts for
the sale of grain for future delivery and options for such contracts
and providing for the regulation of boards of trade.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 3. That in addition to the taxes now imposed by law there is
hereby levied a tax of 20 cents a bushel on every bushel involved in
such transactions, upon each and every privilege or option for a
contract either of purchase or sale of grain, intending hereby to tax
the transactions known to the trade as ``privileges,'' ``bids,''
``offers,'' ``puts and calls,'' ``indemnities,'' or ``ups and downs.''
Mr. John L. Cable, of Ohio, proposed to strike out the section and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
Sec. 3. That it shall be unlawful, by means of telephone or telegraph
lines, wires, or other means of communication extending from one State
to another or to foreign countries, to make or offer to make or assist
in making any contract respecting the purchase or sale either upon
credit or margin of any grain, not intending the actual bona fide
receipt or delivery of any such grain, but intending a settlement of
such contract based upon the differences of the public market quotation
of prices made on any board of trade or exchange upon which such grain
is dealt in, and without intending a bona fide purchase or sale of the
same.
Mr. David H. Kincheloe, of Kentucky, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the section.
After debate the Chairman \2\ held:
The bill under consideration has for its purpose the regulation of
boards of trade dealing in grain under a governmental license by means
of the taxing power. The substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio,
instead of licensing boards of trade to carry on their dealings would
absolutely forbid all transactions of the character referred to in the
bill that are authorized under certain conditions and limitations.
Under the general rule of the House relating to germaneness, as found
in Rule XVI, without referring to clause 3, Rule XXI, which still
further limits the privilege of amendment on revenue bills, which this
is, this amendment would be excluded because it is extraneous to that
which is under consideration by the committee. It involves an entirely
different subject for consideration than that in the bill under
consideration. The bill provides for licensing under the taxation power
of Congress; the amendment is to prohibit entirely under the commerce
clause. It is clearly a different proposal, and therefore without
resorting to the strict rule found in Rule XXI, that on revenue bills
an amendment must be germane, not only to the subject matter but to the
item under consideration, the Chair believes that it is not germane
under the ban of the general rule, and therefore sustains the point of
order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First Sixty-seventh Congress, Record p. 1376.
\2\ William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, Chairman.
Sec. 2989
2989. To a proposal to authorize certain activities an amendment
proposing to investigate the advisability of undertaking such
activities is not germane.
To a bill for the improvement of rivers and harbors an amendment
providing for a commission to study, consider and report on the subject
was held not to be germane.
On June 26, 1917 \1\ the river and harbor appropriation bill was
under consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union.
Mr. John H. Small, of North Carolina, offered an amendment reading in
part as follows:
That a commission, to be known as the waterways commission,
consisting of the Secretary of War, Secretary of the Interior,
Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, and three additional
members to be appointed by the President of the United States from the
active or retired list of the Engineer Corps of the Army, or other
Government services, or from civil life, one of whom shall be
designated by the President as chairman, is hereby created and
authorized, under such rules and regulations as it may adopt, to bring
into coordination and cooperation the engineering, scientific, and
constructive services, bureaus, boards, and commissions of the several
governmental department of the United States and commissions created by
Congress that relate to study, development, or control of waterways and
subjects related thereto, with a view to uniting such services in
investigating questions relating to the development, improvement,
regulation, and control of rivers and harbors to secure the necessary
data, and to formulate and report to Congress, as early as practicable,
a comprehensive plan or plans for the development of waterways for the
purposes of navigation and recommendations for the modification or
discontinuance of any project herein or heretofore adopted.
Mr. Allen T. Treadway, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane.
After debate, the Chairman \2\ ruled:
When the revenue bill was up some time in 1913 a motion to recommit
was made providing for the appointment of a commission to investigate
and gather information touching the tariff question, and Speaker Clark,
in an elaborate opinion, held that on a revenue bill they would not
have the right to appoint a commission to gather this data. There is
another decision handed down by the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Garrett, along similar lines. The Chair thinks, in view of these
decisions, that the point of order should be sustained, and therefore
sustains the point of order.
2990. To a proposal to buy bonds from farm-loan banks for a specified
purpose an amendment proposing the purchase of bonds from another
source which would necessarily contribute directly to the same purpose
was held not to be germane.
On May 18, 1920,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union had under consideration the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 351)
proposing to amend the Federal farm loan act and reading as follows:
Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has asked for a
reargument of the case involving the constitutionality of the Federal
farm loan act; and
Whereas the reargument of the case will postpone a decision until
next October at the earliest; and
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4331.
\2\ Pat Harrison, of Mississippi, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7254.
Sec. 2990
Whereas the Federal land banks are now and it is feared will be
unable under these circumstances to sell bonds to meet outstanding
commitments for loans to farmers pending a final decision: Therefore be
it
Resolved etc., That the provisions of the act of congress approved
January 8, 1918, entitled ``An act to amend section 32 of the Federal
farm loan act, approved July 17, 1916,'' be, and the same hereby are,
extended to the final years ending June 30, 1920, and June 30, 1921, to
the extent that the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby is,
authorized, as by the terms of said act, to purchase during the fiscal
years ending June 30, 1920, and June 30, 1921, or either of them, any
bonds which he might have purchased during the fiscal years ending June
30, 1918, and June 30, 1919, or either of them, under the provisions of
the original act.
Mr. W. M. Morgan, of Ohio, offered an amendment proposing to
authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase such bonds at par
and accrued interest in the open market.
Mr. Edmund Platt, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
Following debate on the point of order the Chairman \1\ ruled:
The pending resolution, for certain reasons set forth in the
preamble, seeks to extend the life of the Federal farm loan act and to
authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase certain farm-loan
bonds. The gentleman from Oklahoma offers an amendment to the amendment
of the committee to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase
certain farm-loan bonds in the open market and not from the Federal
farm-loan bank, as provided by existing legislation and by the
resolution now pending before the committee.
The point of order has been made that the amendment of the gentleman
from Oklahoma is not germane. The amendment, of course, must be germane
to the subject of the resolution itself, and it must also be germane to
the section to which it is offered.
The preamble sets forth the purpose of the resolution in the
following language:
``Whereas the Federal land banks are now, and it is feared will be,
unable under these circumstances to sell bonds to meet outstanding
commitments for loans to farmers pending the final decision: Therefore
be it resolved''--
And so forth.
So the preamble itself shows that the purpose of this resolution is
to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase these bonds from
the land banks in order to relieve the land banks, and the purpose as
set forth in the preamble and the resolution is not apparently to
relieve the owners. There is not any very close precedent which the
Chair has been able to find on this proposition, but the Chair does
think that the argument advanced by the gentleman from Oklahoma is not
in accordance with the precedents that exist, namely, that where
legislation authorizes the purchase of bonds on one city an amendment
authorizing the purchase of bonds of another city would be germane,
because that, in the Chair's view, is directly contrary to existing
precedents. The Chair thinks that in this amendment the gentleman from
Oklahoma seeks to go beyond the scope of the resolution and to
introduce in it a new purpose not set forth in the preamble and not set
forth in any part of the resolution, and that the provision to
authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to buy bonds generally in the
open market is not germane to the provision authorizing the Secretary
of the Treasury to purchase from a particular source, and therefore the
Chair sustains the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James W. Husted, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 2991
2991. To be a bill levying a tax on gasoline an amendment fixing the
price of gasoline was held not to be germane.
On February 11, 1924,\1\ the bill (H. R. 655) to provide a tax on
motor fuels in the District of Columbia, was being considered in the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union:
The Clerk read as follows:
That it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation, or
any dealer or distributor of motor-vehicle fuel to receive and accept
any shipment from any dealer or to pay for the same, or to sell, or
offer for sale, any motor-vehicle fuel unless the statement provided
for in section 5 of this act appears upon the invoices of said
shipment.
Mr. Tom D. McKeown of Oklahoma, offered this amendment:
After the word ``shipment'' insert:
It shall be unlawful for any dealer to charge any additional sum than
the regular price and 2 cents per gallon tax.
Mr. Everett Sanders, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
The Chairman \2\ held:
The Chair does not think that is germane. The gentleman is
undertaking to regulate price. The Chair must sustain the point of
order.
2992. To a section conferring on carriers the right to recover for
loss of freight an amendment conferring on shippers the right to
recover was held not to be germane.
On November 17, 1919,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 10453) to
provide for the termination of Federal control of railways, and the
Clerk had read the following section:
Whenever property is diverted or delivered by one carrier to another
carrier contrary to routing instructions in the bill of lading, unless
such diversion or delivery is in compliance with a lawful order, rule,
or regulation of the commission, such carriers shall, in a suit or
action in any court of competent jurisdiction, be jointly and severally
liable to the carrier thus deprived of its right to participate in the
haul of the property for the total amount of the rate or charge it
would have received had it participated in the haul of the property. In
any judgment which may be rendered the plaintiff shall be allowed to
recover against the defendant a reasonable attorney's fee, to be taxed
in the case.
To this section Mr. Clay Stone Briggs, of Texas, proposed an
amendment as follows:
And in case of loss or of injury or damage to any such property, the
owner thereof shall be entitled to recover the fair and reasonable
value thereof, or, as the case may be, such amount as will reasonably
compensate such owner for such injury or damage sustained by such
property.
Mr. Everett Saunders, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2276.
\2\ Theodore E. Burton, of Ohio, Chairman.
\3\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 8668.
Sec. 2993
The Chairman \1\ held:
The paragraph to which this amendment is offered confers on carriers
the right in a suit or action in any court of competent jurisdiction to
recover for the loss of freight by reason of improper diversion of the
delivery of the freight, contrary to routing instructions contained in
the bill of lading. The amendment of the gentleman from Texas provides
that in case of loss or damage to freight being so transported, having
been so improperly diverted, the shipper may recover the damage in a
proper proceeding in a court for the injuries sustained by the loss or
damage to such property. In the opinion of the Chair the remedy
proposed to be given to the shipper for this loss or injury is not akin
to the provisions of the paragraph conferring a remedy, a right on a
carrier, and in the Chair's view the amendment proposed is not germane
to the section offered. The chair therefore, sustains the point of
order.
2993. To a bill providing that funds derived from the sale of certain
public lands be paid into a reclamation fund to be used in the
construction of reclamation works amendments proposing that such funds
be paid into a national good-roads fund to be used in the building of
roads, or deposited in the Treasury to the credit of a Navy petroleum
fund, were held not to be germane.
Definition of the term ``germane.''
On September 22, 1914,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 16136) to authorize
exploration for and disposition of coal, phosphate, oil, gas, potassium
or sodium.
The Clerk read:
Sec. 30. That all moneys received from royalties and rentals under
the provisions of this act, excepting those from Alaska, shall be paid
into, reserved, and appropriated as a part of the reclamation fund,
created by the act of Congress approved June 17, 1902, known as the
reclamation act, but after use thereof in the construction of
reclamation works and upon return to the reclamation fund of any such
moneys in the manner provided by the reclamation act and acts
amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto, 50 per cent of the amounts
derived from such royalties and rentals so utilized in and returned to
the reclamation fund shall be paid by the Secretary of the Treasury
after the expiration of each fiscal year to the State within the
boundaries of which the leased lands or deposits are or were located,
said moneys to be used by such State for the support of public schools
or other educational institutions or for the construction of public
improvements as the legislature of the State may direct.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, offered an amendment as follows:
Substitute for section 30:
``That all moneys received from royalties and rentals under the
provisions of this act, except those from Alaska, shall be deposited in
the Treasury as a special fund, to be known as the `national good-roads
fund,' which fund shall be applied as Congress may from time to time
direct by, appropriation or otherwise, for the building of good
roads.''
Mr. Scott Ferris, of Oklahoma, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
The Chairman \3\ ruled:
A few days since, while this bill was under consideration, notice was
given that amendments would be offered to this section to provide for
the disposition of the receipts from various leases
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 15553.
\3\ John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 2993
authorized in the bill, in a manner different from that provided in the
bill. As a result of the intimation then given, the Chair has given
considerable attention to the questions that might arise under this
section.
The rule of the House--Rule XVI, paragraph 7--is that no motion or
proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall
be admitted under color of amendment. That is the rule which generally
is mentioned as required amendments to be germane to a bill or to the
particular part of the bill to which an amendment is offered. Under
general parliamentary law amendments need not be germane. Mr. Jefferson
states in section 460 in his Manual that--
``Amendments may be made so as totally to alter the nature of the
proposition; and it is a way of getting rid of a proposition by making
it bear a sense different from what it was intended by the movers, so
that they vote against it themselves.''
In a decision by Mr. Carlisle in 1880 the history of the adoption of
the rule by the House requiring amendments to be germane is set forth
in great detail. Ever since 1822 the rule in the House has been as it
is at present. Mr. Carlisle in his decision, which is found in volume
5, section 5825, of Hinds' Precedents, said:
``When therefore it is objected that a proposed amendment is not in
order because it is not germane, the meaning of the objection is simply
that it (the proposed amendment) is a motion or proposition on a
subject different from that under consideration. This is the test of
admissibility prescribed by the express language of the rule; and if
the Chair upon examination of the bill under consideration and the
proposed amendment, shall be of the opinion that they do not relate to
the same subject, he is bound to sustain the objection and exclude the
amendment, subject, of course, to the revisory power of the Committee
of the Whole on appeal.
``It is not always easy to determine whether or not a proposed
amendment relates to a subject different from that under consideration,
within the meaning of the rule, and it is especially difficult to do so
when, as in the present instance, the amendment may, by reason of the
terms it employs, appear to have a remote relation to the original
subject.''
That an amendment be germane means that it must be akin to, or
relevant to, the subject matter of the bill. It must be an amendment
that would appropriately be considered in connection with the bill. The
object of the rule requiring amendments to be germane--and such a rule
has been adopted in practically every legislative body in the United
States--is in the interest of orderly legislation. Its purpose is to
prevent hasty and ill-considered legislation, to prevent propositions
being presented for the consideration of the body which might not
reasonably be anticipated and for which the body might not be properly
prepared.
The provision in this bill to which the amendment is offered
provides:
``That all moneys received from royalties and rentals under the
provisions of this act, excepting those from Alaska, shall be paid
into, reserved, and appropriated as a part of the reclamation fund
created by the act of Congress approved June 17, 1902, known as the
reclamation act, but after use thereof in the construction of
reclamation works and upon return to the reclamation fund of any such
moneys in the manner provided by the reclamation act and acts
amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto, 50 per cent of the amounts
derived from such royalties and rentals so utilized in and returned to
the reclamation fund shall be paid by the Secretary of the Treasury
after the expiration of each fiscal year to the State within the
boundaries of which the leased lands or deposits are or were located,
said moneys to be used by such State for the support of public schools
or other educational institutions, or for the construction of public
improvements, as the legislature of the State may direct.''
Any amendment to a section which is relevant to the subject matter,
and which may be said to be properly and logically suggested in the
perfecting of the section in the carrying out of the intent of the
bill, would be germane to the bill and thus in order. To determine
whether an amendment is relevant and germane, while not always easy,
can best be done by applying certain simple tests. If it be apparent
that the amendment proposes some modification of the bill, or of any
part of it, which from the declared purposes of the bill could not
reasonably have been anticipated and which can not be said to be a
logical sequence of the matter contained in the bill, and is not such a
modification as would naturally suggest itself to the legislative body
considering the bill, the amendment can not be said to be germane.
Sec. 2993
It seems to the Chair that applying these tests to the amendment of
the gentleman from Illinois to determine whether it is germane, the
question to be answered is whether the amendment is relevant,
appropriate, and a natural and logical sequence to the subject matter
of the bill. It is quite clear to the Chair that the amendment can not
be so characterized, and that the committee could not have anticipated
or reasonably expected that to a proposition that the money to be
derived from the royalties of the leases, authorized to be made under
this legislation, should be put in the reclamation fund, a well-
established fund created for specific and definite purposes; that a
proposition to create a new fund, to be known as the ``national good-
roads fund,'' could be considered as a natural, appropriate, relevant,
and logical sequence to the proposal in the bill; and therefore the
Chair sustains the point of order.
Mr. Mann having appealed from the decision of the Chair, the decision
was sustained--yeas 59, nays 0.
Mr. Irvine L. Lenroot, of Wisconsin, then proposed this amendment:
Provided, That any moneys which may accrue to the United States under
the provisions of the act from lands within the naval petroleum
reserves shall be set aside for the needs of the Navy and deposited in
the Treasury to the credit of a fund to be known as the ``Navy
petroleum fund,'' which fund shall be applied to the needs of the Navy
as Congress may from time to time direct by appropriation or otherwise.
Mr. Mann made the point of order that the amendment was not germane.
The Chairman said:
The Chair intended, in making his former ruling, to call attention to
a decision of Mr. Speaker Clark made on June 23, 1914. On that occasion
there was under consideration a Senate amendment in which it was
proposed to provide that the proceeds of the sale of certain ships
should be appropriated to build an additional battleship. To that
amendment there was proposed an amendment providing that the money
should be available for the construction of good roads. Mr. Speaker
Clark held that that amendment was not in order, because it was not
germane.
Very frequently the difficulty in reaching a conclusion as to whether
an amendment is germane arises from the fact that while the proposed
amendment is somewhat similar to the subject matter of the bill, the
particular predilection of Members favorable to the amendment makes
them reason themselves into a frame of mind to believe the amendment to
be germane without careful analysis of its relation to the matter
proposed to be amended. Under the act of June, 1910, the president is
authorized to withdraw public lands for any public purposes. While it
does not appear on the face of this bill that certain lands have been
withdrawn for the purpose of providing oil for the Navy, it is a matter
well within the knowledge of the Chair and of Members generally that
such action has been taken. Suppose the President had also withdrawn
public lands and set them aside to be utilized as military reservations
or as forest reserves or for park or some other purpose, would
amendments be in order to this provision which would provide that the
royalties of any leases of such lands should be segregated in the
Treasury and dedicated to the development of military reservations or
of public parks or for some other public purpose assigned as the reason
in the order of withdrawal made by the President? It seems to the Chair
that such proposals could not reasonably be anticipated, nor could they
be held as logical sequences to the provision in the bill.
The meaning of the word ``germane'' is akin to, or near to, or
appropriate to, or relevant to, and ``germane'' amendments must bear
such relationship to the provisions of the bill as well as meet the
other tests; that is, that they be a natural and logical sequence to
the subject matter, and propose such modifications as would naturally,
properly, and reasonably by anticipated. The Chair has been unable to
find any comprehensive definition of the term ``germane'' as used in a
parliamentary sense. It is not easy to define, and it is difficult to
state concisely, yet comprehensively, the rule to be applied to
determine unerringly whether amendments are germane. The Chair believes
that the true rule, and the tests to be used in applying it, have been
here epitomized.
The fundamental purpose of this bill is not to provide revenue and to
dedicate or segregate it in the Treasury. The fundamental purpose of
the bill is ``to authorize exploration for and dis-
Sec. 2994
position of coal, phosphates, oil, gas, potassium, or sodium,'' and the
segregation of the proceeds of the leases authorized is merely
incidental to the general scheme of the legislation.
The amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin provides that ``any
moneys which may accrue to the United States under the provisions of
this act from lands within the naval petroleum reserve shall be set
aside for the needs of the Navy and deposited in the Treasury to the
credit of the fund to be known as the Navy petroleum fund, which fund
shall be applied to the needs of the Navy as Congress may from time to
time direct by appropriation or otherwise.''
To simplify determining whether this amendment is in order, without
changing its fundamental purpose, let it be assumed that instead of
designating this fund as a ``Navy petroleum fund'' it were to be
designated as a ``Navy battleship fund,'' and to be applied by
appropriation or otherwise by Congress to the needs of the Navy. The
Chair does not believe that it would be seriously argued that the
creation of such a fund as an amendment to this provision would be
considered germane. The mere designation of the fund as a Navy
petroleum fund, because this bill applies to oil leases, while perhaps
confusing, does not change the character of the amendment. It would be
no different if it were proposed that royalties from leases made of
parts of public lands reserved for military purposes be placed in the
Treasury for the support of the Army, or of lands reserved for health
purposes be applied for the support of the Public Health Service. The
very suggestion of such amendments clarifies the situation and, in the
opinion of the Chair, obviates any difficulty in determining the
question of order. In the opinion of the Chair the amendment is not
germane, and the Chair sustains the point of order.
2994. The a resolution to approve the report of a committee an
amendment providing for disapproval of the report and amendment of an
existing law was held not to be germane.
On January 29, 1913,\1\ the House was considering the joint
resolution S. J. Res. 158, reading as follows:
Resolved, etc., That the plan, design, and location for a Lincoln
memorial, determined upon and recommended to Congress December 4, 1912,
by the commission created by the act entitled ``An act to provide a
commission to secure plans and designs for a monument or memorial to
the memory of Abraham Lincoln, '' approved February 9, 1911, be and the
same are hereby, approved.
Mr. Thetus W. Sims, of Tennessee, offered this amendment:
Strike out the word ``approve'' and insert ``disapprove, and that a
memorial arch on Sixteenth Street at a suitable point north of the
intersection of U Street and Sixteenth Street, at a cost not to exceed
$2,000,000, be erected instead of the building provided by the
commission.''
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, raised a question of order against
the amendment and said:
This resolution is a resolution providing:
``That the plan, design, and location for a Lincoln memorial,
determined, upon and recommended to Congress December 4, 1912, by the
commission created by the act,'' referred to in the resolution, ``be,
and the same are hereby, approved.''
The act referred to in the resolution is an act approved February 9,
1911, which the Speaker will find in Thirty-sixth Statutes at Large,
page 898. That was passed in the last Congress. That act provides that
the gentlemen named in the act are created a commission to secure and
determine upon a location, plan, and design for a monument or memorial
in the city of Washington, D.C., to the memory of Abraham Lincoln,
subject to the approval of Congress. Section 3 of the act provides--
``That the construction of the monument or memorial herein and hereby
authorized shall be upon such site as shall be determined by the
commission herein created and approved by Congress.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Third session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 2250.
Sec. 2995
The resolution pending before the House is simply a resolution to
approve the location, the plan, and the design on the report of the
commission which has been submitted to Congress in conformity with the
act. It is not a resolution to amend the original act; it does not
propose to amend the original act at all, but it is simply a resolution
in accordance with the provisions of the original act to approve the
plans which have been submitted by the commission.
The Speaker \1\ ruled:
The pending resolutions is very simple. It is simply to approve
certain findings of that commission; that one proposition and nothing
else.
The present occupant of the chair has ruled more than once that where
a law contains several sections and some gentleman brings in a bill to
amend one section of that law only, then the House can not wander
around and undertake in that bill to amend other sections of that law,
because there must be an end and a limit to all things. The statute
provides that the Lincoln monument or memorial shall be ``in the
District of Columbia.'' That settles that part of it. I do not believe
that under that statute you can go outside the District of Columbia. I
do not believe that a fair, careful reading of this resolution will
permit any amendment providing for passing on another memorial in the
city of Washington or out of it.
There are various ways of defeating this proposition. The first step,
if the House desires to take it, is to vote this resolution down. Any
step might be taken after that. There are two ways of getting rid
entirely of this limitation as to the District of Columbia. One of them
is by a bill amending the statute creating the commission, and another
by a joint resolution, which is tantamount to a bill, for the same
purpose. Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.
2995. The burden of proof of the germaneness of an amendment rests
upon its proponents.
Propositions however closely related are not necessarily germane.
To a proposal to fix the commencement of the terms of Representatives
in Congress a proposition to extend the duration of such terms is not
germane.
On March 8, 1928,\2\ during the consideration of the joint resolution
(S. J. Res. 47) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States fixing the commencement of the terms of President and
Vice President and Members of Congress, and fixing the time of the
assembling of Congress, in the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, offered an
amendment proposing to increase the terms of Members to four years.
Mr. C. William Ramseyer, of Iowa, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the joint resolution.
Mr. Bankhead proposed to yield to Mr. Ramseyer for debate when Mr.
Ramseyer submitted that the burden of proof of germaneness rested on
the proponents of the amendment.
The Chairman \3\ agreed:
The burden to show that it is in order is on the gentleman from
Alabama. The Chair thinks the gentleman from Alabama would also be
entitled to rebut the arguments made in behalf of the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\2\ First session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 4368.
\3\ Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, Chairman.
Sec. 2995
After debate the Chairman ruled:
The Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union has before
it for consideration the text of the committee substitute for the
Senate Joint Resolution 47. This substitute being read for the purpose
of amendment, the gentleman from Alabama offers the following
amendment:
``Sec. 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
chosen every fourth year by the people of the several States.''
To this a point of order is made that the amendment is repugnant to
the provisions of the rule on germaneness, which reads as follows:
``And no motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
In order to determine whether this amendment is on a subject
different from that under consideration it is necessary to examine the
subject matter of the legislative proposition to which it is offered as
an amendment. An examination of the entire article shows that it is
composed of four sections having two distinct and definite purposes.
Sections 1 and 2 provide that the term of the President shall commence
on the 24th day of January and the terms of Senators and
Representatives shalll commence on the 4th day of January, instead of
as now on the 4th day of March, and that the Congress shall assemble on
the 4th day of January, instead of as now on the first Monday of
December. That is the distinct proposition involved in the first two
sections, the reason for the proposition being to abolish the session
of Congress after its successor has been elected and to bring the
session of the new Congress nearer the date of election, so that the
Congress will be more responsive to the will of the people.
The other proposition deals entirely with who shall exercise the
powers of the Chief Executive and perform his duties in the event of
the failure to elect the President, Vice President, or both, or in the
event of the death of the President elect, or the Vice President elect,
or both. These are the distinct and clear-cut propositions involved in
the article, and there are no other propositions.
There is no proposition to alter permanently the length of the terms
of any of the officers dealt with, either President, Vice President,
Members of the Senate, or Members of the House. While in one instance
throughout the future history of the country the terms of these
officers are shortened by two months, that is merely incident to moving
forward the date of the assembling of Congress and the abolition of the
session of Congress subsequent to election.
Now, an examination of the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Alabama shows that its effect not only deals with the length of the
term of the members but necessarily affects the make-up of the Senate
and of the Congress. Although the Constitution does not in express
words say so, it is a necessary result of the structure of our
legislature as laid down in the Constitution that a Congress begins
with the term of the Members of the House of Representatives and ends
with the expiration of the term of the Members of the House of
Representatives. That is not the case with the Senate, because the
Senate is considered a continuing body, one-third of its Members going
out every two years.
So, if this amendment were adopted, it would result in this, that
where now in each Congress every member of the Senate and every Member
of the House is a Member at the beginning and remains a Member of the
Senate and House until the expiration of Congress, we would have a
situation where one-third of the Members of the Senate who began with
the Congress would go out in the middle of its work and one-third of
the membership of the Senate would come in when the work of the
Congress was half done. That shows that this proposition involves not
merely the length of the term of the Members of the House of
Representatives, and for that reason might be deemed germane to section
1, but other consequences by reason of which it could not be held
germane to section 1.
As to the doctrine of germaneness, the Chair has diligently refreshed
his memory from the precedents, and will refer first to the decision of
former Speaker John G. Carlisle, to which reference has been made.
Mr. Carlisle, prior to this election as Speaker, frequently served as
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
and in that capacity in 1880 he rendered a decision in which he
discussed at great length the rule requiring amendments to be germane.
Sec. 2995
``When, therefore, it is objected that a proposed amendment is not in
order because it is not germane, the meaning of the objection is simply
that it (the proposed amendment) is a motion or proposition on a
subject different from that under consideration. This is the test of
admissibility prescribed by the express language of the rule; and if
the Chair, upon an examination of the bill under consideration and the
proposed amendment, shall be of the opinion that they do not relate to
the same subject, he is bound to sustain the objection and exclude the
amendment.''
Representative Fitzgerald, on September 22, 1914, in passing on a
point of order that an amendment is not germane, among other things
said:
``If it be apparent that the amendment proposed some modification of
the bill, or of any part of it, which from the declared purposes of the
bill could not reasonably have been anticipated and which can not be
said to be a logical sequence of the matter contained in the bill, and
is not such a modification as could naturally suggest itself to the
legislative body considering the bill, the amendment can not be said to
be germane.''
The question might arise whether the doctrine as to germaneness
applies to an amendment to the Constitution, and for that reason the
Chair directs attention to precedent to be found in the fifth volume of
Hinds', paragraph 5882.
It will be observed that the proposition then pending to amend the
Constitution was substantially the same proposition that is pending at
the present time. The difference between the amendment of the gentleman
from Alabama and the amendment held not germane by Mr. Speaker Crisp is
that the manner of the election of the Members of the Senate was sought
to be added to the propositions then, and the lengthening of the term
of Members of the House of Representatives is sought to be appended to
similar propositions on this occasion.
Just a word further with respect to the germaneness of this amendment
to the text of the committee substitute. The Chair calls attention to
the language used on September 19, 1918, by Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of
Tennessee, presiding in the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union, on the question of germaneness. He said:
``The present occupant of the chair had the honor of presiding as
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole when the amendment was proposed
to create the Tariff Commission as a part of a revenue bill. The point
of order was made, and the Chair held generally that the meaning of the
expression `germaneness' under the facts that were presented was that
the fundamental purpose of the amendment must be germane to the
fundamental purpose of the bill.''
The Chair commends that language to the House--``that the fundamental
purpose of the amendment must be germane to the fundamental purpose of
the bill.''
The proposition is now advanced, however, that while the amendment
may not be germane to the provisions of the subject matter under
consideration, inasmuch as the resolution under consideration amends
the Constitution in several particulars, it, therefore, is in order to
amend it in any particular, although the amendment may not be germane
to the amendments carried in the resolution itself. That is based on a
doctrine which is frequently reiterated in this House, that if a bill
amends a law in several particulars, the law may be amended by an
amendment to the bill in all particulars. The Chair has been unable to
find substantial authority for this doctrine. In discussing this
contention, Mr. Speaker Clark, on December 5, 1912, stated his opinion
very succinctly. He said:
``The rule is not that if there are two substantive propositions in
the bill you can add anything else to it.''
Mr. Speaker Gillett, on June 19, 1919, speaking on this phase of the
question of germaneness, said:
``That although more than one clause or section of a law is amended,
that fact does not necessarily bring the whole law before the House,
but the law itself is only subject to amendment when the propositions
under consideration are numerous and go to the heart of the law and
change the law in a vital way.''
``It is insisted that these proposed amendments do not go to the
heart of our Constitution or change it in a vital way. The gentleman
from Alabama in his argument has referred to the decision found in
Hinds' Precedents, volume 5, section 5824. The Chair is familiar with
that decision and
Sec. 2995
calls attention to the situation that led to the ruling upon which the
gentleman from Alabama relies. In holding an amendment to the original
law in order because the bill under consideration amended the original
law in various particulars the Speaker pro tempore, who was Mr.
Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, said this:
``It is apparent from even a casual examination of the bill that it
is a general amendatory bill. Section 1 relates to clause 15 of section
1 of the existing bankruptcy law; section 2 relates to clause 5 of
section 2 of the existing bankruptcy law; section 3 relates to clause 4
of subdivision A of section 3 of the bankruptcy law; section 6 relates
to section 17, and section 10 relates to section 40, and so on,
skipping from section to section throughout the entire law, without
regard to the particular relation of these sections to each other. In
other words, 16 sections in all of the 70 sections of the bankruptcy
law are here sought to be amended, or more than one-fourth of the
entire law.''
In other words, the decision upon which reliance is placed for the
doctrine was in a case where the bill under consideration revised
generally the original law.
Mr. Sidney Anderson, on June 10, 1921, in passing on an amendment to
a bill amending the war risk insurance act in various particulars, the
amendment under consideration applying to a section of the original
act, not dealt with by the pending bill, said:
``The Chair does not think that the general rule can be laid down
that where several portions of a law are amended by a bill reported by
a committee, it is not in any case in order to amend another section of
the bill not included in the bill reported by the committee nor does
the Chair think that the opposite rule can be laid down and rigidly
applied in every instance. The Chair thinks that a question of this
kind must be determined in every instance in the light of the facts
which are presented in the case.''
The point of order was sustained.
Chairman Stafford, on December 10, 1921, in passing on a similar
point of order as now under consideration, said:
``The gentleman invokes the rule that because the bill under
consideration amends two or three provisions of the Judicial Code,
therefore it is in order to amend all or any section of the entire
Judicial Code. The Chair can not subscribe to that doctrine, since it
would violate the fundamental principles that guide the procedure of
the House in the consideration of questions that come up from time to
time.''
The Chair has fortified himself with many other precedents, but does
not deem it necessary to go further into an exposition of what the
records disclose.
In order to point out the fact that the decision that the Chair is
about to render is not based on the decisions only of certain presiding
officers, the Chair calls attention to the fact that a decision was
made on this very point on May 20, 1920, and that an appeal therefrom
was taken, and the decision at that time, holding that the amendment
was not germane, was sustained by an almost two to one vote; so that
the highest authority that can exist for the ruling that the Chair
indicates he is about to make, is the decision of the House itself, on
an appeal, sitting in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union.
On that occasion a bill containing a series of amendments to the war
risk insurance act was under consideration, dealing with various
matters of administration but not with the beneficiaries or the
benefits provided for in the act. Mr. Sims of Tennessee offered an
amendment to include a certain class within the beneficiaries under the
act. The point of order that the amendment was not germane was
sustained.
The decision was made by the present incumbent of the chair, who
reads it not because it has intrinsic merit but that it may be known
just what question was involved in the precedent established by the
House itself:
On May 20, 1920, Mr. Lehlbach ruled as follows:
``The amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Sims, reads:
`` `That section 401 of the war risk insurance act is amended as
follows:
`` `The Chair presumes the intent is to add to the end of section 401
this additional proviso.
The bill under consideration is a bill to improve the facilities and
service of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance and further amending and
modifying the war risk insurance act as amended. The first
Sec. 2996
section of the bill provided for the installation of regional offices
and suboffices, and the various other sections of the bill provide for
the mode of administration and method and manner of making payments
under the bill. The bill is entirely within that general scope. It is
not a bill generally amending the war risk insurance act. It does not
amend it in various particulars, but only amends it in the method or
manner of making certain payments; in matters of administration, in
other words. It does not deal with a class of beneficiaries or change
the advantages that beneficiaries may enjoy, nor does it any way define
or modify who such beneficiaries may be. The Chair therefore thinks
that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee is not
within the scope of the bill or any of the provisions of the bill and
is, therefore, not germane, and sustains the point of order.' ''
The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order that this amendment
is not germane to the joint resolution, nor is it in order, under the
rule of germaneness, because the resolution amends the Constitution
itself in various particulars.
Mr. Bankhead having appealed, the decision of the Chair was
sustained. On division, yeas 207, nays 33.
2996. A proposition is not necessarily germane because related to the
subject under consideration.
To a bill providing for reapportionment of Representatives in
Congress an amendment authorizing redistricting of States in accord
with such apportionment is not germane.
An instance in which a bill was considered in the House under the
provisions of a special order without having been reported by a
standing committee.
The rule on germaneness is not affected by the manner in which a bill
is brought before the House or the fact that it has not had previous
consideration by a standing committee.
On June 6, 1929,\1\ when the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (S. 312) to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial
censuses, and to provide for apportionment of Representatives in
Congress, the Chairman \2\ announced that a point of order by Mr. John
J. O'Connor, of New York, was pending against an amendment proposed by
Mr. Daniel A. Reed, of New York.
At the instance of the Chair the amendment was again reported as
follows:
Provided, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to
prevent the legislature of any State (subject, however, to the
initiative and referendum law in any State wherein such a law exists)
at any time after the approval of this act, in order to secure
contiguous and compact territory and equalization of population in
accordance with the rules enumerated in section 3 of the apportionment
act, approved August 8, 1911, by concurrent resolution, from
redistricting the State for the purpose of electing Representatives to
Congress, and upon each and every such redistricting the
Representatives to Congress shall in any such State be elected from the
new districts so formed.
Mr. Burton L. French, of Idaho, in debating the point of order took
the position that as the bill under consideration proposed to repeal
certain sections of the law relating to the apportionment of
Representatives in Congress it was therefore in
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 2444.
\2\ Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 2996
order to offer amendments relating to other sections of the same law,
including the section relating to redistricting.
Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, took the further position
that in view of the fact that the bill had not been considered and
reported by a standing committee the rule of germaneness did not apply
with its usually strictness, and said:
We are operating at the present moment under unusual and
extraordinary conditions by reason of the fact that the committee which
would ordinarily have had jurisdiction of the bill has not been
appointed by the House, and therefore the bill is now before the House
and the Committee of the Whole under a special rule, never having been
considered by a committee.
The rules of the House which would ordinarily guide the Chair in
deciding the germaneness of the amendment can not be applied, because
the rules of the House contemplate that every bill which comes from the
Senate goes through the ordinary legislative channels of the House, one
of which is to be referred to a committee having jurisdiction of the
subject matter, and from that committee reported to the House and from
the House considered in the Committee of the Whole. That is not the
fact here. Therefore, the Chair can not approach this question under
the ordinary rules or precedents of the House established when we have
committees and a committee has considered the bill. The Chairman in
this instance is exactly in the same position that a chairman of a
committee would be. If this amendment were offered in the Census
Committee, and the point of order were made, clearly the chairman of
that committee would hold that it is germane, that it is related, that
it does pertain to the subject matter of the bill, and would hold it in
order. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole in this instance is
in exactly that position, because the Committee of the Whole is acting
in the capacity of a House committee considering a bill in the first
instance. We have no Census Committee functioning. It was therefore
necessary to bring in a special rule setting aside all the rules of the
House, in order to bring this bill properly before the House and for
consideration in the Committee of the Whole.
The Chairman held:
With reference to the suggestion of the gentleman from New York the
Chair will say that in the view which the Chair takes of the present
situation there is no difference in the application of the rules of the
House in regard to the subject of germaneness by reason of the fact
that this bill has not been considered by the standing committees of
the House. The Chair thinks that the effect of the special rule adopted
by the House for the consideration of this bill was merely to bring the
bill before the House without the intervention of the action of a
standing committee, and, of course, in contravention of the ordinary
rules of the House. In that connection the Chair is very distinctly of
the opinion that all amendments, whether made by a standing committee
having jurisdiction of the subject matter to either a House bill or a
Senate bill or offered on the floor of the Committee of the Whole, are
equally subject to the rule of germaneness.
There is nothing in the present bill which relates to the subject
matter of the amendment which subject matter is the action of State
legislatures and of State authorities in redistricting a State upon the
basis of a reapportionment of Members of the House made by Congress.
The Chair takes it that no one now is prepared to claim that there is
anything in the bill pending before us (S. 312) which directly relates
to the matter of the redistricting of the States.
However, the gentleman now claims that the provision in section 21 is
applicable, which reads as follows:
``That the act entitled `An act to provide for the fourteenth and
subsequent decennial censuses,' approved March 3, 1919, and all other
laws and parts of laws inconsistent with the provisions of this act are
hereby repealed.''
The gentleman calls attention to that provision and claims that that
relates to certain sections of the act of August 8, 1911, which bore on
the subject of redistricting by the States, but it seems to the Chair
that the gentleman overlooked the effect of the words--``all other laws
and parts of laws inconsistent with the provisions of this act are
hereby repealed.''
If there is nothing in this bill relating to redistricting, then
there can be nothing in it which is inconsistent with the act of 1911
on that subject. There can be no repeal by this bill of any law
Sec. 2997
or parts of laws which are not inconsistent with that act on the
subject of redistricting by State legislatures.
All the way through every provision of the act of August 8, 1911,
relates to ``this apportionment''; that is, the apportionment provided
for in the act of August 8, 1911.
Therefore, it seems to the Chair very clearly that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York is not germane to the pending
bill; and the Chair sustains the point of order.
2997. A specific proposition may not be amended by a general
provision.
To a paragraph applying to one bureau in the Navy Department an
amendment applying to the Navy Department as a whole was held not to be
germane.
On February 28, 1920,\1\ the House was considering Senate amendment
No. 34 to the second deficiency appropriation bill, reading as follows:
bureau of construction and repair
For the preservation and completion of vessels on the stocks and in
ordinary, etc., including the same objects specified under this head in
the naval appropriation act for the fiscal year 1920, $3,000,000.
Mr. George Holden Tinkham, of Massachusetts, offered this amendment:
Provided, That such parts of this appropriation as in the judgment of
the Secretary of the Navy may be necessary may be applied to the
objects of expenditure specified in the appropriations for various
bureaus of the department for the fiscal year 1920.
Mr. James. W. Good, of Iowa, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
The Speaker \2\ held:
The Chair sustains the points of order. The Chair thinks that clearly
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts extends this
appropriation, which is made for yards and docks over the whole Navy
Department, and is subject to the ruling which was made in the
committee on this subject.
2998. A general provision is not in order as an amendment to a
specific proposition.
To a bill relating to a specific class of canned goods an amendment
dealing with canned goods in general was not admitted.
On May 7, 1930,\3\ the House had under consideration the bill (H. R.
730) to amend section 8 of the pure food and drugs act.
Mr. Franklin Menges, of Pennsylvania, offered an amendment reading:
Provided, That the standards of quality and condition for any canned
foods which have been or which in the future may be established by or
under authority of any other act of Congress shall be and are hereby
adopted for the purpose of this act as the official standards of the
United States for canned foods.
Mr. Carl Chindblom, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill and argued:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3647.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 8532.
Sec. 2999
I wish to call the attention of the Speaker to the language in the
proposed amendment to section 8 of the pure food and drugs act:
``For the purposes of this paragraph the words canned food mean all
food which is in hermetically sealed containers and is sterilized by
heat, except meat and meat food products, which are subject to the
provisions of the meat inspection act of March 4, 1907 (34 Stat. 1260),
as amended, and except canned milk.''
Then, I call the attention of the Chair to the following words, which
follow immediately:
``The word class means and is limited to a generic product for which
a standard is to be established, and does not mean a grade, variety, or
species of a generic product. The Secretary of Agriculture is
authorized to determine, establish, and promulgate, from time to time,
a reasonable standard of quality, condition, and/or fill of container
for each class of canned food as will in his judgment promote honesty
and fair dealing in the interest of the consumer; and he is authorized
to alter or modify such standard from time to time as in his judgment
honesty and fair dealing in the interest of the consumer may require.''
All of these provisions are limited to class, and the term ``class''
is specifically defined to be limited to a generic product and does not
include a grade, variety, or species of a generic product. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is not limited to
class. It includes grades, varieties, and species of classes; that is,
of generic products.
Every other act which has been passed by Congress relates to canned
foods, aside from the pure food and drugs act, which alone is amended
by the pending bill. Therefore, it goes beyond the purposes of the bill
as reported by the committee, and is subject to the objection which I
am making.
The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order on the ground that:
The class of defined in this act and that the amendment of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania goes beyond the class as defined in the
bill.
2999. To an amendment affecting one item in a paragraph a proposed
substitute affecting all items in the paragraph was held not germane.
On April 8, 1909,\2\ the bill H. R. 1438, the tariff bill, was being
considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, offered an amendment
changing the proposed duty on one item in a paragraph comprising a
number of similar items.
To this amendment Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, moved an
amendment as follows:
Provided, That only 50 per cent of all the other rates of duty in
this paragraph shall be collected for a period of ten years next
ensuing after the date on which the act shall take effect.
Mr. Payne made the point of order that the proposed amendment was not
germane to the pending amendment to which offered.
The Chairman \3\ ruled:
The committee amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
applies only to the duty on decalcomanias in ceramic colors, and
proposes to change the rate from $2.50 to 80 cents. Now, the amendment
to the amendment as offered by the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Fitzgerald, does not relate to that item at all, but in express terms
relates only to ``all other'' rates in the paragraph.
This question is analogous to the question which was raised when the
present occupant was in the Chair during the consideration of the
Philippine tariff bill in 1906. The bill related only to sugar coming
from the Philippine Islands.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
\2\ First session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1229.
\3\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
Sec. 3000
An amendment was offered relating to sugar coming from other
countries. The present occupant of the chair ruled that the amendment
was not germane. The bill and the amendment were subjects of great
controversy and some feeling; an appeal was taken from the decision of
the Chair, and the Chair was sustained by a vote of nearly two to one
(5 Hinds' Precedents, 5857). The Chair has no hesitation in ruling that
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is not germane to
the committee amendment to which it is offered.
3000. To a proposition to impose a penalty an amendment imposing
additional and unrelated penalties is not germane.
To a bill providing for the deportation of aliens avoiding the draft
law an amendment prohibiting the acquiring title to real estate was
held not to be germane.
On February 13, 1918,\1\ the bill (H. R. 5667) providing for the
deportation of aliens failing to comply with the requirements of the
draft law was under consideration in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union, when Mr. Richard Wayne Parker, of New
Jersey, offered the following amendment providing that such aliens:
Shall forever be denied the right of acquiring any interest or
estate, legal or equitable, in any lands within the United States or
any of its possessions.
Mr. John L. Burnett, of Alabama, raised the question of order that
the amendment was not germane.
The Chairman \2\ tentatively held the amendment to be in order but
after debate said:
On second thought the Chair believes that the amendment is out of
order. Here is an authority in the Manual:
``One individual proposition may not be amended by another individual
proposition, even though the two belong to the same class.''
This is adding another penalty to the same class, and the Chair holds
it out of order.
3001. To a bill designed to prohibit speculation in cotton an
amendment adding wheat and corn was held not to be germane.
On July 16, 1912,\3\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 56) to
prohibit transmission of certain messages by telephone, telegraph, and
cable, when the Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 2. That it shall be unlawful for any person to send or cause to
be sent any message offering to make or enter into a contract for the
purchase or sale for future delivery of cotton without intending that
such cotton shall be actually delivered or received, or offering to
make or enter into a contract whereby any party thereto, or any party
for whom or in whose behalf such contract is made, acquires the right
or privilege to demand in the future the acceptance or delivery of
cotton without being thereby obligated to accept or to deliver such
cotton; and the transmission of any message relating to any such
transaction is hereby declared to be an interference with commerce
among the States and Territories and with foreign nations.
Mr. Thomas L. Rubey, of Missouri, offered this amendment:
Sec. 2. That it shall be unlawful for any person to send or cause to
be sent any message offering to make or enter into a contract for the
purchase or sale for future delivery of cotton, grain,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2076.
\2\ Joseph J. Russell, of Missouri, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 9142.
Sec. 3001
or other farm product without intending that such cotton, grain, or
other farm product shall be actually delivered or received, or offering
to make or enter into a contract whereby any party thereto or any party
for whom or in whose behalf such contract is made or acquires the right
or privilege to demand in the future the acceptance or delivery of
cotton, grain, or other farm product without specifying the grade to be
delivered, and being thereby obligated to accept or to deliver such
cotton, grain, or other farm product of the grades and quantities
specified in said contract, and a settlement of a contract by the
payment of a margin shall constitute prima facie evidence of a
violation of this section; and the transmission of any message relating
to any such transaction is hereby declared to be an unlawful
interference with commerce among the States, Territories, insular
possessions, District of Columbia, and with foreign nations.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After extended debate, the Speaker\1\ ruled:
If the Chair chose to do so, he could find precedents in the action
of eminent Speakers whereby he could submit this question to the House.
Mr. Speaker Blaine, one of the greatest men who ever occupied the
Speaker's chair, did that on more than one occasion. The Chair had two
or three hours' notice that this question would probably be raised, and
the Chair examined all the precedents, and they all run one way.
The parliamentary situation is this: The gentleman from Missouri
offers a substitute for section 2 of the bill, by which substitute he
proposes to add wheat, corn, and so forth, to the bill. The
proposition, whether brought in as an amendment or in a motion to
recommit, which is the same thing precisely, must be germane.
Now, it has been held, with reference to the last suggestion made by
the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald that if the other bill--
that is, the one treating of futures in wheat, corn, and several of the
subjects--were pending here, which is general in its character, then we
could add to it by way of amendment the item of cotton. There is no
question whatever about that, if we pay any attention to the
precedents. It has been held, for instance, that if a bill were pending
to admit one Territory into the Union as a State we could not add
another as an amendment; that situation would be identical with the
present situation; but when the proposition was turned around, and
there was a bill that proposed to bring more than one Territory into
the Union as States, then we could add another Territory to that bunch.
All of the decisions run in the same direction, and there are many of
them.
Now, let us apply these precedents to the case before us. What is the
subject matter of the section to which the gentleman from Missouri is
offering an amendment by way of substitute? And what is the subject
matter of this bill? The Chair expresses his own opinion, independent
of this report, that the only thing talked about or treated in this
bill is the question of dealing in cotton futures. The committee must
have known when it presented this report. Here is a paragraph from the
report:
``The purpose of the bill is to restrict, so far as may be, those
transactions on the cotton exchanges of the country which are
recognized as dealing only with the fluctuations in the price of cotton
and which do not involve the actual transfer of the commodity. It does
not seek to prohibit or to interfere with a single legitimate
transaction in cotton.''
The precedent that comes nearest to supporting the contention of the
gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, is one about renovated butter.
The title of the bill under consideration then was in reference to
``oleomargarine and other imitation dairy products.'' Evidently the
distinguished gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Lacey, who happened to be in the
chair at that time, let this amendment about renovated butter come in
under the words ``imitation of dairy products,'' because I know enough
about butter--and most of the Members of this House do, especially
those from the rural districts--to know that renovated butter is
essentially an imitation of butter.
The decision which General Grosvenor rendered about the canals was a
correct decision. The question then under consideration was building a
canal to connect the waters of the Atlantic
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 3002
and the Pacific, and the fact that the original bill referred to the
Nicaragua route and the amendments proposing the Panama route were mere
incidents.
In one case Mr. Speaker Cannon rendered a decision which is in point
here. There was a proposition pending in the House to appropriate money
to get rid of the boll weevil, and the gentleman from Massachusetts,
Mr. Gillett, offered an amendment to appropriate money to get rid of
the gypsy moth. Speaker Cannon ruled that one proposition had nothing
to do with the other.
The matter in controversy here is cotton and cotton futures, and
nothing else, and the point of order made by the gentleman from
Illinois is sustained.
3002. A general subject may be amended by a specific proposition of
the same class.
To a section enumerating a number of requirements to be complied with
in the marketing of certain foodstuffs an amendment providing an
additional requirement of the same class was held to be germane.
On September 27, 1919\1\, the House was in the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union considering the bill (H. R. 9521) to
regulate the preservation and distribution of cold-storage foods.
The Clerk read a section forbidding the sale and distribution of--
Any article of food that is or has been in cold storage, unless such
article of food or the container thereof is plainly and conspicuously
marked in accordance with this act or the regulations under this act,
(1) ``Cold storage,'' (2) with all the dates when put in and when taken
out of cold storage, (3) together with the name and location of all
warehouses in which so stored.
To this section Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, proposed the
following amendment:
After the word ``storage,'' add the following words: ``and the
selling or market price at which the article of food or contents of the
package went into cold storage.''
Mr. Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, made the point of order that the
amendment related to a subject different from that treated by the
pending bill.
After brief debate the Chairman \2\ ruled:
The object of this section is to identify the goods that are in cold
storage, and the chief method of doing it is to determine how they
should be marked. The language of the section is ``marked in accordance
with this act or the regulations under this act--`cold storage.''' The
marks of identification are the date, together with the name and the
location, and this amendment intends to add one other item, viz, the
price. These marks of identification having already been put in the
bill; in the opinion of the Chair, it will be germane to add this
other, the price of the article, and the Chair overrules the point of
order.
3003. A bill dealing with an individual proposition but rendered
general in its scope by amendment is then subject to further amendment
by propositions of the same class.
To a bill providing for food relief in a designated area but rendered
general in its nature by the addition of a second area an amendment
proposing the incorporation of a third area was held to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 6059.
\2\ Simeon D. Fess, of Ohio, Chairman.
Sec. 3004
On April 24, 1928,\1\ while the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union was considering the bill S. 3740, the flood control
bill, providing for flood relief on the Mississippi River, an amendment
was agreed to on motion of Mr. Robert A. Green, of Florida, extending
the scope of the bill to include the Sacramento River.
Subsequently Mr. Green offered an amendment further extending the
operation of the bill as follows:
The sum of $10,000,000 is hereby authorized to be appropriated for
the control of floods in the Florida Everglades.
Mr. Frank R. Reid, of Illinois, having made a point of order against
the amendment, the Chairman\2\ held:
The bill as originally reported to the House dealt solely with the
control of floods on the Mississippi River and its tributaries. An
amendment was submitted by the committee for the control of floods on
the Sacramento River, Calif. This amendment was clearly subject to a
point of order, but no point of order was made, and now it is in the
bill.
The bill now contains two similar projects to control floods in two
different sections of the country. It is a well-known rule of
germaneness that where there are two similar projects, a third project
may be added by a germane amendment. For instance, where two
Territories are admitted to the Union an amendment to admit a third
Territory is in order. In the same way where authority is given for the
construction of buildings in two cities it is perfectly in order to put
in an amendment for a building in a third city. For this reason the
amendment is in order and the point of order is overruled.
3004. To a proposition general in its nature an amendment specific in
character is germane if within the same class.
To a section of the river and harbor bill making a lump-sum
appropriation for the maintenance of river and harbor projects an
amendment designating specifically the projects on which the sum should
be expended was held to be germane.
On January 22, 1920,\3\ while the river and harbor bill was under
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, the Clerk read the following paragraph:
Be it enacted, etc., That the sum of $12,000,000 be, and the same
hereby is, appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, to be immediately available and to be expanded
under the direction of the Secretary of War and the supervision of the
Chief of Engineers, for the preservation and maintenance of existing
river and harbor works and for the prosecution of such projects
heretofore authorized as may be most desirable in the interests of
commerce and navigation.
Mr. Edward E. Denison, of Illinois, moved to strike out the section
and insert in lieu thereof an amendment designating a number of
projects on which the money should be expended.
Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 7121.
\2\ Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1895.
Sec. 3005
After debate the Chairman\1\ ruled:
This is a bill appropriating money for the improvement of rivers and
harbors. Section 1 of the bill provides for a lump-sum appropriation to
be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War. The gentleman
from Illinois offers an amendment to the section by way of substitute
incorporating a lump-sum provision and also providing for certain
specific appropriations. The gentleman from Massachusetts makes the
point of order that the amendment is not germane to the section of the
bill. It is true that certain circumstances might suggest that the
purpose of the amendment is to defeat the purpose of the first section.
The method proposed by the first section is one way of expending the
money provided. The gentleman from Illinois proposes another way of
doing it, and he also provides appropriations for certain improvements
that fall within the class for which the lump-sum appropriation is
made.
The general rule is that specific provisions can be made qualifying a
general provisions in a bill. The Chair holds that the section under
consideration is an appropriation for the improvement of rivers and
harbors generally and for the continuation of certain projects, and it
seems to the Chair that the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois is
germane not only to the subject of the bill itself but also to the
subject under consideration; and the Chair therefore overrules the
point of order.
3005. A bill general in its provisions may be amended by specific
provisions inclusive thereunder.
To a bill providing for a decennial census of the entire population
of the United States a specific provision relating to the alien
population of the United States was admitted as germane.
On June 4, 1929,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union was considering the bill (S. 312) providing for the fifteenth
and subsequent decennial censuses.
Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, offered the following amendment:
In taking such census the Director of the Census shall cause to be
registered the names and addresses of all aliens and shall have entered
upon such registration a statement by each alien showing by what right
or authority of law he had entered the United States.
Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, having lodged a point of
order against the amendment, the Chairman\3\ decided:
While it seems to the Chair that the matter of the registration, so
called, is a little vaguely expressed, its purport in connection with
the context to which it is offered doubtless would be that the census
enumerators would make up lists of the names and addresses of all
aliens, and in connection with those lists would show by what right or
authority of law the aliens had entered the United States. That is a
statistical matter, it seems to the Chair. The section deals with
matters of statistics and enumerates the various things which may be
subjected to a statistical enumeration and ascertainment of facts. It
will be noticed that the section is very broad in the matter of the
subject matter of these statistics and of the enumeration. It is not
limited merely to population, but in addition relates to agriculture,
irrigation, drainage, distribution, unemployment, and in the original
text, to radio sets and mines. With such a large number of items named
in the section as to which statistics may be obtained, it seems to the
Chair that the amendment is merely an enlargement of the general
purposes of the section and therefore is not subject to a point of
order, and the Chair overrules the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James W. Husted, of New York, Chairman.
\2\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 2339.
\3\ Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 3006
3006. A general subject may be amended by a specific proposition
within the subject.
To a bill authorizing an executive to select sites for certain public
institutions an amendment specifically designating the sites is
germane.
On January 22, 1930,\1\ the House had under consideration the bill
(H. R. 6807) establishing two institutions for the confinement of
United States prisoners, providing:
That the Attorney General is hereby authorized and directed to select
forthwith and procure two sites, of not less than 1,000 acres each, and
cause to be erected thereon suitable buildings for two institutions for
the confinement of male persons who have been or shall be convicted of
offenses against the United States.
Mr. John C. Shafer, of Wisconsin, offered an amendment specifically
designating the sites as:
After the word ``sites,'' insert the words ``one in the State of
Idaho and one in the State of Ohio.''
Mr. Tom D. McKeown, of Oklahoma, having objected that the amendment
was not germane, the Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order.
3007. To a proposition general in its nature an amendment specific in
character is germane if subsidiary to the pending proposition.
To a bill authorizing the appointment of a commission to report on
matters relating to the public domain an amendment specifying that the
commission report on a designated area of the public domain is germane.
On January 24, 1930,\3\ the bill (H. R. 6153) authorizing the
President to appoint a commission to study and report on the
conservation and administration of the public domain was being
considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union.
The bill having been read, Mr. James V. McClintic, of Oklahoma,
offered an amendment requiring the investigation by the proposed
Commission of a portion of the public domain known as the Oregon and
California land grant.
In response to a point of order by Mr. Don B. Colton, of Utah, the
Chairman \4\ ruled:
The bill reads:
``That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby,
authorized to appoint a commission to study and report on the
conservation and administration of the public domain.''
And the amendment reads:
``That the commission shall make a full investigation of that part of
the public domain known as the Oregon and California land grant, and
the law which permits such lands to be assessed in favor of certain
counties in the States of Oregon and Washington.''
The amendment, therefore, recites that the lands to which it relates
are a part of the public domain.
The Chairman can not, upon the information that has been furnished
him, determine the exact question whether the lands may be in the
public domain or not. The Chair will have to rely upon the language of
the bill and the language of the amendment, and upon that basis it
seems
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 2141; Journal,
p. 10.
\2\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 2335.
\4\ Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 3008
clear to the Chair that the amendment is germane. Both on their face
relate to the ``public domain,'' whatever that may be.
Secondly, with reference to the question whether to general language
contained in the bill a specific subject included in that language may
be offered by way of amendment, the Chair calls attention to a decision
in paragraph 9848 of Cannon's Precedents, volume 7, reading as follows:
``To a proposition general in its nature, an amendment specific in
character is germane if within the same class''--
and specifically holding as follows:
``To a section of the river and harbor bill making a lump-sum
appropriation for the maintenance of river and harbor projects, an
amendment designating specifically the projects on which the sum should
be expended was held to be germane.''
Under this and similar decisions the Chair will hold the amendment in
order.
3008. To a proposition general in its application an amendment making
specific provision within the proposition may be germane.
To a bill providing a lump-sum appropriation for the prosecution of
authorized river and harbor works an amendment designating specific
works upon which the appropriation should be expended was held to be
germane.
On January 22, 1920,\1\ the question was pending on the passage of
the river and harbor bill, when Mr. John H. Small, of North Carolina,
moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors with
instructions to report it back forthwith with an amendment striking out
the section providing a lump-sum appropriation for the ``prosecution of
such projects heretofore authorized as may be most desirable in the
interests of commerce and navigation'' and inserting in lieu thereof a
section naming specific projects on which the sum so appropriated
should be expended.
Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, raised the question of order that
the projects proposed in the amendment were not referred to or provided
for in the bill and the amendment was not germane.
The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order and said:
The Chair is disposed to think that a general clause making a general
appropriation for the ``prosecution of such projects heretofore
authorized as may be most desirable in the interests of commerce and
navigation'' could fairly be amended by specifically mentioning
projects which are now under construction by the department, and as the
Chair understands this present amendment is confined to existing
projects, the Chair overrules the point of order.
3009. To a proposition general in its nature a specific provision is
germane.
To a resolution requesting the sale of surplus food products an
amendment suggesting a specific plan for such sale was held to be
germane.
On July 29, 1919,\3\ the House had under consideration a resolution
reported by the Select Committee on Expenditures in the War Department
as follows:
Be it resolved, etc., That the Secretary of War be, and is hereby,
requested to place on sale, without delay, the surplus food products in
the hands or under the control of the War Department
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1923.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3356.
Sec. 3010
now stored in the United States, under such plan as will safeguard the
interest of the Government and insure an opportunity to the people of
the United States to purchase the same directly from the Government.
Mr. M. Clyde Kelly, of Pennsylvania, offered this amendment:
After the word ``Government,'' in the last line, strike out the
period, insert a comma and the following: ``And such plan shall include
utilizing the Parcels Post Service.''
Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, having raising a question of
order, the Speaker \1\ ruled:
The original resolution provides: ``That the Secretary of War is
requested to place on sale under such plans as will safeguard the
interests of the Government,'' and so forth.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania offers to amend by adding ``and such
plans shall include utilizing the parcels post.''
The original resolution provides a general plan, and the amendment of
the gentleman from Pennsylvania adds or includes a specific plan. It is
a rule that a general proposition can be amended by a specific one, and
the Chair thinks that this amendment is clearly in order.
3010. To a bill including several propositions of the same class an
amendment adding another proposition of that class is germane.
To a section providing a number of restrictions on the expenditure of
certain funds an amendment adding another restriction was held to be
germane.
On October 16, 1919,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 4438) to provide for
industrial vocational rehabilitation and providing a number of
restrictions upon the expenditure of the fund so appropriated.
Mr. William R. Wood, of Indiana, offered an amendment providing an
additional restriction as follows:
Provided, That if any discrimination is made on account of color,
sex, or religion, in the use of the funds herein authorized, the State
so offending shall forfeit all its rights to further participation in
the benefits provided for in this act.
Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \3\ overruled the point of order and said:
The Chair is inclined to think that if the pending bill as reported
by the committee did not make several reservations or provisions as to
what should be done further reservations would not be in order. But in
view of the fact that this section already makes five reservations the
Chair thinks it is competent for the House by amendment to add one more
reservation to the section. If there was only one reservation, the
Chair does not think it would be competent to add a further reservation
as proposed by the gentleman from Indiana, but under the practice of
the House it seems to the Chair, in view of the language of the bill
making several reservations as to how the money shall be expended, or
as to the conditions under which it shall be expended, that it is well
within the rules of the House for the Committee of the Whole to add one
or more reservations, as it sees proper to do so. The Chair, therefore,
overrules the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\2\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7023.
\3\ Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 3011
3011. A proposition dealing with a number of subjects may be amended
by an additional subject of the same class.
To a section embodying a declaration of policy and including a number
of purposes an amendment proposing to incorporate an additional purpose
was held to be germane.
On April 24, 1929,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 1) to establish a Federal
Farm Board to promote the effective merchandizing of agricultural
commodities in interstate and foreign commerce and to place agriculture
on a basis of economic equality with other industries.
The first section of the bill, embodying the declaration setting
forth a number of purposes which the legislation was intended to
accomplish, being read, Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, offered an
amendment proposing to add another purpose as follows:
to make the tariff effective on such commodities.
Mr. Fred S. Purnell, of Indiana, having raised a point of order, Mr.
Cannon said:
The first section of the bill now pending contains the declaration of
policy. Two purposes are included in that declaration, ``to promote
effective merchandising'' and ``to protect, control, and stabilize
commerce.'' Under the rule a general subject may be amended by specific
propositions of the same class. The proposed amendment embodying a
third policy, ``to make the tariff effective,'' is another specific
proposition of the same class and is therefore in order.
The Chairman \2\ ruled:
The Chair does not understand that the declaration of policy has any
particular effect upon the bill, and in this paragraph containing the
declaration of policy there are several different propositions. This
amendment suggests one more. It seems to the Chair that the amendment
is in order.
The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.
3012. A general subject may be amended by a specific proposition of
the same class.
To a bill providing appropriations for a number of Army camps at
designated locations an amendment providing for an additional camp at
another location was held to be germane.
On December 13, 1919,\3\ the pending question was on the passage of
the Army appropriation bill, including among other provisions
appropriations for the purchase of sites for a number of army camps.
Mr. Warren Gard, of Ohio, offered a motion to recommit the bill to
the Committee on Military Affairs with instructions to that committee
to report it back forth-with with an amendment providing an
appropriation for the acquisition of Dayton-Wright plant and real
estate at Dayton, Ohio, as a site for an air service engineering
experimental station.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 466.
\2\ Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 549.
Sec. 3013
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
The Speaker \1\ said:
The Chair finds the bill makes a number of appropriations for
different fields, and the Chair thinks a provision for the addition of
any field is not subject to a point of order, and therefore overrules
the point of order.
3013. To a proposal embodying a number of individual propositions of
the same class the addition of another individual proposition belonging
to that class may be germane.
To a bill providing for the assignment of district judges and circuit
judges to relieve congestion in the Federal courts an amendment
providing for the assignment of judges of the Court of Customs Appeals
was held to be germane.
On December 10, 1921,\2\ the bill (H. R. 9103) for the appointment of
additional Federal judges was under consideration in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union, when the Clerk read:
That whenever it shall be certified to the Chief Justice of the
United States by the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals of the
District of Columbia or in his absence by an associate justice of said
court of appeals, that on account of the accumulation or urgency of
business in said district it is impracticable for the judges of the
supreme court of said district to relieve such accumulation or urgency
of business the Chief Justice of the United States may, if in his
judgment the public interests so require, designate, and appoint the
judge of any district court in any circuit to sit in the Supreme Court
of the District of Columbia and to have and to exercise within said
district to which he is so assigned the same powers as are vested in a
supreme judge thereof.
Mr. Andrew J. Volstead, of Minnesota, proposed the following
amendment to be inserted as a new section:
The judges of the United States Court of Customs Appeals, or any of
them, whenever the business of that court will permit, may, if in the
judgment of the Chief Justice of the United States the public interest
so requires, be designated and assigned by said Chief Justice for
service from time to time and until he shall otherwise direct, in the
district court of any district or the Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia or the court of appeals of said district, when so requested by
the judge thereof, or in courts with more than one judge when requested
by the senior judge or chief justice thereof, and the judge so assigned
shall exercise and is hereby vested with all powers, jurisdiction,
rights, and duties conferred by law upon the judge of the court to
which he may be assigned.
Mr. Otis Wingo, of Arkansas, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
After debate the Chairman \3\ overruled the point of order and said:
The bill under consideration, so far as the assignment of judges is
concerned, provides not only for assignment of district judges, but in
section 6, for the assignment of circuit judges to relieve the
congested conditions in various district courts.
If the bill under consideration were restricted merely to the
appointment of district judges, it might be argued that, as it applied
only to one class, it would not be in order to provide for the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 207.
\3\ William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, Chairman.
Sec. 3014
designation of another class. but as there are two classes of judges
that may be designated to district courts, it comes within that
familiar rule where when a bill provides for more than one class, a
third class may be added. The Chair overrules the point of order.
3014. To a bill providing for several departments of service in the
Army an amendment providing an addition for a transportation service
was held to be germane.
On March 12, 1920,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 12775) to reorganize the
Army, including in its provisions authorizations specific and several,
for the General Staff, the Adjutant General's Department, the Inspector
General's Department, the Judge Advocate General's Department, the
Quartermaster Corps, the Finance Department, the Medical Department,
the Corps of Engineers, the Ordnance Department, the Chemical Warfare
Service, the Signal Corps, the Air Service, and the Bureau of Insular
Affairs.
Mr. Charles C. Kearns, of Ohio, offered an amendment to be inserted
as a new section providing for a separate transportation service.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, submitted that the amendment was not
germane to the bill.
The Chairman \2\ overruled the point of order.
3015. To a bill to pay several employees of the Government,
specifically named, for injuries received while in discharge of duty an
amendment to pay another employee for such injury was held to be
germane.
On February 3, 1911,\3\ the House was considering the bill (H. R.
26367) for the relief of injured Government employees, providing for
the payment of claims of 26 designated employees of the Government
injured in the line of duty.
Mr. D. R. Anthony, Jr., of Kansas, offered an amendment to be added
as a new paragraph as follows:
That the sum of $5,000 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated for
the relief of Catherine Ratchford, because of the death of her son,
James Ratchford, on or about the 7th day of August, 1895, caused by the
injuries received by him on or about the 24th day of July, 1895, while
an employee of the United States Government, riprapping on the Missouri
River, near Leavenworth, Kans., because of the negligent and careless
acts of omission of his foreman in using a rotten and defective rope
after be had notice of the same, and after they had promised to replace
the same.
Mr. George W. Prince, of Illinois, made the point of order against
the amendment that it was not germane.
The Speaker \4\ said:
The Chair will read from the Manual:
``One individual proposition may not be amended by another individual
proposition even though the two belong to the same class. Thus the
following are not germane: To a bill proposing the admission of one
Territory into the Union, an amendment for admission of another
Territory; to a bill for the relief of one individual, an amendment
proposing similar relief for another; to a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4241.
\2\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut.
\3\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1905.
\4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 3016
resolution providing a special order for one bill, an amendment to
include another bill; to a provision for extermination of the cotton-
boll weevil, an amendment including the gypsy moth,'' etc.
Now, that is where there is one proposition, but this is not one
proposition, not two propositions, but a whole class of propositions.
The Chair reads further from the Manual, subsection (c), page 391,
section 780;
``A general subject may be amended by specific proposition of the
same class. Thus the following have been held to be germane: To a bill
admitting several Territories into the Union, an amendment adding
another Territory: to a bill providing for the construction of building
in each of two cities, an amendment providing for similar buildings in
several other cities; to a resolution embodying two distinct phases of
international relationship, an amendment embodying a third. But to a
resolution a class of employees in the service of the House, an
amendment providing for the employment of a specific individual was
held not to be germane.''
That is not this case. This bill covers many claims for accidents and
deaths of those who were employed by the Government in various
departments. It seems to the Chair that the amendment is germane.
3016. To a proposition to collect statistics on population,
agriculture, manufacturing, and mining, an amendment providing for the
simultaneous collection of similar statistics on insurance was held to
be germane.
February 2, 1910,\1\ the bill (H. R. 18364) to amend the act
providing for the thirteenth and subsequent decennial censuses was
under consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union.
To a section providing for the compilation of statistics on
population, agriculture, manufacturing and mining, Mr. Philip P.
Campbell, of Kansas, offered this amendment:
And to collect authoritative statistics relating to farmers' mutual
insurance companies, showing the amount of such insurance and the
insurance results accomplished.
Mr. Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the section.
The Chairman \2\ ruled.
The Chair is of the opinion that section 8 of the census law being
presented here for amendment, the entire section is before the
Committee of the Whole, being a part of the test of the bill as
presented here for consideration. That being so, the matter of
insurance is only adding another phase to the inquires already provided
for in the bill, to wit, population, agriculture, manufacturing, and
mining, and is no more foreign, for instance, to population than
agriculture is to population, or manufacture is to population. So the
Chair is of the opinion that it is germane to section 8 of the census
law, which is presented here for consideration. Therefore, the point of
order is overruled.
3017. A bill dealing with a subject as a whole may be amended by
provisions relating to specific items within the subject.
To a bill authorizing the compilation of census statistics on
population, professions, properties, unemployment, and other subjects
an amendment authorizing the compilation of statistics showing the
number of persons whose right to vote has been abridged was held to be
germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1409.
\2\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
Sec. 3018
On June 4, 1929,\1\ during the consideration of the bill (S. 312)
providing for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses Mr.
George Holden Tinkham, of Massachusetts, offered an amendment proposing
to enumerate--
the number of inhabitants in each State being 21 years of age and
citizens of the United States, whose right to vote at the election next
preceding such census for the choice of electors for President and Vice
President of the United States, representatives in Congress, the
executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the
legislative thereof, has been denied or abridged except for rebellion
or other crime.
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
The Chairman \2\ overruled the point of order and said:
We are now considering the portion of the bill which relates to the
census, and for all practical purposes section 1 is a part of census
bill. That section provides for the taking of a census making
enumeration for the purpose of statistical information on a number of
different subjects. The original text included population, agriculture,
irrigation, drainage, distribution, unemployment, radio sets, and
mines, and the action of the committee has already added another item
relating to the enumeration of aliens in the United States. At this
point in the bill the Chair believes the amendment to be in order on
the theory which is well known to the membership of the House, that
where a large number of objects are enumerated other objects relating
to the same general subject matter may be added as being germane to the
text.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
3018. To a bill providing severally for the support and civilization
of a number of Indian tribes an amendment adding another tribe was held
to be germane.
On January 25, 1924,\3\ during consideration of the Interior
Department appropriation bill in the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union, a section of the bill was reached providing for
the support and civilization of a number of Indian tribes designated by
name.
Mr. Knud Wefald, of Minnesota, offered an amendment extending the
benefits of the provision to the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota.
Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After brief debate the Chairman \4\ held:
It seems clear that it is well within the rules for the committee to
bring in such an appropriation. In this case, at any rate, a Member has
the right to propose the amendment just offered from the floor. The
Chair overrules the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 2348.
\2\ Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, Chairman.
\3\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 1464.
\4\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
Sec. 3019
3019. To a bill relating to salaries of officers in a number of
bureaus of the Department of Agriculture an amendment relating to
salaries to of other officers of the department was held to be germane.
On February 7, 1923,\1\ the bill (H. R. 10819) relating to the
Department of Agriculture was being considered in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union, when Mr. Gilbert N. Haugen, of
Iowa, proposed an amendment increasing the salaries of various officers
in the Department of Agriculture, not provided for in the bill.
Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that
the purpose of the bill was to increase the salaries of officers
engaged in scientific research only, and provision for other officers
was not germane.
The Chairman \2\ ruled:
This is a bill the title of which is ``Relating to the Department of
Agriculture.'' Section 1 attempts to increase the maximum salaries of
certain scientific investigators and employees engaged in scientific
work.
Section 2 of the bill relates to the salaries of certain officials
described as ``officers in the Department of Agriculture,'' making no
reference whatever to whether they are scientific or other officers.
The only question, then, is whether the officers included in the
amendment are officers in the Department of Agriculture. If so, the
amendment is germane to the second section of the bill, which is the
section to which the amendment is offered. It would seem to be clear
that they are officers in the Department of Agriculture. The Chair
therefore overrules the point of order.
3020. To a paragraph providing a lump sum appropriation for repairs
to suburban roads an amendment proposing additional repairs for
designated suburban roads was held to be germane.
On March 29, 1920,\3\ while the District of Columbia appropriation
bill was being read for amendment in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union, the Clerk read:
Repairs to suburban roads: For current work of repairs to suburban
roads and suburban streets, including maintenance of motor vehicles and
the purchase or exchange of three light motor vehicles with truck
bodies, in lieu of three motor vehicles owned by the District of
Columbia, at a total cost not to exceed $1,800, $250,000.
Mr. Sydney E. Mudd, of Maryland, offered the following amendment:
After the figures $1,800 insert the following: ``And including
repairs to Bladensburg Road from Fifteenth and H Streets NE. to the
District line, at a total cost not to exceed $51,100; and including
Alabama Avenue from Pennsylvania Avenue to Ridge Road and Bowen Road,
between Ridge Road and the District line, at a total cost not to exceed
$21,000.
Mr. Thomas U. Sission, of Mississippi, made the point of order that
the amendment proposed an additional item and was not in order.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, argued:
Mr. Chairman, it is certainly in order to appropriate in this bill
specifically for the improvement of streets. The bill carries a great
many items of that sort--specific items. The paragraph under
consideration is repair of suburban roads. That provision appropriates
$250,000.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 3224.
\2\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4980.
Sec. 3021
Now, in a paragraph for the improvement of suburban roads it is
certainly in order to include an item for an additional amount that is
desired for specific roads or to provide that any portion of this total
sum shall be used for the improvement of specific roads. The whole
theory of the bill is based upon the point of Congress making
appropriations for the improvement of these roads. I do not see how it
can be held that the amendment is subject to the point of order. It
certainly is not.
The Chairman \1\ held:
The Chair thinks that what the gentleman from Illinois has stated is
the fact and that this amendment is in order and overrules the point of
order.
3021. To a proposition to pay a claim against the Government an
amendment authorizing the claimant to bring suit in a Federal court for
the amount claimed was held not to be germane.
On October 3, 1919,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House was
considering this bill:
Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is
hereby, authorized and directed to pay out of any money in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated, to Mrs. Thomas McGovern, the sum of $5,000
for damages suffered by reason for her husband Thomas McGovern, being
struck and fatally injured by a Government motor truck which was driven
by a regularly enlisted soldier of the United States Army.
Mr. Warren Gard, of Ohio, offered the following amendment:
Strike out all after enacting clause and insert:
That Mrs. Thomas McGovern, or the authorized legal representatives of
Thomas McGovern deceased, may sue the United States for the benefit of
the widow and children of said deceased in the district court of the
United States for the district of Nebraska under the rules governing
such court for damages because of the death of Thomas McGovern, and
said court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine said suit and
to enter a judgment or decree for the amount of such damages and costs,
if any, as shall be found to be due against the United States in favor
of the authorized legal representative of Thomas McGovern, deceased,
upon the same principles and measures of liability as in like cases
between private parties and with the same right of appeal.
Mr. Albert W. Jefferis, of Nebraska, raised a question of order
against the amendment.
After debate the Chairman \3\ held:
This is a bill authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to pay the
sum of $5,000 to the widow of the deceased--Mrs. McGovern. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio authorizes the legal
representative of the deceased to bring an action, a proper action, in
the district court of the United States for the district of Nebraska.
There is such a distinction between the bill and the amendment as has
arisen in former cases and upon which many ruling have been made:
``A bill to pay a claim may not be amended by an amendment directing
that the claim be referred to the Court of Claims.''
So that by analogy this being a bill to pay the claim outright can
not be amended by referring the claim to the district court of the
United States for the district of Nebraska, and the Chair sustains the
point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 6359.
\3\ Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, Chairman.
Sec. 3022
3022. To a provision delegating certain powers a proposal to limit
such powers is germane.
To a section authorizing the Interstate Commerce Commission to change
rates an amendment providing that the commission in making such changes
shall not increase rates was held to be germane.
On November 17, 1919,\1\ the bill (H. R. 10453) to provide for the
termination of Federal control of railroads was being read for
amendment in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union.
The Clerk read section 415 of the bill proposing to amend section 13
of the existing commerce act, authorizing the Interstate Commerce
Commission to change rates charged by interstate carriers, when Mr.
Marvin Jones, of Texas, offered an amendment as follows:
Provided, This section shall not be construed to empower the
commission to change any such intrastate rate by substituting any
greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of
passengers, or of property of like kind or kinds, for a shorter than
for a longer distance the same line or route in the same direction, the
shorter being included within the longer distance, or to charge any
greater compensation as a through route than the intermediate rates
subject to the provision of this act.
Mr. John J. Esch, of Wisconsin, raised a question of order against
the amendment.
The Chairman \2\ ruled:
The section under consideration is section 415 of the bill, which is
to amend section 13 of the commerce act. Section 13 of the commerce act
deals with complaints and investigation of complaints, and the issuance
of orders by the Interstate Commerce Commission as a result of its
investigation. This is offered as an amendment to paragraph (4) of the
section, which paragraph gives the commission authority to make such
findings and orders as may tend to remove undue advantage, preference,
or prejudice between persons or localities in intrastate commerce on
the one hand and interstate foreign commerce on the other hand, or any
undue burden upon interstate and foreign commerce, which is forbidden
and declared to be unlawful, and it further provides that such findings
and orders shall be observed while in effect by the carriers parties to
such proceedings affected thereby, the law of any State or the
decisions or order of any State authority to the contrary
notwithstanding.
The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Texas is a proviso to
the effect that the authority given in paragraph (4) particularly and
the section of the bill shall not be construed to empower the
commission to change any such intrastate rates by substituting a
greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of
passengers, and so forth, for the shorter than for a longer distance
over the same line in the same direction.
The Chair is of opinion that this is a restriction placed upon the
Interstate Commerce Commission in making its findings, namely, that
after it has investigated and had these joint hearings with the State
commissions or boards, and comes to make its findings, in making its
findings it shall not change any intrastate rates by substituting as
proposed, and the Chair overrules the point of order.
3023. To a proposal to grant certain authority an amendment proposing
to limit such authority is germane.
To a bill authorizing the Bureau of War-Risk Insurance to insure
vessels an amendment denying such insurance to vessels charging
exorbitant rates was held to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 8655.
\2\ Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
Sec. 3024
On June 1, 1917,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union had under consideration the bill (S. 2133) authorizing a
bureau of war-risk insurance.
The clerk read as follows:
SEC. 2. That the said Bureau of War-Risk Insurance, subject to the
general direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall, as soon as
practicable make provisions for the insurance by the United States of
America vessels, their freight and passage moneys, cargoes shipped or
to be shipped therein, and personal effects of the masters, officers,
and crews thereof against loss or damage by the risks of war, whenever
it shall appear to the Secretary that America vessels, shippers, or
importers in American vessels, or the masters, officers, or crews of
such vessels, are unable in any trade to secure adequate war-risk
insurance on reasonable terms.
Mr. Charles H. Dillon, of South Dakota, offered the following
amendment:
Provided, That when it shall appear to the Secretary of the Treasury
that the ocean rates charged by the owners or operators of such vessels
are unreasonable or confiscatory, or when such rates are fixed by an
unlawful combination of owners or operators engaged in shipping, then
it shall be the duty of the Bureau of War-Risk Insurance to refuse
insurance on such vessels.
Mr. Joshua W. Alexander, of Missouri, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane to any portion of the bill.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, said in opposition to the point of
order:
I do not think I am in favor of the amendment, but here is a section,
Mr. Chairman, which makes provision for the insurance by the United
States of American vessels, their freight and passage moneys, and so
forth and so on, including officers and everything else. Now, that is
the authority to make the insurance. A limitation upon that authority,
of course, is germane to it.
The Chairman \2\ agreed and said:
The Chair thinks this amendment is in the nature of a limitation on
the paragraph and overrules the point of order. The Chair thinks the
amendment is clearly germane to the paragraph.
3024. Provisions restricting authority may be modified by amendments
providing exceptions.
To a bill prohibiting the issuance of injunctions by the courts in
labor disputes, an amendment excepting all labor disputes affecting
public utilities, was held to be germane.
On March 8, 1932,\3\ the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.
R. 5315), amending the judicial code.
The Clerk read:
Be it enacted, etc., That no court of the United States, as herein
defined, shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or
temporary or permanent injunction in a case involving or growing out of
a labor dispute, except in strict conformity with the provisions of
this act; nor shall any such restraining order of temporary or
permanent injunction be issued contrary to the public policy declared
in this act.
Mr. James M. Beck, of Pennsylvania, offered as an amendment the
following proviso:
Provided, however, That neither this section or any subsequent
section of this bill shall apply to any labor dispute which involves
the suspension or discontinuance of a public utility
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 3204.
\2\ Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, Chairman.
\3\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 5504.
Sec. 3025
whose continuous operation is essential to the property, health, and
lives of the people of any State or community.
Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane to the bill.
The Chairman \1\ ruled:
The amendment of the gentleman for Pennsylvania is clearly an
exception, which provides that no court of the United States, as herein
defined, shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or
temporary or permanent injunction, and so forth. The amendment of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania excepts cases where the welfare and health
of the public are concerned.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
3025. To a bill dealing with radio communication in general an
amendment proposing to restrict the operation of the proposed law was
held to be germane.
On January 24, 1923,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 13773) to amend
the act to regulate radio communication approved August 13, 1912.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, offered the following proviso:
Provided, That where intrastate operation is so controlled and
regulated by States in cooperation with the Secretary of Commerce that
same does not conflict or interfere with interstate operations, then
such intrastate operations shall remain wholly within the jurisdiction
and control of such State.
Mr. Frederick C. Hicks, of New York, made a point of order against
the amendment.
After debate the Chairman \3\ held:
The measure under consideration is all pervading, so far as the
regulation of radio communication is concerned. It is a general law,
and in the first section covers radio communication among the several
States or with foreign nations, radio communication upon any vessel of
the United States engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, and also
the transmission of radiograms or signals which extend beyond the
jurisdiction of the State, Territory, or the District of Columbia.
Under the last clause it is apparent that its purpose is to cover
regulation of radiograms that extend beyond the jurisdiction of the
State, Territory, or District of Columbia, radiograms that lapse over
into a State from another State. This being a general law relating to
the regulation of radiograms, it is within the power of the committee
to restrict it in whatever way it seems fit. It is within the power of
Members to offer amendments to restrict it to communications on foreign
vessels. The committee may restrict control over activities exclusively
interstate. The extent of the jurisdiction to be exercised is for the
committee to pass upon, and the Chair holds the amendment is germane
and overrules the point of order.
3026. To a section dealing with a designated class an amendment
exempting from the provisions of the section a certain portion of that
class may be germane.
To a bill denying the benefits of war risk insurance to persons
discharged from service on the charge of being alien enemies an
amendment granting such benefits to alien enemies who had rendered
faithful service was held to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John J. O'Connor, of New York, Chairman.
\2\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2349.
\3\ William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, Chairman.
Sec. 3027
On June 9, 1921,\1\ in the consideration of the bill (H. R. 6611) for
the establishment of a veterans' bureau, the following section was
reached:
SEC. 29. The discharge or dismissal of any person from the military
or naval forces on the ground that he is an enemy alien, conscientious
objector, or a deserter, or is guilty of mutiny, treason, spying, or
any offense involving moral turpitude, or willful and persistent
misconduct shall terminate any insurance granted on the life of such
person under the provisions of article 4, and shall bar all rights to
any compensation under article 3 or any insurance under article 4:
Provided, That, as to converted insurance, the cash surrender value
thereof, if any, on the date of such discharge or dismissal shall be
paid the insured, if living, and, if dead, to the designated
beneficiary.
Mr. Andrew J. Hickey, of Indiana, proposed to amend the section by
the addition of the following proviso:
Provided further, That an enemy alien who volunteered or who was
drafted into the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps of the United States
during the World War, and whose service was honest and faithful, shall
be entitled to the benefit of the war risk insurance act.
Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \2\ held:
Section 29 of the pending bill, to which the provision of the
gentleman from Indiana is offered as an amendment, deals with the
termination of insurance or of compensation under the war risk
insurance act by virtue of the discharge or dismissal of any person
from the military and naval service, on the ground that he is an enemy
alien, conscientious objector, or a deserter, and so forth. The
amendment of the gentleman from Indiana provides that--
``An enemy alien who volunteered or was drafted into the Army, Navy,
or Maine Corps of the United States during the war and whose service
was honest and faithful shall be entitled to the benefits of the war
risk insurance act.''
The Chair thinks the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana is
germane to the section under consideration and overrules the point of
order.
3027. To a proposition extending certain benefits to a class a
proposal to establish qualifications limiting the number of individuals
in that class entitled to receive such benefits is germane.
To a bill authorizing aid to shipping an amendment limiting
participation in such benefits to ships equipped with ship-saving
devices was held to be germane.
On November 29, 1922,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 12817) to amend the
merchant marine act of 1920 by providing for the granting of certain
benefits to ships of the merchant marine.
Mr. J. Will Taylor, of Tennessee, offered this amendment to be added
as a new section:
All vessels which receive the benefits of this act shall be equipped
with an efficient and quickly applicable vessel-saving device for
quickly and effectively closing accidental openings in the hull of the
vessel below the water line so as to stop the inrush of water and
prevent the vessel from sinking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2351.
\2\ Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, Chairman.
\3\ Third session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 425.
Sec. 3028
Mr. George W. Edmonds, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \1\ ruled:
It seems to the Chair that if the Congress so desired it might
prescribe that all the ships receiving aid should be painted red,
white, and blue. The Congress would have the right to do this. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee provides that ships
receiving aid shall be equipped with a certain kind of life-saving
device, which seems to bring this amendment within the rule. Therefore
the Chair overrules the point of order.
3028. To a bill extending the operation of an existing law an
amendment excepting certain portions of the law was held to be germane.
On October 18, 1921,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union had under consideration the bill H. R. 8643, reading as
follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That titles 1 and 5 of the act entitled ``An act
imposing temporary duties upon certain agricultural products to meet
present emergencies and to provide revenue; to regulate commerce with
foreign countries; to prevent dumping of foreign merchandise on the
markets of the United States; to regulate the value of foreign money;
and for other purposes,'' approved May 27, 1921, shall continue in
force until February 1, 1922, unless otherwise provided by law.
Mr. Walter H. Newton, of Minnesota, moved to amend the bill by adding
the following proviso:
Provided, That this shall not apply to item 3 of title 1, reading as
follows:
``3. Flaxseed, 30 cents per bushel of 56 pounds.''
Mr. Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, raised a question of order as to the
germaneness of the proposed amendment.
After the debate the Chairman \3\ said:
What does the gentleman from Ohio say to the argument that this is a
bill which provides for the extension of the duties on certain articles
and fixing the time when those duties shall cease. This proposed
amendment selects out one of those articles, giving it an exceptional
position; is not that according to the ruling made by the gentleman
from Kansas Mr. Campbell on the 12th of April last? That ruling was
that a general subject may be amended by a specific proposition of the
same class. An amendment taking away from a general subject a specific
item is germane.
This brings to an end at a certain date one of the duties specified
in the amendment.
While the Chair does not consider this question free from doubt, he
overrules the point of order.
3029. Provision for delaying operation of a proposed enactment
pending an ascertainment of fact is germane to such proposed enactment.
To a bill providing for the deportation of a certain class of aliens
an amendment exempting a portion of such class was held to be germane.
On July 30, 1919,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 6750) to deport certain
undesirable aliens providing for the deportations of alien convicted of
certain designated crimes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6464.
\3\ Theodore E. Burton, Chairman.
\4\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3370.
Sec. 3030
Mr. J. Hampton Moore, of Pennsylvania, moved to amend the bill by
inserting at the end of the bill the following proviso:
Provided, That no alien whose property has been seized by the Alien
Property Custodian during the war who has not been convicted of crime
shall be deported against his protest pending the lawful determination
of the ownership of the property claimed by him.
Mr. Albert Johnson, of Washington, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
After debate the Chairman \1\ held:
At first blush the Chair thought that the point of order was well
taken, for the reason stated, that there were not sufficient references
to this bill to warrant the finding that the amendment was germane; but
on a closer examination of the proposition the Chair is well satisfied
that the amendment is germane, for this fundamental reason and upon
this principle: This bill is for the purpose of deporting aliens under
certain circumstances. This amendment offers a time restraint. It says
that it shall not be done until certain things have been found with
regard to property. Now, the germaneness of an amendment of this kind
is not dependent upon the nature of the time conditions, because it has
been decided more than once that the ascertainment of a fact which
delays the operation of the principal portion of the bill is a germane
amendment. For that reason and upon that ground the point of order is
overruled.
3030. To a provision to become effective immediately, an amendment
deferring the time at which it shall become effective, without
involving affirmative legislation, was held to be germane.
On May 5, 1932,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 11051), providing for the
leasing and utilization of Muscle Shoals, when the Clerk read section
18 of the bill as follows:
SEC. 18. This act shall take effect immediately.
Mr. William R. Eaton, of Colorado, offered the following amendment:
This act shall not become effective until those certain phosphate and
fertilizer lands of the United States in the States of New Mexico and
California heretofore leased and for which 139 prospecting permits have
been issued in eight States, under the act of February 25, 1920, show
signs of depletion within the present existing and authorized terms of
said leases and permits.
Mr. John J. McSwain, of South Carolina, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane to the provision of the bill to which
proposed.
The Chairman \3\ overruled the point of order.
3031. To a bill providing for the appointment of judges for an
unlimited term an amendment restricting the term to four years was held
to be germane.
It is not within the province of the Chair to pass upon the
constitutionality of a legislative provision.
On December 10, 1921,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 9103) for the
appointment of additional
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Horace M. Towner, Chairman.
\2\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 9669.
\3\ Daniel E. Garrett, of Texas, Chairman.
\4\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 192.
Sec. 3032
judges for certain courts of the United States providing for the
creation and appointment of Federal judges for an unlimited term.
Mr. Sid C. Roach, of Missouri, offered an amendment limiting the
tenure of office to four years.
Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that the
Constitution in authorizing such judges provided for life tenure, and
an amendment to limit the term of office was not in violation of the
Constitutional provision but was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \1\ held:
The gentleman from Missouri offers an amendment limiting the term of
the judges to be appointed by this act to four years. The gentleman
from Massachusetts makes the point of order that it is not germane, and
argues that because the Constitution provides in section 1 of article
III that judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold
their offices during good behavior, therefore this amendment is in
violation of that constitutional mandate. All the precedents that the
Chair is acquainted with are uniform to the effect that it is not for
the presiding officer to pass upon the constitutionality of any
proposed legislation.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole does not occupy the
position of a judge of the supreme Court to pass upon the
constitutionality of a bill or of amendments that are offered to bills.
Many times in the history of Congress bills are subject to objection on
the ground that they are beyond the constitutional prerogative of
Congress, and the individual Member may oppose them for that reason.
Yet the Supreme Court, recognizing the fact that we have a Government
of coordinate branches, does not even set aside a bill upon the ground
that it is unconstitutional because they would have, as member of the
legislative body, considered it such, but they resolve the doubt as to
constitutionality in favor of the Congress, and hold it
unconstitutional only when they have no doubt that the Congress has
exceeded its constitutional powers.
Leaving out of consideration, then, the question whether the
Constitution has any effect on this question, the point of order now
pressed by the gentleman from Massachusetts resolves itself for
decision whether in a bill providing for the creation and appointment
of judges for an unlimited term, as this bill proposes, an amendment
restricting that term would not be in order as not being germane. The
Chair, from that point of view, can not follow the reasoning of the
gentleman from Massachusetts. Suppose this bill had by its phraseology
provided that these district judges should be created for a term of
life or for a specific term of years, it would be in order for the
gentleman to offer an amendment limiting and restricting the term.
Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order.
3032. To a bill authorizing the conversion of ships to oil-burning
vessels an amendment denying the use of the appropriation proposed to
be authorized for the purchase of oil-burning engines constructed
outside of the United States was held to be germane.
On May 28, 1924,\2\ the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H. R. 8687) reading as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That alterations are hereby authorized for the
United States ships New York, Texas, Florida, Utah, Arkansas, and
Wyoming, to consist of the installation of additional protection
against submarine attack, of the installation of antiair attack deck
protection, of the conversion of such vessels to oil burning, and, in
addition, for the New York and Texas, the purchase, manufacture, and
installation of new fire-control systems, at a total cost not to exceed
$18,360,000 in all.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 9765.
internal revenue over the Hawaiian Islands, and the first section of
the bill having been read--and here is the point that the Chair
especially wants to have emphasized--
``Be it enacted, etc., That the laws of the United States relating to
customs and internal revenue, including those relating to the
punishment of crimes in connection with the enforcement of said laws,
are hereby extended to and over the Island of Hawaii and all adjacent
islands and waters of the islands.''
After that had been read Mr. McRae, of Arkansas, offered an amendment
to strike out, after the words ``the United States,'' the following:
``relating to customs and internal revenue.'' Mr. Dingley, of Maine,
made the point of order that the amendment was not germane, and after
debate upon the subject the Chairman held as follows:
``The Chair thinks that the point of order is well taken. This bill
is to extend the laws relating to customs and internal revenue, and the
amendment seeks to open up the question of land titles and other laws
in the Territories, thus enlarging the scope and bringing in matter not
germane to the bill.''
The point of order was sustained.
Sec. 2921
In Hinds' Precedents, Volume IV, section 3596, is another case in
point which the Chair will cite. An amendment was offered which
contained, among others, these words, ``appliances for the automatic
control of railway trains.'' Mr. Crumpacker, of Indiana, moved to
strike out the word ``automatic,'' Mr. Mann, of Illinois, made a point
of order, and the Chair in ruling upon it said:
``I would like to ask the gentleman from Indiana whether or not his
description, by striking out the word ``automatic'' here, would not let
in a great many things? That is, would not the scope of the
investigation be much wider and more extended than if the term
``automatic'' is included?''
The ensuing debate having indicated that the effect of the amendment
might be to extend the scope of the investigation, the Chair sustained
the point of order, though evidently in some doubt.
The Chair feels that notwithstanding the general proposition that
parliamentary questions are usually determined by the form and not the
effect of an amendment, that when no rules are applicable the effect
should be taken into consideration as a determining factor, when by
striking out specific words new and different subjects are thereby
introduced, and the scope of the legislation under consideration is
broadened beyond that contemplated in the bill.
In line with what the Chair considers the most conclusive precedents
in reference to striking out words, following also the precedents
pertaining to germaneness, and in conformity with the views just
expressed by the Chair on the subject of scope of legislation, the
Chair feels that the point of order is well taken, and sustains it.
2921. Under circumstances where the omission of language would
sufficiently change the purport of the text to present another subject
a motion to strike out has been held not to be germane.
On March 27, 1920, \1\ during consideration of the District of
Columbia appropriation bill in the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, Mr. Charles R. Davis, of Minnesota, proposed the
following as a new paragraph:
The rate of taxation on real estate in the District of Columbia,
under the provisions of section 5 of the District of Columbia
appropriation act approved July 1, 1902, is hereby increased from 1\1/
2\ per cent to 2\1/2\ per cent, and the rate of taxation on tangible
personal property in the District of Columbia, under the provisions of
section 6 of the said act, is hereby increased from 1\1/2\ per cent to
2\1/2\ per cent.
Mr. William F. Stevenson, of South Carolina, moved to strike out the
word ``tangible.''
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, raised a question of order and said:
As a general thing, of course, it is in order to strike out, but it
has been held on a good many occasions that where a motion to strike
out a word, such as the word ``not,'' for instance so as absolutely to
reverse what was intended, it may not be in order. It sometimes is, but
it is here held not in order because it accomplishes something by
striking out that you could not accomplish by inserting. In this
particular case the Chair had already sustained a point of order to an
amendment to insert a specific provision with reference to the
intangible property. The effect of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina was to insert it, which amounted to the
same thing.
The Chairman \2\ sustained the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4937.
\2\ Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 2922
2922. An amendment must be germane to the section or paragraph to
which it is offered.
To a section of a revenue bill proposing definitions of terms an
amendment levying a tax was held not to be germane although germane to
the bill as a whole.
If any part of an amendment is out of order the entire amendment may
be ruled out.
On February 18, 1924, \1\ the bill H. R. 6715, the revenue bill, was
being considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, when the Clerk read the first section devoted exclusively to
the definition of terms used in the bill.
Mr. James A. Frear, of Wisconsin, proposed the following amendment to
be inserted as a new subdivision under the section:
The term ``taxable income from whatever source derived'' shall
include all incomes received from every source, including Federal,
State, and municipal securities, except where specifically exempted by
act of Congress, and shall be laid and collected the same as all other
taxes.
Mr. William R. Green, of Iowa, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the section.
After debate the Chairman \2\ ruled:
The rule has always been, ever since 1822, and has been repeatedly
held by succeeding Speakers and Chairmen from that time, that
amendments to be germane must not only be germane to the subject matter
of the bill also to the paragraph where offered. That is the rule now.
This particular part of the bill is headed ``Definitions,'' and thus
far in the reading certain terms are defined--for instances,
``fiduciary,'' ``withholding agent,'' ``paid or incurred,'' ``stock,''
and ``shareholder''--giving a definition of the terms as they are used
in the bill. When this amendment was first presented, the Chair on
hearing it read was of the opinion that it was a definition and
therefore proper and germane at this time. That would be true if it
were not for the closing language of the amendment, ``and shall be laid
and collected the same as all other taxes.'' Manifestly this goes
beyond a definition and imposes a tax, or attempts to impose a tax. If
so, and if it is germane to the subject matter of the bill, upon which
the Chair will not pass at this time, it ought to be offered to some
other section. If the amendment were without this language it would be
proper at this time. Having this language in it, the Chair is of the
opinion that it is subject to the point of order, and therefore
sustains the point of order.
2923. An amendment should be germane not only to the subject matter
of the bill but also to the particular section of the bill in which it
is proposed to insert the amendment.
An amendment to the second title of a bill was held not germane to
the first title of the bill.
On April 24, 1930, \3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 10381) to amend
the World War veterans' act of 1924, as amended.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2719.
\2\ Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 7641.
Sec. 2924
During the reading of Title I of the bill Mr. Robert A. Green, of
Florida, offered an amendment appending a new section of Title II of
the bill.
Mr. Royal C. Johnson, of South Dakota, submitted that the amendment
was not germane to Title I of the bill.
The Chairman \1\ sustained the point and said:
The offer proposes to amend a section of the law under Title II,
which comes in at a later point in the bill. The Chair does not think
it is germane to this portion of the bill. The Chair sustains the point
of order.
2924. It is not sufficient that an amendment proposed to a pending
amendment be germane to the bill but it must also be germane to the
amendment to which it is offered.
On February 28, 1924,\2\ during consideration of the bill H. R. 6715,
the revenue bill, in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, proposed the
following amendment:
No member of the board shall be permitted to practice before said
board or any official of the Treasury Department, or be connected,
directly or indirectly, with any person or any firm of lawyers,
solicitors, accountants, or agents practicing before said board or any
official of the Treasury Department on behalf of taxpayers for a period
of two years after his term of office terminates of from the time such
member resigns or otherwise leaves the service of the Government.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, moved to amend this amendment as
follows:
After the word ``board,'' in the first line of the LaGuardia
amendment, insert the words ``or any official or Government employee in
the Treasury Department.''
Mr. William R. Green, of Iowa, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the amendment to which offered.
Mr. Blanton submitted that it was germane to the original bill.
The Chairman \3\ held:
Heretofore the gentleman from Texas has offered an amendment, which
at time was discussed, and which the Chair held would be germane when
we arrived at the proper part of the bill, which the Chair thought at
that time would be Title X. The gentleman now offers an amendment to an
amendment. In order to ascertain whether or not it is germane to the
amendment to which it is offered, one must look to the amendment and
not to the bill. Now, what is the amendment? The amendment is that no
member of the board shall be permitted to practice, and so forth. To
that the gentleman from Texas seeks to add ``or any official or
Government employee of the Treasury Department,'' thereby interjecting
an entirely different class of people from those mentioned in the
amendment, namely the board. Therefore it is not germane to the
amendment, although it might be germane to the bill if offered as a
separate proposition. The point of order is sustained.
2925. An amendment must be germane to the particular paragraph or
section to which it is offered.
On June 10, 1921,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 6611) to establish in the
Treasury Department a veterans' bureau.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3287.
\3\ William J. Graham, of Illinois, Chairman.
\4\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2397.
Sec. 2926
Title II of the bill having read, Mr. C. William Ramseyer, of Iowa,
offered an amendment proposing a modify a section of existing law dealt
with in Title IV of the pending bill.
Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, made the point or order that the
amendment was not germane to the section to which offered.
After debate the Chairman \1\ ruled:
The war risk insurance act, as the Chair has already stated, is
divided into four titles. The first of those titles deals with
provisions that are more or less general to the entire act,
definitions, and general provisions of that sort. The second title
relates to allotments. The third title relates to compensation, and the
fourth relates to insurance. The general rules applicable to amendments
provides that an amendment must be germane not only to the bill but to
the section, if it is offered to a section, or, if offered as a new
section, it must be germane in the place where it is offered.
The provision under consideration amends but one section of the first
title of the war risk insurance act. It amends no other section of that
title. The Chair feels that the purpose of the rule requiring that an
amendment shall be germane at the place in which it is offered is to
preserve the proper order of the legislation, and that to permit the
introduction of an amendment to a portion of the bill under Title IV,
as an amendment to a section in Title I, for instance, of this bill,
would be to destroy the orderly sequence of the legislation. The Chair
is not now holding that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from
Iowa is not germane to the bill, but under the rules of the House the
Chair does not think the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Iowa
is germane to the section to which it is offered as an amendment, or as
a new section in the place in which it is offered, and therefore
sustains the point of order.
2926. On May 1921,\2\ during consideration of the army appropriation
bill in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, the
Clerk read this paragraph:
For construction and repair of quarters for hospital stewards at
military posts already established and occupied, $15,000.
Mr. C. B. Hudspeth, of Texas, offered an amendment as follows:
The sum of $10,000 for the erection of a natatorium adjoining the
Government base hospital at Fort Bliss, Tex., now in course of
construction. The said natatorium to be a part of said plant.
Mr. Daniel R. Anthony, Jr., of Kansas, raised the question of order
that the amendment while germane to the bill was not germane to the
particular paragraph to which it was proposed.
After debate the Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order.
2927. An amendment must be germane to the portion of the bill under
consideration.
On February 2, 1909,\4\ the Army appropriation bill was being read
for amendment in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 1236.
\3\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
\4\ Second session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 1732.
Sec. 2928
The last paragraph of the bill having been read, Mr. John J.
Fitzgerald, of New York offered the following amendment to be inserted
as a new section at the end of the bill:
No part of any appropriation made herein shall be expended in the
purchase of powder except powder for small arms at a price not in
excess of 64 cents per pound.
Mr. John A. T. Hull, of Iowa, made the point of order that the
amendment should have been offered when the paragraph relating to the
purchase of powder was under consideration, and was not now in order.
The Chairman \1\ said:
It seems to the Chair that the rule is well settled that an amendment
offered, or a provision made, must be germane to the portion of the
bill then under discussion. Specific appropriation has been made for
the manufacture and purchase of powder, and that has been passed, and
since then specific appropriations have been made for many other
subjects. It seems to the Chair, under the procedure of the House, that
the point made that this amendment now offered is not in order is well
taken, and the Chair must sustain the point of order.
2928. On February 18, 1933,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union was considering the District of Columbia
appropriation bill, when that portion of the bill dealing with
compensation for personal services under the Board of Public Welfare
was reached.
The Clerk read:
For personal services, $105,580.
Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York offered this amendment:
To enable the Board of Public Welfare to provide for the relief of
all needy persons not otherwise provided for by appropriations herein
made to such board, $625,000, payable wholly from the revenues of the
District of Columbia.
Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to this portion of the bill, and if
admissible should be appropriately offered when the section of the bill
providing for relief was reached.
The Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order.
2929. On May 24, 1910,\4\ the sundry civil appropriation bill was
being read for amendment under the five-minute rule in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union.
When the section of the bill devoted to items relating to the
Executive was reached, Mr. Gilbert M. Hitchcock, of Nebraska, offered
the following amendment to be inserted as a new paragraph.
bureau of labor
To enable the Commissioner of Labor to ascertain at as early a date
as possible the cost of producing articles at the time dutiable in the
United States in leading countries where such articles are produced by
fully specified units of production and under a classification showing
the different elements of cost, or approximate cost, of such articles
of production, including the wages paid in
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James B. Perkins, of New York, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 4433.
\3\ Anning S. Prall, of New York, Chairman.
\4\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 6819.
Sec. 2930
such industries per day, week, month, or year, or by the piece; and
hours employed per day; and the profits of the manufacturers and
producers of such articles; and the comparative cost of living, and the
kind of living. * * * what articles are controlled by trusts or other
combinations of capital, business operations, or labor, and what effect
said trusts, or other combinations of capital, business operations, or
labor have on production and prices, $100,000, to be immediately
available.
Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, made the point of order that the
proposed new section pertained to the Department of Commerce and Labor,
provision for which was made later in the bill, and that the amendment
was not germane to the pending section.
The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order and said:
In making up any appropriation bill it is essential, in the interests
of those who watch the proceedings of the House and in the committee,
that there be some order observed in an appropriation bill. Hence,
under the rules, any amendment that is offered must not only be
germane, but germane to that portion of the bill. In the sundry civil
appropriation bill for many years it has been the custom--and it seems
to the Chair a very proper one--to arrange items, as far as
practicable, under the head of the different departments of the
Government, commencing after some item for the Executive with the
Treasury Department, and running down according to the date of the
creation and priority of the department, and in that way the Department
of Commerce and Labor is reached in the bill.
It seems to the Chair that it would be not only inappropriate, but
out of order, to offer an amendment relating to some provision in the
bill under the head of Department of Commerce and Labor at some other
place in the bill. That seems too clear for argument, and it seems to
the Chair than an item not relating to any matter of the bill, but
germane to the bill and also germane to the Department of Commerce and
Labor, should be offered at that part of the bill.
The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
2930. An amendment inserting an additional section should be germane
to the portion of the bill to which offered.
The motion to return to a portion of a bill passed in reading for
amendment is not privileged and a paragraph or section so passed may be
again taken up by unanimous consent only.
On January 19, 1909,\2\ the urgent deficiency appropriation bill was
being considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
Union.
After the Clerk in reading the bill for amendment had passed the
section of the bill making appropriation for the Department of
Agriculture Mr. J. Thomas Heflin, of Alabama, asked unanimous consent
to return to that section for the purpose of considering an amendment
which he proposed to offer as follows:
To supply deficiency in the quota of vegetable and other valuable
seed authorized to be furnished each Senator and Representative, the
sum of $30,000, which the Secretary of Agriculture is required to
purchase.
Objection having been made to the request, Mr. Heflin moved to return
to the section for the purpose of permitting amendment.
Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, made the point of order that the
motion was not privileged.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James R. Mann, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 1121.
Sec. 2931
The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order and said:
The Chair sustains the point of order, because it is contrary to the
practice of the House. The practice of the House is that to return to a
section or paragraph can only be done by unanimous consent. Unanimous
consent was asked by the gentleman from Alabama and objection was made.
Then the gentleman from Alabama moved that the committee return to that
paragraph, whereupon the gentleman from Minnesota raised the point of
order, which was sustained by the Chair.
Mr. Champ Clark, of Missouri, called attention to an instance in
which a motion by Mr. Theodore E. Burton, of Ohio, to return to a
paragraph in the reading of a bill had been entertained and agreed to.
The Chairman differentiated:
The Chair will say to the gentleman from Missouri, in response to the
inquiry, that that was under different conditions. These conditions
were that the reading of the bill had been completed; and the gentleman
having the bill in charge moved that the committee rise and report;
this was voted down. Under those circumstances, the Chair held that a
motion to return to a paragraph was out of order, but the committee
reversed this decision on appeal from the Chair.
Mr. Heflin then proposed to offer the amendment as a new section.
Mr. Tawney raised a question of order against the amendment.
The Chairman ruled:
For a long period of years it has been the ruling of the Chair that
an amendment to be in order must be made in connection with the
portions or the paragraph of the bill to which it is germane. This
amendment would have been germane in connection with the paragraph
under the head of the Department of Agriculture. It was not offered
until the end of the bill.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
2931. An amendment should be germane to that portion of the bill to
which offered.
To a portion of a bill dealing with one class of Indian schools an
amendment relating to an Indian school of another class was ruled not
germane.
On December 10, 1929,\2\ during the consideration of the Interior
Department appropriation bill in the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union, Mr. Jed Johnson, of Oklahoma, offered this
amendment:
Concho, Okla.: For the construction of a shop building, $12,000;
employees' cottages, $4,500: barn and implement shed, $3,000.
Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the portion of the bill to which offered
and said:
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the amendment is not
germane at this place in the bill. the Concho School, as I understand,
is cared for in the item on page 38, the maintenance; the school
buildings are provided for on page 40.
The committee has taken a great deal of care to properly classify
items. I know of no way the committee could classify more carefully. We
first proceed with the general education items for day schools on the
reservations. First there is the maintenance; next care of school
buildings; and then we proceed for a number of pages to take care of
boarding schools that are not on the reservations. Then over at the
last are brought in those items that could not be taken care of in the
preceding items, the item, for instance, of the Osage children. That is
not out of the Treasury
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ David J. Foster, of Vermont, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 416.
Sec. 2932
of the United States; it is out of the Osage funds. The item
immediately before us, while it is out of the Treasury of the United
States--and I want to emphasize this to the Chair--is not for the
maintenance of schools by the Federal Government, but is its
contribution to the maintenance of schools that are conducted by the
State of Utah or subdivisions thereof. The bill is very carefully
arranged, but it amendments like this can prevail, and we can have on
page 40 an item for boarding schools on Indian reservations and for
their building and repair and expansion of plants, and then 10 pages
later one particular reservation boarding school have its plant
provided for, Members of this House will not know where to look to find
the things they are interested in.
That is the reason for the parliamentary rule, and that is the reason
why it ought not to be in order for this amendment to be inserted over
here in connection with items for the payment of tuition or
appropriations from tribal funds or appropriations to carry on State
and county schools where Indians attend. There is a place for it. That
is on page 40, relating to reservation Indian boarding schools provided
for out of the Treasury of the United States, where their physical
needs are set forth.
The Chairman \1\ ruled:
The Chair is very greatly impressed with the earnest argument of the
gentleman from Michigan as to the necessity of order and procedure in
the consideration of a bill, and, of course, has no purpose to consider
lightly the determination of an important point of order.
Since the debate began the Chair has considered all the various
paragraphs and finds that they are not as indiscriminate as they appear
to be. It is true, as the gentleman from Michigan states, that the
paragraph beginning on line 16 on page 40 was doubtless intended to be
exclusive in the matter of constructing and repairing buildings at
certain schools and like institutions, including the purchase of land
and the installation of apparatus and equipment. It would be exclusive
as to schools of a certain class, reservation, day or boarding school
maintained out of the Federal funds.
What kind of school is this? It is a reservation boarding school
maintained but of Federal funds.
On that statement the Chair feels constrained to sustain the point of
order. In addition, the amendment is clearly not germane to the
paragraph immediately preceding it, even though it relates to the
general subject matter of the education of Indians.
2932. While an amendment offered as a separate paragraph must be
germane to that portion of the bill to which proposed, it is sufficient
if offered to that portion of the bill relating to the department of
government under which it properly belongs and the fact that it is not
intimately related to the paragraphs immediately preceding or
immediately following does not render it subject to a point of order.
An amendment making appropriation for the bureau of mines is not
germane to provisions for the public land service of the United States
Geological Survey carried in the bill to which proposed, but the three
are under the Department of the Interior and as the last two were not
intimately related the first was held in order for insertion between
the other two and to be germane to that portion of the bill.
On May 31, 1910,\2\ the sundry civil appropriation bill was under
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union.
After the section of the bill providing for Public Land Service had
been read and before the following section relating to the Geological
Survey of the United States had been taken up, Mr. Albert Douglas, of
Ohio, offered as a new section to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 7164.
Sec. 2933
be inserted between the two an amendment making provision for the
Bureau of Mines.
Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to that part of the bill.
After debate, the Chairman \1\ ruled:
The gentleman from Ohio offers an amendment, which has been reported,
to come in immediately preceding the heading ``United States Geological
Survey,'' and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is
headed ``Bureau of Mines.''
The point of order is first made that the amendment is not in order,
being offered at this place in the bill, on the ground that it is not
germane to the provisions of the bill at this point.
The bill is divided into different parts, relating to a certain
extent, at least, to the different departments of the Government.
Beginning on page 92 of the bill, under the heading in large capital
letters, reading ``Under the Department of the Interior,'' is a
subheading ``Public buildings,'' in capital letters. On page 94 is
another subheading in capital letters, ``Public lands service.'' On
page 99 is another heading in capital letters, ``Surveying the public
lands,'' and on page 101 is a heading in capital letters, ``United
States Geological Survey.''
All of these branches of the service are under the heading
``Department of the Interior,'' and are all under the Department of the
Interior. The gentleman from Minnesota has insisted that the items
under ``Public lands service'' and those under ``United States
Geological Survey'' relate to surveying the public domain, but it seems
to the Chair that, even if the Chair were captious about it, that these
two branches of the service are under different bureaus or divisions of
the Department of the Interior which are in no way closely related,
except as other bureaus may be related, and it seems to the Chair
wholly for the Committee of the Whole to determine whether it prefers
the provision in one place or in another part of the bill, the
amendment being germane to these provisions of the bill under
consideration. This item is offered an as amendment under the head of
``Bureau of Mines,'' to come in between the items ``Public lands
service'' and ``United States Geological Survey,'' all three being in
the same department. That part of the point of order the Chair
overrules.
In the opinion of the Chair the amendment is in order at this place
in the bill.
2933. Amendments proposing new paragraphs should conform in
germaneness to the section of the bill to which proposed.--On March 21,
1930,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union was
considering the bill (H. R. 10288) to regulate the transportation of
persons in interstate and foreign commerce by motor carriers operating
on the public highways.
When that portion of the bill relating to mergers of interstate
carriers was reached, Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, proposed
an amendment inserting provisions of the United States Code relating to
hours of labor.
Mr. James S. Parker of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not in order at this place in the bill.
The Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order and said:
The Chair is of the opinion that the gentleman's amendment would have
been germane to subdivision 2 of section 2, but the Chair is of the
opinion that the amendment is not germane at the place offered and,
therefore, sustains the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James R. Mann, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 5878.
\3\ Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, Chairman.
Sec. 2934
2934. An amendment must be germane to the portion of the bill to
which offered but when proposed as a separate paragraph is not required
to be germane to the paragraph immediately preceding it.
On January 28, 1921,\1\ while the diplomatic and consular
appropriation bill was being considered in the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union, the Clerk read the section of the bill
providing for salaries of ambassadors and ministers.
Mr. John Jacob Rogers, of Massachusetts, offered the following
amendment to be inserted as a new paragraph:
For ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to Turkey, $10,000.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the paragraph just read which it was
proposed to immediately follow:
After debate the Chairman \2\ held:
The point of order made by the gentleman from Texas as he states it
himself regards the amendment as an amendment to the paragraph. The
gentleman from Massachusetts offers his amendment in a separate
paragraph.
The only question is as to whether or not it is properly with this
branch of the bill. Is it within this title of ``Salaries of
ambassadors and ministers''? Of course, it is. The ambassador paragraph
already passed was not necessarily exclusive. It was perfectly proper
that an amendment should have been offered to that, or its proper to
offer it as a separate paragraph, because of the fact that in the prior
paragraph the salary is fixed at $17,500 for all of the countries
therein enumerated. In this case provision is made for an ambassador,
but the salary is limited to $10,000. Therefore, the point of order
made by the gentleman from Texas is not sustained.
In response to an inquiry from Mr. Blanton the Chairman added:
A separate paragraph is certainly not a part of the paragraph that
precedes it.
2935. The rule on germaneness does not necessarily require that an
amendment offered as a separate section be germane to the preceding
section of the bill or to any other particular section of the bill, but
it is sufficient that it is germane to the subject matter of the bill
as a whole.
On September 29, 1919,\3\ while the bill (H. R. 9521) to regulate the
preservation and distribution of cold storage foodstuffs was under
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, the Clerk read this paragraph:
No person shall receive in commerce any article of food for cold
storage or transport any article of food in commerce in any
refrigerator vehicle, if such person has refused inspection, when
requested under this act, of such warehouse or refrigerator vehicle;
nor shall any person ship in commerce any article of food if he has
refused inspection of such article of food when requested under this
act.
To this paragraph Mr. Niels Juul, of Illinois, offered the following
amendment:
Nor shall any person ship in commerce any poultry or game if the
entrails of such game were not removed prior to the time of being
received for cold storage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2173.
\2\ Horace M. Towner, of Iowa, Chairman.
\3\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 6112.
Sec. 2936
Mr. Fred S. Purnell, of Indiana, raised the question of order as to
the germaneness of the proposed amendment.
After debate the Chairman\1\ held:
Members of the committee will recognize that the point of order does
not involve the merits of an amendment. The rules as to germaneness
require that an amendment must not only be germane to the bill but to
the section to which it applies. This provision that is sought to be
amended refers to inspection, while the amendment refers to the
conditions of shipment. Therefore the amendment is not germane to the
provision, and the point of order is sustained.
Whereupon, Mr. Juul proposed that the same amendment be inserted as a
new section.
Mr. Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the section of the bill which it was
proposed to follow.
After extended discussion the Chairman ruled:
The Chair stated in the preceding ruling that the rule governing
germaneness of amendments required that amendments be not only germane
to the bill but to the section under consideration. This amendment is
offered as a new section and stands not in the same relationship as if
it were an amendment to the section itself. The ruling referred to some
time ago referred to the question of whether when debate had been
closed on a section and all amendments thereto it would cover a new
section that was added or sought to be added, and the ruling of the
Chair was to the effect that it would. However, the Chair does not
think that that is on a parity with this. The amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois is germane to the bill if added as a new
section. It is not a part of the preceding section and does not need to
be germane to it, and therefore the Chair overrules that point of
order.
2936. An amendment to a Senate amendment must be germane not only to
the bill but to the Senate amendment to which offered.
On August 16, 1921,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering Senate amendment No. 32 to the bill (H. R.
7294) supplemental to the national prohibition act, when Mr. Andrew J.
Volstead, of Minnesota, moved to strike out the amendment and insert in
lieu thereof the following substitute:
Sec. 6. That no officer, agent, or employee of the United States,
while engaged in the enforcement of this act, the national prohibition
act, or any law in reference to the manufacture or taxation of, or
traffic in, intoxicating liquor, shall search any private dwelling
without a warrant directing such search, and no such warrant shall
issue unless there is reason to believe such dwelling is used as a
place in which liquor is manufactured for sale or sold. The term
``private dwelling'' shall be construed to include the room or rooms
occupied not transiently but solely as a residence in an apartment
house, hotel, or boarding house. Any violation of any provision of this
paragraph shall be punished by a fine of not to exceed $1,000 or
imprisonment not to exceed one year, or both such fine and
imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.
Mr. Hallett S. Ward, of North Carolina, proposed to add the following
to the substitute:
No execution or other process shall be levied on the property of any
person for collection of penalties or forfeitures alleged to have been
incurred by violation of this act or the national prohibition act until
such person shall be duly convicted or shall plead guilty to the charge
for which penalty or forfeiture shall arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Simeon D. Fess, of Ohio, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 5080.
Sec. 2937
Mr. Volstead having made the point of order that the amendment was
not germane to the substitute, Mr. Ward took the position that it was
sufficient if the amendment was germane to the original bill.
After further debate the Chairman\1\ held:
The committee is considering the Senate amendments and particularly
this amendment which relates to search and seizure and limits the
powers of Government officials in relation to search and seizures. It
appears to the Chair that any amendment offered which is not germane to
the subject covered by this amendment, even though it might be
legitimate to the bill as a whole, is not in order, and the Chair
sustains the point of order made.
2937. To a bill amendatory of existing law in one particular a
proposition to amend the law in another particular is not germane.
To a bill amending a section of a law designating and defining the
constituent ingredients of oleomargarine an amendment proposing a tax
on oleomargarine was held not to be germane.
On February 6, 1930,\2\ the bill (H. R. 6) to amend the definition of
oleomargarine contained in the act entitled ``An act defining butter,
also imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale,
importation, and exportation of oleomargarine,'' approved August 2,
1886, as amended, was under consideration in the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union.
The Clerk read:
Be it enacted, etc., That section 2 of the act entitled ``An act
defining butter, also imposing a tax upon and regulating the
manufacture, sale, importation, and exportation of oleomargarine,''
approved August 2, 1886, as amended, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2 That for the purposes of this act certain manufactured
substances, certain extracts, and certain mixtures and compounds,
including such mixtures and compounds with butter, shall be known and
designated as `oleomargarine,' namely: All substances heretofore known
as oleomargarine, oleo, oleomargarine oil, butterine, lardine, suine,
and neutral; and all mixtures and compounds of oleomargarine, oleo,
oleomargarine oil, butterine, lardine, and suine, and neutral.''
Mr. Jeremiah E. O'Connell, of Rhode Island, offered an amendment
proposing a new paragraph imposing a tax of 2 cents per pound on
oleomargarine.
Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, raised the point of order that
the amendment was not germane and said:
There is a specific decision bearing exactly on this point, but I
have not been able to find it at the moment; but when the House had
before it a proposition for measuring boats in the Panama Canal Zone
and an amendment was offered intended to repeal the charging of all
tolls, that amendment was immediately ruled out of order on the ground
that it tended to change the general provisions of the act and was not
germane to the provision before the House at that time.
I think that is certainly on all fours with the proposition of the
gentleman from Rhode Island. The proposition of the gentleman from
Rhode Island is not germane to the proposition pending before the House
at this time and is subject to a point of order.
The Chairman\3\ sustained the point of order and added:
On October 1, 1919--Sixty-sixth Congress, first session, Record, page
6225; Cannon's Precedents, section 9781--Mr. Frederick C. Hicks, of New
York, then Chairman of the Committee of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 3189.
\3\ Willis C. Hawley, of Oregon, Chairman.
Sec. 2938
the Whole House on the state of the Union, made the decision to which
the gentleman from new York has referred. In that case the Committee of
the Whole was considering a bill amending the provisions of a law
providing for the measurement of vessels to determine the tolls to be
paid thereon. An amendment was proposed amending the existing law to
the extent of repealing the provision dealing with tolls. The Chairman,
in ruling on the point of order raised against the amendment, said:
``The bill provides certain rules for the measurement of vessels
using the Panama Canal, but it does not provide for the payment of
tolls. It merely establishes a standard of measurement for ships going
through, and does not prescribe he amount of money which shall be paid
by the ships themselves. * * * Therefore, it seems to the Chair that
the two subjects, the subject matter of the bill and the subject matter
of the amendment are not related, and the Chair sustains the point of
order.''
The Chair sees a very great similarity between the proposition ruled
on by Chairman Hicks and the one presented to the Chair at this time.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island in effect
amends the act of August 2, 1886, but in a different section from that
under consideration in this bill. The bill before us amends section 2
of the act of August 2, 1886, which pertains merely to definitions. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island seeks to impose a
tax. The Chair does not think the amendment germane and sustains the
point of order.
2938. Where a bill proposes to amend an existing law in several
particulars, no arbitrary rule can be laid down either admitting or
excluding further amendments to the law not proposed in the pending
bill, but the question of the germaneness of such additional amendments
must be determined in each instance on the merits of the case
presented.
On June 10, 1921,\1\ the bill (H. R. 6611) for the establishment of a
veterans' bureau in the Treasury Department was under consideration in
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
This bill proposed to amend severally a number of sections of the war
risk insurance law.
Mr. John Jacob Rogers, of Massachusetts, proposed to amend the law in
a manner not provided for by the pending bill by inserting the
following as a new section:
Sec. 21\1/2\. Section 401 of the war risk insurance act, as amended,
is hereby further amended by adding at the end of said section the
following language:
``Provided further, That any person in the active service who while
in such service subsequent to the 6th day of April, 1917, and prior to
the 6th day of October, 1917, because totally and permanently disabled
without having applied for insurance shall be deemed to have been
granted insurance in the sum of $10,000, payments thereafter to be made
in accordance with existing laws and regulations.''
Mr. Everett Sanders, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
amendment was not in order because not germane to the bill.
In support of the point of order, Mr. William H. Stafford, of
Wisconsin, said:
Mr. Chairman, I should like to submit to the Chair an argument
against the propriety of considering amendments to other sections of
the war risk insurance act than those that are not included in the bill
under consideration. I question very seriously whether under the rules
of the House it is in order on a bill such as this, even though it
presents amendments to various sections of the war risk insurance act,
to present amendments like the one now proposed to this bill when such
sections are not under consideration in the bill as reported. This is a
large question that I do not
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2415.
Sec. 2938
believe has been passed upon except once, to my recollection in the
House. The question is, when a bill is presented like this one,
amending, say, two, three, or four specific sections of a certain
measure which contains perhaps a dozen sections, whether it is in order
for any Member to offer an amendment to a section that has not been
included for change. I take it that the reason for the rule of the
House based on the relation of germaneness to the subject matter under
consideration by the House is that it is founded on the idea that it is
intended to dispatch the legislation under consideration, and for the
further reason of protecting the House in the consideration of the
proposed legislation by having the proposed legislation given
consideration first by a committee as to whether it should be
considered by the House at all. Otherwise there would be no logic in
the rule which has been followed that when a Senate bill is presented
to the House and referred to a committee for consideration, even that
committee has no power to report any amendment except one that is
germane to the bill, even though it may have authority to report
legislation of a different character.
I call the attention of the chairman to a specific ruling by Speaker
Clark when this very question was up for consideration, in which the
Speaker upheld the contention of those protesting against the
innovation attempted here. The point was contested by Messrs. Sherley,
Fitzgerald, and myself, and also on the other side in support by Mr.
Crisp. The bill under consideration then was a Post Office
appropriation bill in which the Committee on the Post Office and Post
Roads had brought into the House substantive legislation amending three
sections of the criminal code. When the bill came back into the House
the gentleman from California, Mr. Randall, offered a motion to
recommit that had relation to other sections of the criminal code but
did not have any direct relation to the provision on which he sought to
hang his amendment.
The section of the criminal code that was amended and a part of the
bill under consideration was section 215. That related exclusively to
preventing the use of the mails for fraud. Mr. Randall offered an
amendment to forbid the use of the mail by the sending of literature
relating to liquor of any kind or any kind of advertisement relating to
the sale of liquor. Although that amendment would have been in order to
another section of the criminal code, but which, however, was not
attempted to be reviewed and was not under consideration by the House
in the amendments reported by the Committee on the Post Office and Post
Roads, after elaborate argument by Messrs. Fitzgerald, Sherley, Crisp,
and myself, the Speaker held that it was not germane to the subject
matter under consideration.
Mr. Chairman, if we are going to indulge in this practice that when
the committee brings in a bill amending say, two sections of a law that
comprises 20 or 30 sections, that because there is an amendment of two
sections it opens up for consideration every section in the original
law, amendments to other sections which have no relation to the section
attempted to be amended by the bill presented by the committee, then we
put behind us that safeguard and protection which is necessary in
legislation--that before legislation is considered in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union it must first be considered
by a committee of the House.
After further debate the Chairman \1\ said:
It is always difficult to lay down a general rule with respect to
admissibility of amendment which can be applied in every instance
without question of doubt or without exception. The Chair is of opinion
that, generally, it has been held that an amendment offered as a new
section must be germane to the preceding section, but the Chair thinks
that the rule is better stated by saying that the new section must be
germane to the bill at the place at which it is offered. The Chair
thinks that if the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts is in
order at all, it is in order at the place at which he offered it.
The next question that arises is whetter or not any amendment to
section 401 of the war risk insurance act, which is not amended by the
bill, as reported by the committee, is in order. The Chair confesses to
having a considerable degree of difficulty with that question. The
Chair does not think that the general rule can be laid down that where
several portions of a law are amended by a bill reported by a
committee, it is not in any case in order to amend another section of
the bill not included in the bill reported by the committee, nor does
the Chair think that the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, Chairman.
Sec. 2939
opposite rule can be laid down and rigidly applied in every instance.
The Chair thinks that a question of this kind must be determined in
every instance in the light of the facts which are presented in the
case.
In the particular case under consideration it appears that the
committee has reported a bill which amends several sections of Title IV
of the bill in various particulars. The Chair does not feel that he can
hold that no amendment to a section not dealt with by the committee is
in order. The question, therefore, comes down to whether or not the
particular amendment proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts is
germane to section 401, if any amendment to that section is permitted.
The Chair thinks that the amendment proposed is clearly germane to
that section, and the Chair thinks that the general character of the
amendments proposed by the committee to various sections of Title IV is
such that it is in order to amend section 401 in a germane way, even
though that particular section is not dealt with by the committee or by
the bill. The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.
2939. A proposed amendment to existing law so comprehensive in its
effect upon the law as to practically repeal it was held to admit as
germane amendments providing an entirely different method for
performing the functions of the original law.
A Senate amendment under consideration in the House is treated for
purposes of amendment as an original bill.
On May 3, 1922,\1\ the House resumed consideration of Senate
amendments to the District of Columbia appropriation bill with a point
of order pending against an amendment offered on the preceding day to
Senate amendment No. 1.
The Senate amendment proposed to substitute for the current method of
taxation in the District of Columbia, known as the ``half and half''
plan, under which half of the expenses of the District was paid by the
District and half by the Federal government, a new system under which
all expenses of the District would be paid from the Treasury.
The pending amendment proposed by Mr. Charles R. Davis, of Minnesota,
by way of a motion to recede and concur and against which a point of
order had been lodged by Mr. R. Watson Moore, of Virginia, established
a new fiscal system for the District and provided a new ratio in the
propositions to be paid by the District and the Federal government.
After further debate on the amendment the Speaker \2\ ruled:
This question has occasioned the Chair considerable difficulty in
coming to a decision, for there are very strong arguments on both
sides, as has been illustrated to the Members who have listened to the
debate.
The Chair appreciates what has just been said, that if the Senate
puts on a legislative provision it may prevent the legislative
committee of the House from considering the proposition, and therefore
is not the proper way to have it brought up. But, after all, that can
not be prevented. That is still in the control of the House. If the
House does not like that method of legislating, it may simply refuse to
agree to the Senate amendment. But, after all, the Senate has a right
to put on a legislative amendment if it desires, just as the House has
that right, and when such a legislative amendment comes over to the
House from the Senate the House is obliged to consider it, and it is
just as properly before the House as if it had been reported from the
House legislative committee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6274.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 2940
It seems to the Chair that some of the arguments which have been
presented as to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
to the Senate amendment have been a little confused, because it has
been referred to as action by the conferees. It is not action by the
conferees. It is a motion made by the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr.
Davis, as a Member of the House. Any other Member of the House might
offer the amendment. Of course, the gentleman from Minnesota, being the
chairman of the subcommittee, would have the first right to
recognition; but the Senate amendment, being before the House, is
subject to amendment by any Member of the House. There were two grounds
stated for this point of order, first, that it was legislation, and,
second, that it was not germane. The first point has not been insisted
upon, and, of course, could not be, for there is no question that the
whole Senate amendment is legislation. It is practically nothing but
legislation. In fact, curiously enough, the Senate seems to have been
so absorbed by the fact that it was legislation that it forgot to put
on the appropriating clause. So that the Senate amendment is clearly
legislation, and legislation of a very broad and sweeping character. It
entirely changes the system under which taxation and appropriations in
the District of Columbia have been made. It has always been on a
proportional basis--half and half or some other ratio. This Senate
amendment simply says at the outset that all expenses shall be paid out
of the Treasury of the United States, and then it goes on to provide
the details. That is a radical change, and, of course, it is
legislation. Now, the Senate amendment comes before the House as an
amendment to the first section of the House appropriation bill and it
strikes out all of the House provision, and therefore, is a substitute.
It seems to the Chair that this being a substitute and the matter being
in the stage of disagreement any amendment can be offered which is
germane either to this substitute or to the original House proposition,
because it would be natural that a substitute should be offered which
would bring the two House together, which would harmonize the two,
which might contain part that was in one and part that was in the
other, and yet the part that was in the original House bill might not
be at all germane to the Senate amendment. But it seems to the Chair
that it could hardly be argued that such an amendment was not germane,
because the most natural amendment would be one tending to harmonize
the provisions of the House and the provisions of the Senate and
containing part of one and part of the other. Therefore, it seems to
the Chair that, this being a substitute, anything is germane, and
therefore in order, which is germane to either the original House
section or to the Senate amendment.
The question remains, Is this amendment offered by the gentleman from
Minnesota a germane amendment? The Chair having considered it overnight
confesses that the has had considerable difficulty. There are
provisions in this amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
which do not directly touch anything detailed in the Senate amendment.
But the Chair has come to the conclusion that the Senate amendment is a
complete and sweeping revision of existing law. It covers the whole
field of relationship between the District and the Government in the
affairs of taxation and expenditures. It practically repeals the
existing law and establishes a new basis and a new system. In doing
that the question arises whether only amendments can be offered which
are directly applicable to the specific provisions which are detailed
in the Senate amendment, or is the whole field so open that amendments
can be offered which, although not specifically mentioned in the Senate
amendment, apply to the changes made by the Senate amendment and are
incidental to its whole subject and purpose. It seems to the Chair that
the amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota contains such provisions
only; that they are fairly incidental to the expressed purpose of the
Senate amendment, and that the House has a right by amendment to adopt
such incidental changes. The Chair therefore rules that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota is germane and in order.
2940. To a bill reenacting in modified form an existing law, an
amendment proposing further modification of the law proposing to be
reenacted was held to be germane.
Sec. 2941
On June 10, 1921,\1\ the House was in the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union considering the bill (H. R. 6611) to
establish a veterans' bureau.
The Clerk read a section of the bill proposing to reenact with
amendments section 210 of the war risk insurance act.
Mr. Eugene Black, of Texas, offered an amendment proposing additional
modification of section 210 of the war risk insurance act proposed to
be reenacted.
Mr. Richard Wayne Parker, of New Jersey, made the point of order that
additional modification of the section of existing law was not germane
to the pending bill.
After debate the Chairman \2\ held:
The Chair is quite willing to confess that he has had a good deal of
difficulty in arriving at a general conclusion with respect to which
the proposed bill opens up the war risk insurance act for amendment
offered from the floor. The section under consideration amends section
210 of the war risk act, which section deals with the administration of
family allowances. The Chair thinks it would be rather an arbitrary
ruling to hold that where the committee has reported an amendment to a
section in a law no amendment can be considered to that section except
an amendment to the amendment proposed by the committee. The Chair is
of the opinion that where the committee proposes an amendment to a
section of the law in the nature of a substitute an amendment which is
germane to that section of the law and the amendment of the committee
is in order. The chair thinks that the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas is germane to the section of the law under
consideration and the amendment proposed by the committee, and the
Chair therefore overrules the point of order.
2941. An act continuing and reenacting an existing law is subject to
amendment modifying the provisions of the law carried in the act.\3\
The committee, overruling the decision of the Chair, held that an
amendment germane to an existing law is germane to a bill proposing its
reenactment.
On March 12, 1928,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the bill (S. 2317) continuing for one year
the power and authority of the Federal Radio Commission under the radio
act of 1927, when a committee amendment was read proposing modification
of the provisions of the law sought to be continued.
Mr. Frederik R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane to the bill because it referred to the
provisions of the law proposed for reenactment rather than to the terms
of the bill before the committee.
Mr. Wallace H. White, jr., of Maine, opposed the point of order and
explained:
The first section of this bill provides that all the powers and all
the authority vested in the Federal Radio Commission by the act of 1927
shall be vested in and exercised by the commission until March 16,
1929. It proposes in that language to extend for the period of another
year each and every one of the powers vested by the 1927 law in the
Radio Commission, and it does that by
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2398.
\2\ Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, Chairman.
\3\ Overruling sec. 5806 of Hinds' Precedents.
\4\ First session, Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 4585.
Sec. 2941
the general language as fully and effectually as though the portion of
the 1927 law were set out seriatim.
Now, paragraph 2 of section 9 of the 1927 law, one of the powers
which, if it were not for this amendment, would be extended by that
general language, is that the commission shall make such distribution
of wave lengths, licenses, power, and periods of time for operation
among the States and among the communities thereof as shall work out
equitable service to those States and to those communities.
That proposition is before us by the general language with which this
act starts. It is as fully and completely before us as though recited
word for word and letter for letter. This amendment to which the point
of order is directed seeks to amend that specific section and that
specific paragraph. It seems to me it is clearly germane, clearly
within the authority of the House and the committee to deal with that
specific power when we undertake to deal with all the powers.
Mr. Lehlbach argued:
Is it germane? Fortunately, the Senate bill is short and we can
examine it with a good deal of particularity. The radio act of 1927
covered the field of radio and laid down permanent substantive law in
accordance with which radio activities were to be governed and
regulated, and it provided for an authority to carry out that permanent
and substantive law. Certain of the functions of the commission created
by that act to carry out some of these functions and to put into
operation this permanent substantive law by limitation would expire on
the 15th of March next. The Senate passed this legislation for what
purpose? In section 1 it provides that the power and authority vested
in the Federal Radio Commission should continue until March 16, 1929,
and that is all that section 1 does. It does not in the slightest
particle alter the substantive permanent law that is written into the
radio act of 1927. Section 2 provides that these commissioners shall
continue to receive a salary at the rate of $10,000 a year while they
continue to exercise these functions. It does not in the slightest
particular touch the permanent substantive law written in the act of
1927. Section 3 provides that this commission during its functioning
and for a few months thereafter, until January 1, 1930, shall not issue
licenses under the act for more than six months and one year. It does
not in any way alter the permanent substantive law with respect to the
length of time for which licenses should be issued but merely restricts
the functioning for a short period of time and leaves the law
unchanged. That is all there is here. How an amendment that radically
and vitally changes the substantive law on the subject of radio can be
germane to such a proposition is more than I can see.
Mr. Lehlbach then cited section 5806 of Hinds' Precedents in support
of his position.
Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, answered:
When I was informed that there would be a point of order interposed
to the committee amendment, I made an examination of the precedents,
and, of course, I found there, as one of the first, the case which the
gentleman from New Jersey has cited, section 5806 of Hinds' Precedent.
I will say very frankly that when I came in to analyze that decision
and to analyze this situation more carefully than was done in a casual
reading it occurred to me that it was a precedent that might be
decisive of the question. But upon the examination of the Congressional
Record itself and a reading of the precise thing that was in the
resolution reported by the gentleman from Wisconsin I came to the
conclusion that the case at bar can be clearly differentiated from the
one which existed there. I have before me the Congressional Record of
April 24, 1900, and I should like to read the resolution which had
passed the Senate, and which was reported by the Committee on Insular
Affairs and presented by the gentleman from Wisconsin. I read:
``That until the officer to fill any office provided for by the act
of April 12, 1900, entitled `An act temporarily to provide revenues and
a civil government for Porto Rico, and for other purposes,' shall have
been appointed and qualified, the officer or officers now performing
the civil duties pertaining to such office may continue to perform the
same under the authority of said act; and no officer of the Army shall
lose his commission by reason thereof: Provided, That nothing herein
Sec. 2941
contained shall be held to extend the time for appointment and
qualification of any such officers beyond the 1st day of August,
1900.''
Now, to that the House committee adopted certain amendments, which
fell before the point of order, or rather would have fallen before the
point of order but for the fact that later on the Speaker held that the
point of order came too late.
Those amendments that were proposed by the committee I shall not
read, but there were two of them, and they went into section 32 of the
act apparently passed in that session of Congress, and undertook to
amend that section 32 by a very elaborate provision touching the
question of franchise to be granted in Porto Rico.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have before me the radio act of 1927 and I
desire to read section 9 thereof, which is very brief and which it is
proposed to amend here. I read:
``Sec. 9. the licensing authority, if public convenience, interest,
or necessity will be served thereby, subject to the limitations of this
act, shall grant to any applicant therefor a station license provided
for by this act.
``In considering applications for licenses and renewals of licenses
when and in so far as there is a demand for the same, the licensing
authority shall make such a distribution of licenses, bands of
frequency of wave lengths, periods of time for operation, and of power
among the different States and communities as to give fair, efficient,
and equitable radio service to each of the same.
``No license granted for the operation of a broadcasting station
shall be for a longer term than three years and no license so granted
for any other class of station shall be for a longer term than five
years, and any license granted may be revoked as hereinafter provided.
Upon the expiration of any license, upon application therefor, a
renewal of such license may be granted from time to time for a term not
to exceed three years in the case of broadcasting licenses and not to
exceed five years in the case of other licenses.
``No renewal of an existing station shall be granted more than 30
days prior to the expiration of the original license.''
That is all of section 9.
Now, Mr. Chairman, Senate bill 2317, the bill before the Committee of
the Whole, is not merely an extension of the time of the Radio
Commission. It contains positive, substantive matters of law changing
the existing law which I have just read to the Chair. In the first
place, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Maine, in the very
first section of the act there is the general extension of all powers
and authority vested in the Federal Radio Commission, including its
authority to issue licenses. But go to section 3 of the Senate bill.
There you find your modification and there you find legislation
entirely new in character changing the third paragraph of section 9 of
the law. This proposal changes the time which was there fixed and makes
what the gentleman from new Jersey is pleased to designate as
substantive, positive law.
Now, section 9 is being amended to a material respect, a very
material respect. The committee comes with a proposal to further amend
section 9, but not bringing in some new law, as was proposed to be done
by the Committee on Insular Affairs back in 1900, when they attached
extraneous matter to a simple resolution extending the time for the
appointment of certain officers in Porto Rico.
We have in section 3 of the Senate bill a change of existing law--law
asserted in section 9 of the original radio act. The committee simply
proposes to go further and by an amendment amend another clause of the
very same section brought before the House by the Senate bill both of
them embraced in the authority and the power of the Radio Commission,
which by the terms of the first section of the act is being extended in
this measure.
Now, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that unquestionably when we come
to examine the language of the law, the language of the proposed act,
we can differentiate from both the cases that are laid down in the
precedents, one of which has been cited by the gentleman from New
Jersey and the other of which was quoted in that same decision rendered
by Mr. Speaker Henderson in 1900.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that the committee
amendment is germane and is in order.
Sec. 2941
Mr. Charles R. Crisp, of Georgia, also dissented from the rule laid
down in the Precedents:
Mr. Chairman, I am familiar with the decision in which it was held by
Speaker Henderson that you could make a point of order against an
amendment added to a Senate bill by a House committee.
I think the Chair could render the House a service by overruling this
decision, for I do not believe the decision is well founded. What is
the object in parliamentary law of requiring that proposed amendments
be germane? It is to keep the House from being taken by surprise in
voting upon an amendment that has not been considered or digested or
reported by a committee of the House. The natural presumption is that
the committees of this House, whose members are intelligent men and
good legislators, would not report an amendment to a bill which they
were considering that did not relate, that was not relevant, that was
not germane to the matter they were considering.
Now, what does this Senate bill do, Mr. Chairman? This Senate bill
reenacts the radio control bill; and the body of the bill itself
expressly says that all powers conferred on the Radio Commission by the
original act are continued, with certain changes and limitations, and
the Senate limits it and changes section 9, dealing with the issuing of
licenses. The Senate bill itself, in section 3, in dealing with the
issuing of licenses for radio and the permits which were issued under
the original act, reduces and cuts down the time from three years and
five years to one year and six months. This is a substantive change.
The House committee proposed an amendment still further reducing the
time for which licenses may be granted.
Under the facts in this case this amendment, dealing with a bill
extending all the powers and all the provisions of the radio act is the
same as if every one of those sections was enumerated in the bill. The
amendment is unquestionably germane to the bill, and in my opinion
there is no merit in the point or order.
The Chairman \1\ decided:
The Chair was advised that this point of order would be made, and
therefore gave considerable study to it prior to the consideration this
afternoon. The Chair realizes the importance of the issue, so far as
the merits of the question before the committee are concerned, and has
attempted to divest himself of any interest in that question in the
determination of the point of order.
The bill, S. 2317, as it came from the Senate, read as follows:
``An act continuing for one year the powers and authority of the
Federal Radio Commission under the
radio act of 1927, and for other purposes.
``Be it enacted, etc., That all the powers and authority vested in
the Federal Radio commission by the radio act of 1927, approved
February 23, 1927, shall continue to be vested in and exercised by the
commission until March 16, 1929; and wherever any reference is made in
such act to the period of one year after the first meeting of the
commission, such reference shall be held to mean the period of two
years after the first meeting of the commission.
``Sec. 2. The period during which the members of the commission shall
receive compensation at the rate of $10,000 per annum is hereby
extended until March 16, 1929.
``Sec. 3. Prior to January 1, 1930, the licensing authority shall
grant no license or renewal of license under the radio act of 1927 for
a broadcasting station for a period to exceed six months and no license
or renewal of license for any other class of station for a period to
exceed one year.
``Sec. 4. The term of office of each member of the commission shall
expire on February 23, 1929, and thereafter commissioners shall be
appointed for terms of 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 years, respectively, as
provided in the radio act 1927.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 2941
The committee amendment, as to which a point of order has been made,
reads as follows:
``Sec. 4. The second paragraph of section 9 of the radio act of 1927
is amended to read as follows:
`` `The licensing authority shall make an equal allocation to each of
the five zones established in section 2 of this act of broadcasting
licenses, of wave lengths, and of station power; and within each zone
shall make a fair and equitable allocation among the different States
therefor in proportion to population and area.' ''
The Senate bill amended in certain particulars the radio act of 1927,
which the Chair has before him. The Chair believes it in point to
consider the structure and contents of that law. It is a large
enactment, covering 15 pages of the usual public law print, and
contains over 10,000 words. It relates to a large number of subjects in
connection with ``the regulation of radio communications.'' The first
section states the general purposes of the act. The second section
creates the five zones into which the country is divided for the
purposes of the act. The third section establishes the Federal Radio
Commission. The fourth section states the authority of that commission.
The fifth section provides for the transfer after the expiration of one
year of a large part of the authority granted to the commission to the
Secretary of Commerce. The law then contains numerous provisions
regarding radio stations owned by the United States and provides for
the use of private radio stations and facilities by the Government in
time of emergency. Then follow a number of sections relating to the
granting of licenses, beginning with section 9 and running through
sections 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, all of them relating to the matter of
granting licenses, not only to broadcasting stations but to other
stations. Section 15 relates to the matter of violations of law as to
unlawful restraints and monopolies. Section 16 relates to appeals to
the courts by persons dissatisfied with the action of the commission or
of the Secretary of Commerce. Thus, throughout the bill a large number
of subjects are treated, all relating to the general subject of radio
communication and the control of radio operations and facilities by the
Federal Government, including prosecutions and penalties for violations
of the act. It will be seen, therefore, that the pending bill affects
only a very small portion of the radio act of 1927 and can not be said
to be a general revision of that act.
There are two main questions involved here, one of which has been
raised only incidentally by the suggestion of the gentleman from
Georgia, that in his opinion it would be well if there would be a
reversal of the decisions heretofore made with reference to the rules
applicable to committee amendments, as affecting perhaps particularly
amendments to Senate bills. Of course, the present occupant of the
chair would not feel warranted in overruling a rather long line of
decisions by very distinguished Chairmen and Speakers. The Chair thinks
that it is clear that a committee amendment is subject to the same
rules with respect to germaneness and all other limitations as are
amendments proposed on the floor.
The gentleman from Tennessee made reference to the precedent in
Hinds' Precedents, volume 5, paragraph 5806, page 411, where the
introductory paragraphs read as follows:
``To a bill amendatory of an existing law as to one specific
particular an amendment relating to the terms of the law rather than to
those of the bill was held not to be germane.
``The rule that amendments shall be germane applies to amendments
reported by committees.''
It was the case in which the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Cooper,
offered amendments on behalf of the Committee on Insular Affairs to the
law relating to the government of Porto Rico. As the Chair understood
it, the gentleman from Tennessee said that at first he was quite
impressed with the force of this precedent as applicable to the instant
case. The Chair is quite impressed with the force of this precedent,
and wishes to call attention to the very close similarity of the case
now before the committee and that which then arose. It was on April 24,
1900, and the Chair now refers to the Congressional Record, volume 33,
part 1, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, page 4613. The gentleman
from Wisconsin obtained consent for the consideration of Senate Joint
Resolution 116, entitled:
``Joint resolution to provide for the administration of civil affairs
in Porto Rico pending the appointment and qualification of the civil
officers provided for in the act approved April 12, 1900,
Sec. 2941
entitled `Act act temporarily to provide revenues and a civil
government for Porto Rico, and for other purposes.' ''
The act itself provided as follows:
``That until the officer to fill any office provided for by the act
of April 12, 1900, entitled `An act temporarily to provide revenues and
a civil government for Porto Rico, and for other purposes,' shall have
been appointed and qualified, the officer or officers now performing
the civil duties pertaining to such office may continue to perform the
same under the authority of said act; and no officer of the Army shall
lose his commission by reason thereof: Provided, That nothing herein
contained shall be held to extend the time for appointment and
qualification of any such officers beyond the 1st day of August,
1900.''
It will be noted that here was a provision for the continuation of a
system of government in Porto Rico, with a limitation as to when that
system of government should expire, just as in the pending bill there
is a provision for a continuation of the work and authority of the
Radio Commission within the limit of the period of one year. Neither
the Porto Rican act nor the present bill, as passed by the Senate,
changed the permanent provisions of the laws whose operations were thus
temporarily extended.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, on behalf of the Committee on Insular
Affairs, offered two amendments relative to certain ``franchises,
privileges, and concessions,'' as to the granting and effect of which
various preliminary requirements and restrictions were proposed, and
subsequently the question arose as to the germaneness of those
amendments.
The question raised here in debate was as to whether the original law
which was then being extended in time of operation contained anything
with reference to the very franchises, and so forth, to which the
amendments referred. On that question the Chair will say that the
amendments were specifically directed to section 32 of the act, which
was then in question, and which read as follows:
``Sec. 32. That the legislative authority herein provided shall
extend to all matters of a legislative character, not locally
inapplicable, including power to create, consolidate, and reorganize
the municipalities, so far as may be necessary, and to provide and
repeal laws and ordinances therefor; and also the power to alter,
amend, modify, and repeal any and all laws and ordinances of every
character now in force in Porto Rico, or any municipality or district
thereof, not inconsistent with the provisions hereof: Provided,
however, That all grants of franchises, rights, and privileges or
concessions of a public or quasi-public nature shall be made by the
executive council, with the approval of the governor, and all
franchises granted in Porto Rico shall be reported to Congress, which
hereby reserves the power to annul or modify the same.''
So that in the act, which was amended by the Senate bill providing
for the temporary continuance in office of certain officers, there was
actually contained a provision with reference to the franchises,
privileges, and concessions to which the amendments offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin, on behalf of the Insular Affairs Committee,
related, and still the Speaker held that the amendments were not
germane.
The case referred to, in this decision, is discussed on page 412 of
Hinds' Precedents, Volume V, section 5807, where a Senate bill (S.
4814) was before the House, which was entitled ``An act to amend an act
to forfeit certain lands heretofore granted for the purpose of aiding
in the construction of railroads, and for other purposes.'' To this
bill Mr. Thomas H. Carter, of Montana, moved an amendment providing for
a method of classification to determine the mineral or nonmineral
character of lands selected by railroads. The Speaker (Mr. Thomas B.
Reed, of Maine) sustained the point of order in the following language,
which shows the similarity of that case to the one now pending:
``The Chair can only consider, in determining the question, whether
the amendment be germane to the bill before the House and the
proposition therein contained. The pending bill relates solely to the
time when a period named in the original act shall begin to run. The
amendment proposed relates to a reclassification of lands, a subject so
remote from that of the bill that it can be justified only by a claim
that any amendment germane to this act proposed to be altered would be
germane to this bill. But the very claim is its own answer. The test
must be the bill before the House, for that is the bill which is to be
amended.''
Sec. 2941
On March 9, 1898, the House was in Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union considering Senate amendments to an Indian
appropriation bill. One of those amendments read as follows:
``That the time fixed for the Indian appropriation act approved June
7, 1897, for opening for location and entry, under all land laws of the
United States, the lands of the Uncompahgre Indian Reservation in Utah,
under the limitations and exceptions as therein provided, is hereby
extended six months from the 1st day of April, 1898.''
To this amendment Mr. James S. Sherman, of New York, offered an
amendment, which provided, in substance, that the Secretary of the
Interior should be authorized to lease the said reserved lands
containing minerals upon such terms and conditions as to royalties,
length of leases, assignments of the leases, and other ``regulations
and limitations,'' as the Secretary of the Interior might determine.
Mr. King, of Utah, interposed a point of order, claiming, among other
objections, that the Sherman amendment was not germane to the Senate
amendment then under consideration.
The Chairman, Mr. Hepburn, of Iowa, sustained the point of order that
the Sherman amendment was not germane.
Reference has been made, in debate, to the decision of Mr. Speaker
Cannon on February 11, 1905, when the Committee on Naval Affairs, under
a special order of the House permitting the consideration, on that day,
of certain private bills, by a substitute for a bill not in the
privileged classes, under the order, sought to bring the bill within
the special order. Mr. Speaker Cannon then said (Hinds' Precedents,
Vol. VI, sec. 4623, p. 954):
``The substitute is a mere proposition of no higher grade than an
amendment that might be offered by any Member. * * * The amendment can
have no status and if it gets consideration at all it gets
consideration by virtue of the bill which was referred to the Committee
on Naval Affairs and reported back.''
Thus, in the case now before the committee, the amendments
recommended to the Senate bill by the Committee on the Merchant Marine
and Fisheries have no advantageous position on the question of
germaneness, notwithstanding that committee has jurisdiction of the
subject matter and the Senate bill was refereed to it. The amendments
must survive the same test as would amendments offered on the floor of
the Committee of the Whole or of the House. What, then, is that test?
The rule was never better stated than by the distinguished gentleman
from Tennessee, Mr. Garrett, when he said on September 19, 1918, as
reported in the advance sheets of Cannon's Precedents, in section 2911,
that--``the meaning of the expression `germaneness' ''--
(In the case then before him) was--``that the fundamental purpose of
the amendment must be germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill.''
The latest decision on a question of this sort was made in an
admirable opinion by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Lehlbach, on
the 8th of this month, which occurs on pages 4486-4488 of the current
Congressional Record.\1\ That decision was sustained by the Committee
of the Whole by the vote of 207 ayes to 33 noes.
That decision is almost on all fours with the pending question. What
is the fundamental purpose of this Senate bill 2317? Who will say that
it has any other purpose than to extend for another year the operation
and the work of the Radio Commission which, under the radio act of
1927, was limited to one year?
Section 1 does it in about the same language as is employed in the
other bills which have been heretofore quoted. Section 2 continues the
salaries of the commissioners for this same work for another year.
Section 3 makes an incidental provision with reference to limiting
licenses during this enlargement of the activities of the Radio
Commission, and section 4, which the House committee struck out but
which must be considered in this connection was also a part of the
general scheme for continuing the life of the commission for more year
along the same lines and with the same powers and for the same purposes
as were contained in the original radio act of 1927, when the
commission was granted certain powers for one year only. Nowhere in the
original
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sec. 2995 of this work.
Sec. 2942
Senate bill is there any permanent fundamental change in the wide range
of the substantive provisions of the radio act of 1927, to which the
Senate bill is an amendment.
The amendment proposed by the House committee, which is now
designated as section 4, relates to an entirely different subject. It
provides for the permanent territorial distribution and allocation of
broadcasting licenses, in respect of wave lengths and of station power,
among the five zones created by the radio act of 1927, and to the
distribution and allocation of such broadcasting licenses, not all
licenses, but broadcasting licenses only, among the different States in
proportion to population and area.
It seems clear to the Chair that the fundamental purpose, in fact,
the sole object of the Senate bill is the temporary extension of the
jurisdiction of the commission and that the other matters which are
inserted by the Senate bill are merely incidental thereto. If that is
so, then section 4 is not germane, because it relates to an entirely
different subject matter.
The Chair therefore sustains the point of order that the committee
amendment, designated as section 4, is not germane to the Senate bill.
Mr. Crisp, appealing from the decision of the Chair, submitted:
The fundamental purpose of this bill is not to continue the life of
the commission but it is to continue this Radio Commission with all of
its powers, including the power for 12 months of continue to issue
licenses. The Senate bill not only extended all the powers for 12
months but it extended them with certain limitations. The Senate bill
amended section 9 of the original radio act by saying that this
commission, with its life extended, could only grant licenses for one
year and six months, instead of five and three years, and the House
committee still further amended it by striking out the one and three
years and putting in three months and six months.
Mr. Lehlbach submitted in rebuttal:
The gentleman stated correctly that the Senate bill was for the
purpose of extending the powers and authority of the Radio Commission
for 12 months with certain limitations. If section 4 were a limitation
upon the powers and authority of the Radio Commission during the period
for which their powers and authority are extended, it would be in
order, but it does not refer to the functioning of the Radio Commission
for the next 12 months. If changes, until amended, for all time the
basic law with respect to radio, no matter who exercises the function.
Consequently, it is in no sense germane.
The question being put on the appeal and the committee having
divided, tellers reported yeas 140, nays 168, and the decision of the
Chair was not sustained as the judgment of the committee.
2942. To a bill amending a law in several particulars an amendment
proposing modification in another particular was held to be germane.
On September 10, 1919,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 9065) proposing
modification of several sections of the Federal far loan act.
Mr. Melvin O. McLaughlin, of Nebraska, offered an amendment proposing
modification of a section of the law unprovided for in the pending
bill.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
Mr. Otis Wingo, of Arkansas, said:
Mr. Chairman, while I am opposed to this amendment, there is no
question that the proposed amendment is in order. It proposes to change
the figures of the original act. This bill proposes amendments to
several sections of the act.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 5204.
Sec. 2943
The Chairman \1\ affirmed:
It is clear to the Chair that the gentleman from Arkansas has stated
the effect of this amendment; and, if that be correct, the amendment is
certainly in order, and the Chair overrules the point of order. The
gentleman from Nebraska.
On September 12,\2\ when the same bill was again under consideration
in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, Mr.
Daniel A. Reed, of New York, proposed a further amendment of the
original act not provided for in the pending bill.
Mr. Burton E. Sweet, of Iowa, raised the question of order that the
proposed amendment was not germane to the bill.
The Chairman ruled:
It is well established by precedents that where it is proposed in a
bill to amend an act in a number of its sections, an amendment to amend
another section of the act is in order. A number of cases have occurred
in the consideration of this bill where amendments have been offered
which were not germane to any section included in the present bill but
were clearly germane to sections in the original law. It seems clear to
the Chair that this amendment is germane to a section of the original
law, which under the precedents may be repealed or amended in this
bill. The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.
2943. To a bill to modify a section of an existing law an amendment
proposing to repeal a portion of the section sought to be modified was
held to be germane.
On February 1, 1928,\3\ the House ordered to a third reading the bill
(H. R. 6491) to amend section 8 of the act entitled ``An act to
supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies and
for other purposes,'' approved October 15, 1914, as amended.
Thereupon Mr. T. Alan Goldsborough, of Maryland, moved to recommit
the bill to the Committee on Banking and Currency with instructions to
report it back forthwith with the following amendment:
Strike out all of the language after the enacting clause and insert
in lieu of the matter striken out the following language: ``That the
last proviso of the second paragraph of section 8 of the act entitled
`An act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and
monopolies, and for other purposes,' approved October 15, 1914, as
amended is hereby repealed.''
Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
the amendment proposed in the motion to recommit was not germane.
The Speaker,\4\ after ascertaining that the amendment proposed to
repeal only the provisions of the law which the pending bill sought to
amend, overruled the point of order and put the question on the motion
to recommit.
2944. Although a bill amending a general law in several particulars
is presumed to admit as germane an amendment providing for the repeal
of the whole law, in an instance wherein the modifications proposed by
the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
\2\ Record, p. 5311.
\3\ First session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 2339.
\4\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
Sec. 2944
pending bill did not vitally affect the entire law, an amendment
providing for repeal was held not to be germane.
On June 17, 1919,\1\ Mr. James W. Good, of Iowa, called upon the
conference report on the third deficiency appropriation bill, reporting
agreement on all votes in disagreement except on Senate amendment No.
21, directing the Secretary of the Treasury to acquire and complete a
hospital in Cook County, Illinois.
The conference report was agreed to, and the Senate amendment
remaining in disagreement was reported, when Mr. Good moved to recede
from disagreement and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment
repealing the entire law authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to
build such hospitals of which the Senate amendment was amendatory.
Mr. Alben W. Barkley, of Kentucky, raised the question of order that
the amendment proposing the repeal of the law was not germane.
Debate on the point of order having occupied the remainder of the
day, the Speaker \2\ took the question of order under advisement and
the House adjourned.
On the next day \3\ on which the business was again in order,
consideration of the Senate amendment having been resumed, the Speaker
said:
The point of order made by the gentleman from Kentucky is that the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa is not germane to the
Senate amendment. The rule on germaneness is very simple--
``No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
While the rule seems simple, of course the difficulty always lies in
deciding what is strictly the subject under consideration. In this
instance the original bill gave the Secretary of the Treasury power to
establish hospitals in several different places, and also other powers
in respect to hospitals. The Senate amendment compelled him to build
one of these hospitals, where before he simply was given authority to
build it. The gentleman from Iowa moves an amendment to the Senate
amendment to repeal the whole law which gave the Secretary the
discretion to build these hospitals. It seems very clear to the Chair
that if the only clause in the Senate amendment was to compel building
the Chicago hospital, then an amendment which repealed the whole law
giving the Secretary authority to build all these hospitals would not
be in order. Indeed, it would be questionable, under the precedents,
whether an amendment which forbade the Secretary to build the Chicago
hospital alone would be in order. That, at least, would be open to
debate, for although that in one sense is ``the subject under
consideration,'' yet it has been held, for instance, that a bill
authorizing the Court of Claims to adjudicate a claim can not be
amended to provide for payment of that same claim. The subject under
consideration was not simply the claim but the action to be taken
concerning the claim. And so it might be argued that to forbid the
Secretary of the Treasury to build one hospital is not germane to an
amendment which compelled him to build it. But the question here is
broader than that. The question here is, When an amendment orders the
Secretary to build the hospital, is it germane to repeal the whole law
under which the Secretary previously had power to build that hospital
and others? The Chair thinks it clearly would not be germane if that
was the only subject in the Senate amendment.
But in the Senate amendment there is another proposition which
applies to a different pay of the law to be amended. There is a clause
in the original law setting aside a special fund of $1,500,000 to
purchase land and buildings. That clause is amended by the Senate
amendment to authorize the Secretary not only to purchase buildings but
also to erect buildings. That, of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p.1231.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Record, p. 1393.
Sec. 2945
course, is a minor paragraph in the original law and this is a rather
insignificant amendment. Yet it is argued, and argued plausibly and
forcibly, that when more than one clause or section of a law is amended
that fact brings the whole law before the House, and an amendment would
then be in order to repeal the law. There is one notable precedent for
that, but the Chair thinks it is clearly distinguished from this. In
the case to which the Chair refers the amendments were numerous and
went to the heart of the bill, and changed the bill in a vital way. In
that case it was held that a motion to repeal the whole law was in
order, but it seems to the Chair that in the case before us the two
sections referred to by the Senate amendment are easily segregated from
the rest of the law, and that they do not affect the whole law, and
that a motion to repeal the whole law is not fairly germane to an
amendment which simply changes those two paragraphs. The Chair,
therefore, sustains the point of order.
2945. To a bill modifying existing law in a number of particulars an
amendment referring to the entire law is not necessarily germane.
On June 10, 1921,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 6611) to establish a
veterans' bureau.
This bill proposed the reenactment in modified form of a number of
sections of the war risk insurance act, but containing no reference to
the act as a whole.
Mr. Clay Stone Briggs, of Texas, offered the following amendment:
The provisions of this act, as well as those of the war risk
insurance act as amended, shall be liberally construed in favor of the
claimant within the class of beneficiaries entitled to relief under the
provisions of this act.
Mr. Everett Sanders, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \2\ ruled:
The amendment of the gentleman from Texas provides that the
provisions of this act, as well as the war risk insurance act as
amended, shall be liberally construed in favor of the claimant, and so
forth. The provision offered by the gentleman from Texas undertakes to
interpret not only the sections of the war risk insurance act as
amended but many sections of the war risk insurance act which are not
before the House now for amendment. The Chair thinks it is not in order
on this bill to amend sections or interpret sections of the war risk
act which are not before the House for amendment or interpretation.
Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.
2946. To a bill amending the Federal Reserve Act in a number of
particulars an amendment relating to the Federal Reserve Act but to no
portion provided for in the pending bill was held not to be germane.
On January 14, 1925,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 8887) to amend the
Federal reserve act and the national bank act.
Mr. W. A. Ayers, of Kansas, offered an amendment proposing
modification of a portion of the Federal reserve act not referred to in
the pending bill.
Mr. Carroll L. Beedy, of Maine, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
The Chairman \4\ held that the amendment was not germane to any
particular section of the pending bill and sustained the point of
order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2424.
\2\ Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 1833.
\4\ Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, Chairman.
Sec. 2947
2947. To a bill amendatory of an act in several particulars an
amendment proposing to modify the act but not related to the bill was
held not to be germane.
On May 14, 1924,\1\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 2169)
proposing to amend several sections of the national defense act, when
Mr. John J. McSwain, of South Carolina, offered an amendment proposing
to modify a section of the national defense act not referred to in the
pending bill.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, submitted that the amendment was not
germane either to the bill or to the pending section.
After a brief debate the Speaker \2\ ruled:
It does not seem to the Chair that this bill brings the whole
national defense act before the House. It only brings before the House
a very limited portion of it and not the portion affected by the
amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina. The Chair is
disposed to sustain the point of order. The point of order is
sustained.
2948. To a bill amendatory of one section of an existing law an
amendment proposing further modification of the law was held not be
germane.
On December 20, 1919,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 11224) to amend
section 1 of the act approved October 16, 1918, providing for
deportation of alien anarchists.
Mr. Benjamin F. Welty, of Ohio, offered an amendment proposing to add
to the existing law a new section to be known as section 4.
Mr. Albert Johnson, of Washington, made the point of order that the
amendment while germane to the existing law was not germane to the
pending bill.
After debate the Chairman \4\ sustained the point of order.
2949. To a bill amending a law in one particular an amendment
repealing the law is not germane.
To a bill amending a single feature of the war prohibition act an
amendment repealing the act was held not to be germane.
On July 14, 1919,\5\ during consideration in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union of the bill (H. R. 6810) the
prohibition enforcement bill, the Clerk read as follows:
That the term ``war prohibition act'' used in this act shall mean the
provisions of any act or acts prohibiting the sale and manufacture of
intoxicating liquors until the conclusion of the present war and
thereafter until the termination of demobilization, the date of which
shall be determined and proclaimed by the President of the United
States. The words ``beer, wine, or other intoxicating malt or vinous
liquors'' in the war prohibition act shall be construed to mean any
liquors which contain one-half of 1 per cent or more of alcohol by
volume.
To this paragraph Mr. William L. Igoe, of Missouri, proposed the
following amendment:
After the word ``States,'' strike out the remainder of the section
and insert the words ``and the same is hereby repealed.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 8554.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1000.
\4\ James W. Good, of Iowa, Chairman.
\5\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2555.
Sec. 2950
Mr. Andrew J. Volstead, of Minnesota, raised the question of order
that the amendment was not germane to the bill.
After debate the Chairman \1\ ruled:
The section reads as follows:
``That the term `war prohibition act' used in this act shall mean the
provisions of any act or acts prohibiting the sale and manufacture of
intoxicating liquors until the conclusion of the present war and
thereafter until the termination of demobilization, the date of which
shall be determined and proclaimed by the President of the United
States. The words `beer, wine, or other intoxicating malt or vinous
liquors' in the war prohibition act shall be construed to mean any
liquors which contain one-half of 1 per cent or more of alcohol by
volume.''
Under that section the gentleman from Missouri has offered the
following amendment:
``Page 2, line 1, after the word `States,' strike out the remainder
of the section and insert the words `and the same is hereby repealed.'
''
The part stricken out, according to this amendment, reads as follows:
``The words `beer, wine, or other intoxicating malt or vinous
liquors' in the war prohibition act shall be construed to mean any
liquors which contain one-half of 1 per cent or more of alcohol by
volume.''
The gentleman from Minnesota makes the point of order that this
amendment is not germane to the paragraph. It has been decided a number
of times by the House that to a bill amendatory of any existing law as
to one specific particular amendment relating to the terms of the law
rather than those of the bill are held not to be germane. I think that
is the well-decided opinion of the House and to that opinion I
understand the gentleman from Missouri does not object, but claims that
his amendment falls within the provision of the decision of this House
which was first made in 1902. I read from Hinds' Precedents, volume 5,
page 420, section 5824:
``To a bill amending a general law in several particulars an
amendment providing for the repeal of the whole law was held to be
germane.
It is the contention of the gentleman from Missouri that the bill
involves the war prohibition act in more than one particular, and
therefore is in order. The Chair has very carefully gone through this
bill, and is of the opinion that the language which reads: ``That the
term `war prohibition act' used in this act shall mean the provisions
of any act or acts prohibiting the sale and manufacture of intoxicating
liquors until the conclusion of the present war and thereafter until
the termination of demobilization, the date of which shall be
determined and proclaimed by the President of the United States'' does
not amend the war prohibition act. The Chair is of the opinion that the
bill amends the war prohibition act in only one particular, and that is
puts in an amendment commencing with the words in line 1, page 2,
reading as follows:
``The words `beer, wine, or other intoxicating or vinous liquors' in
the war prohibition act shall be construed to mean any liquors which
contain one-half of 1 per cent or more of alcohol by volume.''
That is the only amendment to the war prohibition act that the Chair
has been able to find which can be dignified by the term of an
amendment to the act, and the Chair therefore sustains the point of
order.
2950. To a proposition to extend for two years the operation of a
temporary act and declaring that conditions prompting its original
enactment still existed, an amendment germane to the existing act
sought to be extended was held to be germane.
On April 28, 1924,\2\ the bill (H. R. 7962) to regulate rents in the
District of Columbia was under consideration in the Committee of the
Whole House on the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James W. Good, of Iowa, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 7418.
Sec. 2951
state of the Union, when Mr. Florian Lampert, of Wisconsin, moved to
strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
That it is hereby declared that the emergency described in Title II
of the food control and the District rents act still exists and
continues in the District of Columbia and that the present housing and
rental conditions therein require the further extension of the
provisions of such title.
Sec. 2. That Title II of the food control and the District of
Colombia rents act, as amended, is reenacted, extended, and continued,
as hereinafter amended, until the 22d day of May, 1926, notwithstanding
the provisions of section 2 of the act entitled ``An act to extend for
the period of two years the provisions of Title II of the food control
and the District of Columbia rents act, approved October 22, 1919, as
amended, approved May 22, 1922, etc.
Mr. Henry L. Jost, of Missouri, proposed the following as a
substitute for the pending amendment:
It shall be unlawful for any corporation, firm, or individual owning,
managing, or controlling premises devoted to dwelling purposes and
offered for rental or rented to others for such purpose within the
District of Columbia after the passage of this act to charge or exact
therefor, either directly or indirectly, by any means, method, or
device whatsoever, for and during the period for which the same is
proposed to be or is rented, a rental in excess of an amount which,
calculated on the basis of 12 consecutive months, will produce and
yield the owner 12 per cent annually on the assessed value of said
property for the purpose of taxation, etc.
Mr. James T. Begg, of Ohio, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \1\ held:
Let the Chair make a suggestion to the gentleman from Ohio that may
bring the matter to a little closer issue, and that is that where it is
proposed to reenact a specific law and a resolution is introduced for
the purpose of extending the provisions of that act, is it in order
then as an amendment to such as act to make provisions that amend the
original act?
Now, the only proposition is whether the amendment as offered is a
proper amendment to the pending substitute. Chairman Burton, in
Committee of the Whole House on October 18, 1921, held that:
``To a bill extending the operation of a certain act, an amendment
excepting a certain portion of the act to be extended is germane.''
In other words, that on a proposition which has to do with the
reenactment or the prolongation of a pending act an amendment can be
offered which amends the language of the original act. This amendment
is germane to provisions of the present rent act. Aside from that, the
Lampert substitute does more than to merely extend the provisions of
the present law. It declares the continued existence of an emergency in
the District of Columbia. There might be some doubt on the subject if
this amendment did nothing but extend a certain act, but it does more
than that. That being true, the Chair thinks the gentleman's amendment
germane and the Chair overrules the point of order.
2951. An amendment proposing to add an individual proposition to a
bill embodying another individual proposition is not admissible even
though the two propositions belong to the same class.
To a bill providing insurance for crews of vessels an amendment
providing insurance for soldiers transported on such vessles was held
not to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ William J. Graham, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 2952
On June 2, 1917,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union resumed consideration of the bill (S. 2133) amending the war
risk insurance act, with the following paragraph pending:
The Bureau of War Risk Insurance, subject to the general direction of
the Secretary of the Treasury, shall, as soon as practicable, make
provisions for the insurance by the United States, as further provided
in section 3a, of masters, officers, and crews of American merchant
vessels against loss of life or personal injury by the risks of war,
and for compensation during detention following capture by enemies of
the United States whenever it shall appear to the Secretary that in any
trade the need for such insurance exists.
Mr. J. Willard Ragsdale, of South Carolina, offered this amendment:
After the word ``capture,'' insert: ``That the commanding officer of
each company of soldiers in the service of the United States Government
while being transported on the sea shall insure his officers and
soldiers on the same terms and in like amount as the officers and crews
of vessels.''
Mr. William C. Adamson, of Georgia, raised the question of order that
the proposed amendment was not germane.
The Chairman \2\ held:
The gentleman from Georgia makes a point of order against the
amendment. The bill among other things authorizes insurance against
loss of life and personal injury on account of war risks and so forth
on American merchant vessels. The amendment offered by the gentleman
from South Carolina proposes to include insurance for officers and
soldiers of the Army in like amount as the officers and crews of
merchant vessels. The chair thinks it is clear that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina is not germane to the
provision now under consideration. This is an individual proposition to
insure the lives of certain persons upon merchant vessels. It has been
held a number of times and there are a number of precedents to the
effect that it is not in order to amend one individual proposition by
another individual proposition, even though the two may belong to the
same class. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.
2952. It is not in order to propose to amend one individual
proposition by another individual proposition even though they be of
the same class.
To a proposition that the Secretary of War issue medals to personnel
of the Army an amendment proposing that Secretaries of other
departments issue similar medals to personnel of the Navy and Coast
Guard is not germane.
On March 19, 1928,\3\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 5789)
to authorize the award and supply of service medals to individual
soldiers as prescribed by Army Regulations for the rendition of certain
services, authorizing the Secretary of War to issue such medals.
Mr. J. Charles Linthicum, of Maryland, proposed an amendment to
authorize the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Treasury
to issue similar medals to the personnel of the Navy and the Coast
Guard, respectively.
Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 3252.
\2\ Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, Chairman.
\3\ First session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 5006; Journal, p.
1015.
Sec. 2953
The Speaker pro tempore \1\ sustained the point of order and said:
We have before us a proposition authorizing the Secretary of War to
do certain things. The gentleman from Maryland seeks to amend this
proposition by authorizing the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary
of the Treasury to do the same thing; in other words, the gentleman is
offering to amend an individual proposition by a general provision so
as to include several departments.
There is a long list of precedents which state that one individual
proposition may not be amended by another individual proposition even
though the two may belong to the same class, such as admitting a
Territory, an amendment providing for the admission of another
Territory is not in order; to a bill providing pensions for veterans of
the Indian wars, an amendment providing for pensions for veterans of
the Mexican War is not in order. Also, in section 9809 there is a
precedent exactly similar to the one pending, where to a bill for the
relief of dependents of men in the Regular Army, an amendment proposing
to extend the benefits of the act to dependents of men in the National
Guard and the Reserve Corps was held not to be germane. This decision
was afterwards upheld by Speaker Gillett.
The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
2953. To a proposition providing for a class, a proposition providing
for another related class is not germane.
To a bill for the relief of dependents of men in the Regular Army an
amendment proposing to extend the benefits of the act to dependents of
men in the National Guards and the Reserve Corps was held not to be
germane.
On December 3, 1919,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union had under consideration the bill (S. 2497) to provide six
months pay for dependents of men in the Regular Army dying of
disabilities incurred in the service.
Mr. Tom Connally, of Texas, proposed the following amendment:
After the word ``duty,'' insert ``or of the death from wounds or
disease not the result of his own misconduct, of any officer or
enlisted man in the National Guard or the Reserve Corps when in the
active Federal military service of the United States.''
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
After debate the Chairman sustained the point of order and said:
The bill under consideration is one to provide for the payment of
certain pay to the widow, children, or designated dependent relatives
of any officer or enlisted man of the Regular Army whose death resulted
from wounds or disease and not from his own misconduct. The amendment
offered by the gentleman from Texas would extend this same payment to
the widows and children and designated relatives of officers and
enlisted men of the National Guard or the Reserve Corps. Clearly the
amendment is subject to the point of order and is not germane to the
section, and the Chair sustains the point of order.
The bill having been reported to the House with favorable
recommendation and having been ordered to be engrossed and being read
the third time, Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, offered a motion to
recommit the bill to the Committee on Military Affairs with
instructions to report the same back forthwith with the amendment
previously proposed by Mr. Connally.
Mr. Mann again raised the question of order against the amendment
carried in the proposed motion to recommit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
\2\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 94.
Sec. 2954
The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order.
2954. To a provision authorizing distribution through the Red Cross
an amendment providing for distribution through the Salvation Army was
held not germane.
On March 3, 1932,\2\ the House resolved itself into the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the
joint resolution (S. J. Res. 110), authorizing the distribution of
Government wheat by the American Red Cross for the relief of distress.
The Clerk read in part:
Resolved, etc., That the Federal Farm Board is authorized and
directed to take such action as may be necessary to make available,
from time to time, to the American National Red Cross, or any other
organization designated by the American National Red Cross, wheat of
the Grain Stabilization Corporation, for use in providing food for the
needy and distressed people of the United States and Territories.
Mr. Louis Ludlow, of Indiana, offered this amendment:
After the word ``Cross,'' insert ``the Salvation Army.''
Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, having raised the question of
germaneness, the Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order.
2955. To a bill providing for the erection of a statue of General Von
Steuben an amendment substituting a proposition for the erection of a
statue of George Washington was held not to be germane.
On February 9, 1910,\4\ the House was considering the bill (H. R.
16222) providing for the erection of a statue of General Von Steuben to
be presented to the German Nation in return for the statue of Frederick
the Great presented by the German Emperor to the people of the United
States.
Mr. William Sulzer, of New York, proposed an amendment as follows:
Strike out the words ``Von Steuben'' and insert ``George
Washington.''
Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane.
The Speaker \5\ held:
The Chair sustains the point of order, as under the precedents it is
clearly not germane. The object of the bill is for the erection of a
replica of a statue of General Von Steuben. It is not a general bill to
erect a monument, but it is confined to a monument or a replica of
General Von Steuben.
2956. To a resolution providing a special order for the consideration
of one bill an amendment substituting another bill, even though
relating to the same subject, was held not to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\2\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 6216.
\3\ Schuyler Otis Bland, of Virginia, Chairman.
\4\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1655.
\5\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 2957
On February 17, 1923,\1\ Mr. Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, from the
Committee on Rules, reported the resolution (H. Res. 536) providing for
the consideration of the bill (H. R. 14041) to amend the Federal farm
loan act.
During debate it was explained that through inadvertence the
resolution designated H. R. 14041 although the intention had been to
provide for the consideration of H. R. 14270, which was a redraft of H.
R. 14041, and introduced under identical title.
Mr. Campbell, therefore, proposed to amend the resolution by striking
out ``H. R. 14041'' and inserting ``H. R. 14270.''
Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, raised a question of order against the
substitution.
The Speaker \2\ ruled:
The Chair thinks that it is not in order to amend a resolution naming
one bill by naming another bill. The Chair thinks the same result would
be accomplished by striking out the number entirely. Then it would be
designated by title.
2957. To a bill regulating the sale of friar lands in the Philippine
Islands an amendment including the Crown lands of the Philippine
Islands was held not to be germane.
On May 15, 1912,\3\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 17756)
to amend an act providing for the civil government on the Philippine
Islands and having particular reference to the disposition of the friar
lands of the islands.
Mr. John A. Martin, of Colorado, offered an amendment restricting the
amount of land which might be acquired by any one corporation or
individual.
Mr. Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
under the terms of the amendment the proposed legislation would apply
not only to the friar lands but to all lands in the Islands owned by
the Government.
The Speaker \4\ sustained the point of order and said:
The Chair will take judicial notice of the fact that from the
beginning of our occupancy of the Philippine Islands the Crown lands
have been considered as one thing and the friar lands as another; and
the rules and regulations touching the Crown lands are different from
the rules and regulations touching the friar lands. This bill, which
has been discussed for three days, has reference entirely to the friar
lands. The substitute offered by the gentleman from Colorado not only
affects the friar lands but it affects the Crown lands; it also
provides for an elaborate system of escheat, a subject that this bill
has nothing in the world to do with. It also makes certain acts crimes,
and provides penalties for the same. Therefore the substitute of the
gentleman from Colorado is ruled out and the point of order made by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania is sustained.
2958. To a bill providing for vocational rehabilitation in the United
States an amendment extending the provisions of the bill to Hawaii was
held not to be germane.
On October 16, 1919,\5\ the bill (H. R. 4438) to provide industrial
vocational rehabilitation in the United States (not including the
Territories or the District of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 3869.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 6522.
\4\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\5\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7026.
Sec. 2959
Columbia) was being considered in the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union.
Mr. J. Kuhio Kalanianaole, of Hawaii, offered an amendment to extend
the benefits of the proposed legislation to the Territory of Hawaii.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
After debate, the Chairman\1\ held:
The gentleman will observe that in line 10, page 2, the Territories,
outlying possessions, and the District of Columbia are specifically
excluded from the population ratio. Under those circumstances, the
Chair is inclined to think that the point of order is well taken, and
the Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from Texas.
2959. To a bill for the relief of women and children in Germany an
amendment providing similar relief for Porto Rico was held not to be
germane.
To a proposition to extend Federal aid to starving women and children
an amendment providing that such aid should not become effective prior
to a certain date was admitted.
On March 24, 1924,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 180) for
the relief of the distressed and starving women and children of
Germany, providing for the purchase in the United States of grains,
fats, milk, and other foodstuffs and its distribution in Germany and
authorizing an appropriation of $10,000,000 for that purpose.
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, offered an amendment providing
for extension of the benefits of the proposed legislation to Porto
Rico.
Mr. James T. Begg, of Ohio, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
The Chairman\3\ sustained the point of order.
Mr. Tom Connally, of Texas, proposed this amendment:
At the end of the paragraph, insert: ``Provided, That this act shall
not become effective until January 1, 1925.''
Mr. Rankin made the point of order that the amendment was not
germane.
The Chairman overruled the point of order.
2960. To a bill pensioning veterans of the Indian wars an amendment
pensioning veterans of the Texas rangers engaged in opposing ``Mexican
marauders and Indian depredations'' was held not to be germane.
On February 16, 1916,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 655) to pension
veterans of the Indian wars.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 4858.
\3\ William J. Graham, of Illinois, Chairman.
\4\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 2668.
Sec. 2961
Mr. William H. Murray, of Oklahoma, offered this amendment:
To the surviving officers and enlisted men of the Texas volunteers
who served in defense of the frontier of that State against Mexican
marauders an dIndian depredatiosn from January 1, 1859, to January 1,
1861, inclusive, and from the year 1866 to the year 1876, inclusive,
and
Mr. Edward Keating, of Colorado, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
The Chairman\1\ overruled the point of order.
Thereupon Mr. Robert Y. Thomas, jr., of Kentucky, proposed an
amendment to pension certain Kentucky troops engaged in the Civil War
``or in Indian depredations.''
Mr. Keating having raised a question of order against the amendment,
Mr. Thomas cited the decision just made holding Mr. Murray's amendment
in order.
The Chairman reversed the ruling on the previous point of order and
said:
The Chair will state to the gentleman and to the committee that at
the time of that ruling his attention was not called to the fact that
the amendment carried with it a provision concerning Mexican marauders,
but was under the impression it applied only to Indian depredations.
The Chair is therefore now of the opinion that his ruling at that time,
so far as Mexican marauders was concerned, was a wrong ruling, but a
wrong ruling in that instance would not now justify or cause the Chair
to make a similar ruling. The Chair therefore sustains the point of
order.
2961. To a proposition to pay employees of the House and Senate extra
compensation an amendment proposing to include clerks of Members was
held not to be germane.
On July 31, 1911,\2\ the House was considering the amendments of the
Senate to the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 130) making appropriation
for certain expenses of the House and Senate incident to the first
session of the Sixty-second Congress, when the Clerk read Senate
amendment No. 3 as follows:
To enable the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives to pay to the officers and employees of the Senate and
House borne on the annual and session rolls on the 1st day of July,
1911, including the Capitol police, the official reporters of the
Senate and House and W. A. Smith, Congressional Record clerk, for extra
services during the first session of the Sixty-second Congress, a sum
equal to one month's pay at the compensation then paid them by law, the
same to be immediately available.
Mr. John A. Thayer, of Massachusetts, moved to concur in the Senate
amendment with the following amendment:
After the words ``Sixty-second Congress,'' insert ``And to enable the
Secretary of the Treasury to pay to each Senator and Congressman for
extra services of his secretary.''
Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the Senate amendment to which offered.
The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pat Harrison, of Mississippi, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 3399.
\3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 2962
2962. To an item relating to carriers in the postal service an
amendment adding clerks in the same service was held not be germane.
On January 21, 1911,\1\ the post office appropriation bill was being
read for amendment in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, when Mr. William Hughes, of New Jersey, offered this
amendment.
Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be used to pay
carriers who are required or permitted to work for more than 48 hours
in the six working-days of a week.
Mr. Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, proposed the following amendment
to the pending amendment.
After the word ``carriers'' in the amendment insert ``and postal
clerks.''
Mr. John W. Weeks, of Massachusetts, raised a question of order.
The Chairman \2\ ruled:
The Chair is ready to rule. The paragraph in the bill now before the
committee provides for the pay of carriers. There are other paragraphs
in the bill which provide for the pay of clerks. The limitation which
is provided in this amendment concerns the pay of carriers, and there
has been no objection raised to it or point of order made against it.
The provision limiting the time of service of clerks would necessarily
concern other items in the bill, and therefore is not germane to the
amendment before the committee, and the Chair sustains the point of
order.
2963. One individual proposition may not be amended by another
individual proposition even though the two may belong to the same
class.
To a bill prohibiting the importation of products of convict labor,
pauper labor, and detained labor an amendment placing a like
restriction on the importation of products of child labor was held not
germane on the ground that the labor affected by the bill constituted a
single class of labor.
On March 18, 1914,\3\ the bill (H. R. 14330) to prohibit the
importation of certain goods, wares, and merchandise, was under
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union.
Mr. Patrick H. Kelley, of Michigan, proposed an amendment to extend
the restrictions imposed by the bill to products of labor:
By children under the age of 14 years.
Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
In debating the point of order, Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, said:
Mr. Chairman, the rule, as the Chair is aware, is well settled. Where
a bill relates to one particular thing you can not amend it by adding
another particular thing, or you can not amend it by adding a general
class.
The gentleman from Georgia, I think, cited a case of that sort, where
a bill related to the admission of one Territory and an amendment was
offered to add another Territory. But the gentleman did not refer to
the fact that where a bill proposes to admit two Territories you could
add a third. The rule is just as well settled one way as the other.
Now here is a bill that is not confined to one class but to several
classes, and there is a good deal closer connection between pauper
labor and child labor than there is between prison labor and pauper
labor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1239.
\2\ Frederick C. Stevens, of Minnesota, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 5481.
Sec. 2963
I remember the decision of Speaker Clark on that subject very well,
and he said if the bill covered two items you could add something more
if you wanted to; and Speaker Clark, in making the ruling that you
could not add grain to a bill relating to cotton futures said that to a
bill relating to wheat and corn you could add other articles
specifically.
That is the case here. This bill does not relate to one class. It
relates to several classes, and under the rule it is always construed
that where you have a bill realting to several classes you can add an
additional class. If this bill were confined solely to convict-made
goods, the amendment would not bin order to add pauper-made goods.
But the bill itself, covering both convict-made goods and pauper-made
goods, is open to the addition of another class. There is no great
distinction between the class that is sought to be added and one of the
classes that is in this bill. If the Chair holds that pauper-made goods
are entirely distinct and separate from child-labor goods made by
children under 14 years of age, the Chair will make a very strained
construction of the facts, in my opinion.
The Chairman \1\ approved that position taken by Mr. Mann, and said:
The Chair thinks that in this bill the committee enumerated the class
of persons whose labor was to be restricted from entry into the United
States, and under the rule which has been cited we have in this bill
already convict and pauper labor, making two classes, and the Chair
thinks it is germane to add another, and therefore overrules the point
of order.
The question was taken on agreeing to the amendment, and being
decided in the negative, the amendment was rejected.
The reading of the bill for amendment having been completed, the
Committee reported it back to the House and it was ordered to be
engrossed and was read the third time, when Mr. Mann moved to recommit
it to the Committee on Labor with instructions to report it back
forthwith with the following amendment:
Add at the end of section 1, as a part of said section, the
following:
``That no goods, wares, articles, and merchandise, except immediate
products of agriculture, forests, and fisheries, manufactured wholly or
in part in any foreign country principally by children under 14 years
of age, in countries where they have no laws regulating child labor,
shall be entitled to entry at any of the ports of the United States,
and the importation thereof is hereby prohibited. Any shipment
consigned for entry at any of the ports of the United States of goods,
wares, articles, and merchandise, except immediate products of
agriculture, forests, and fisheries, manufactured in any foreign
country, province, or dependency, where the industrial employment of
children not regulated by law shall be accompanied by an affidavit of
the shipper of such merchandise or his legal agent, to the effect that
the merchandise covered by the invoice has not been manufactured
principally by children under 14 years of age, the form of the
affidavit to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, who is
also authorized and directed to issue such further regulations and to
collect all information pertinent thereto through cooperation with the
Consular Service of the United States as may be necessary for the
enforcement of the provision.''
Mr. Bartlett made the point of order that the amendment proposed in
the motion to recommit was not germane.
After exhaustive debate, the Speaker \2\ ruled:
The title of this bill is ``A bill to prohibit the importation and
entry of goods, wares, and merchandise made in whole or in part by
convict, pauper, or detained labor, or made in whole or in part from
materials which have been made in whole or in part or in any manner
manipulated by convict or prison labor.''
The first section of the bill is--
``That all goods, wares, and merchandise produced in whole or in part
by convict, pauper, or prison labor, or in the production of which
convict, pauper, or prison labor has been employed,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Martin D. Foster, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 2963
either directly or indirectly, in any manner and for any purpose, * * *
shall not be entitled to entry at any of the ports of the United
States, and the importation thereof is hereby prohibited.''
Section 9, defining paupers. provides--
``That the term `pauper,' as used in this act, shall be limited to
those persons who are held or confined in eleemosynsary institutions at
the public expense in whole or in part.''
Now there is no dispute--the matter having been settled long ago and
having been ruled one way so often that there can not be any mistake
about it--that where one subject matter is mentioned--one class, and
only one--you can not add others, but if more than one are mentioned,
then you can add others. The only case of this kind that the Chair
remembers having ruled on himself was the cotton-futures case.
The only difficulty about the rule is in applying it. If it were not
for section 9 of this act, defining a pauper, the Chair would hold that
this motion of the gentleman from Illinois to recommit with
instructions is in order. But when you read the whole bill and listen
to the arguments pro and con it is clear to the mind of the Chair that
the one thing that this bill seeks to do is to shut out what might be
called State-expedited manufactured articles; that is, where the State
pays part of the cost.
The contention of the labor people has always been, as I understand
it, that their objection is not to convict-made goods per se. That is
not what they object to. They object to convict-made goods because the
convict-made goods may be made so much more cheaply by the aid of the
State, or county, or whatever it happens to be, than they could be made
by free labor; and, therefore, free labor can not compete with convict
labor. That is the whole of the contention, and the intent of this bill
goes to that, and to that alone.
The Chair thoroughly agrees with the gentleman from Illinois on the
proposition that no sane man would undertake to put convicts and
paupers on the same moral plane. It is a misfortune to be poor, and the
poorer you are the greater the misfortune. But the intent of this bill
is clearly to prohibit the importation into this country of goods,
wares, and merchandise or anything of the sort that is made by laborers
who do not receive the wages of free labor, but who are in some way
assisted by the State.
In addition to that, while it has nothing to do with the
parliamentary point, the popular acceptation of ``pauper labor'' in
this country has been that class of labor in foreign countries which
receives less wages than the American laborers get. There have been all
sorts of tales told about what the wages of workmen in foreign
countries are--some of them true and some of them not true--for
political effect. But this bill defines what ``a pauper'' is for the
purposes of this act.
I may be permitted to say that I am as much opposed to ``child
labor,'' as we use that term, as any living man.
There is no other remark that might be pertinent and that is if this
Mann amendment were adopted it would practically put an end to
commerce. So the Chair rules it out of order.
Mr. Mann then offered this motion:
I move to recommit the bill H. R. 14330 to the Committee on Labor,
with instructions to that committee to report said bill back forthwith,
with the following amendment:
Insert, ``by children under the age of 14 years or.''
Mr. David J. Lewis, of Maryland, having raised a question of order,
Mr. Mann cited the decision rendered by the Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole on the same amendment.
The Speaker said:
The Chair has a very high opinion of the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Foster, and this is simply a difference of opinion as to whether the
bill relates to two different classes or one class of labor. The Chair
remembers a certain occasion when, on the free-list bill, a
distinguished Missourian, who was chairman of the Committee of the
Whole, ruled one way, and ruled correctly, as far as that was
concerned. When we got back into the House the gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. Mann, moved to recommit, and stated that the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole had ruled one way, but that he would rather have
the ruling of the Speaker. The Chair dislikes very much
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2964
to disagree with the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union, Mr. Foster, but under the ruling which the
Chair made about 15 minutes ago he is compelled, unless he has changed
his mind in the meantime, which he has not, to rule this motion to
recommit out of order.
On appeal the decision of the Speaker was sustained.
2964. To a subject dealing with one class an amendment relating to
another class is not in order.
To a bill relating to interstate commerce a proposition relating to
intrastate commerce is not germane.
The Committee of the Whole having under consideration a measure
providing for issuance of certificates of convenience and necessity in
interstate traffic, an amendment dealing with issuance of such
certificates in intrastate traffic was not admitted.
On March 21, 1930,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 10288) to regulate the
transportation of persons in interstate and foreign commerce by motor
carriers operating on the public highways.
The Clark read as follows:
Sec. 4. (a) No corporation or person shall operate as a common
carrier by motor vehicle in interstate or foreign commerce on any
public highway unless there is in force with respect to such carrier a
certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing such
operation.
Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, proposed as an amendment the following
proviso:
Provided, That it shall not be necessary to procure such a
certificate in order to operate a common carrier by motor vehicle
wholly within any State, nor to operate an extension of any line where
such extension is wholly within any State, if a certificate or permit
for such purpose has been issued by the State commission or other duly
constituted regulatory authority of the State affected.
A point of order having been made that the amendment was not germane,
the Chairman \2\ rules:
The Chair is of the opinion that section 4 contemplates dealing with
interstate and foreign commerce only. In the opinion of the Chair, the
question of germaneness is involved here. The amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas seeks to bring within this section the subject of
intrastate commerce. The Chair does not think that where you have one
subject dealing specifically with one class that you may add another
specified class. It occurs to the Chair that interstate commerce is
quite different from intrastate commerce, and, in the opinion of the
Chair, the amendment is not germane. The Chair sustains the point of
order.
2965. One individual proposition is not properly subject to amendment
by including another individual proposition of the same class.
To a bill providing penalties for violation of Federal law an
amendment providing penalties for violation of State law was deemed not
germane.
On February 8, 1930,\3\ during the consideration of the bill H. R.
8574, the prohibition reorganization bill, in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union, a committee amendment was read
authorizing the dismissal of prohibition employees violating any
provision of the Federal prohibition law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 5861.
\2\ Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 3308.
Sec. 2966
Mr. Vincent L. Palmisano, of Maryland, offered an amendment extending
the provisions of the committee amendment to violation of State laws.
A point of order having been raised by Mr. William Williamson, of
South Dakota, the Chairman \1\ ruled:
The point of order arises on the committee amendment, which reads as
follows:
``Provided, That all officers and employees of the Bureau of
Prohibition who the Attorney General finds have heretofore or shall
hereafter violate any penal provisions of the Federal prohibition laws
shall be dismissed.''
The gentleman from Maryland offers an amendment to the amendment,
which reads as follows:
``Strike out down to and including the word `dismissed,' and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
``Have heretofore or shall hereafter violate any penal provision of
the Federal or State laws shall be dismissed.' ''
The point of order which is made against the amendment to the
amendment is that it is not germane to the amendment, and the
discussion on the matter has been an interesting one. The Chair is well
aware of the fact that questions of germaneness frequently are very
embarrassing and that it is frequently difficult to try to draw the
exact line between that which is germane and that which is not germane.
In Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives, page 124, it
is stated:
``One individual proposition may not be amended by another individual
proposition even though the two may belong to the same class.''
It is hardly necessary to say that under this particular rule there
have been many decisions in regard to germaneness. However, each
question naturally arises on its own base, under its own given set of
circumstances.
Germaneness means relevancy, relationship.
The question here is whether the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Maryland has such relationship, such relevancy to the committee
amendment as to permit it to stand in making it subject to a point of
order.
Now, to be brief about it, the Chair believes that where there is
introduced into the proviso which he has just read an additional
subject matter, such as it seems apparent to the Chair has been
introduced by bringing in State laws together with Federal laws, it
seems to the Chair that the rule as to relevancy and relationship has
been violated. It is not only an amplification as suggested here of the
subject matter of the amendment offered by the committee, but it seems
to the Chair that not only does it amplify but it brings in a new body
of matter, a new situation, that certainly is not relevant and not
germane, and the Chair sustains the point of order.
2966. A specific proposition of a class is not germane to another
specific proposition of the same class.
To a bill proposing farm relief through the agency of a Federal Farm
Board authorized to establish orderly marketing an amendment proposing
farm relief through the agency of a Federal Beverage Board authorized
to license the manufacture of alcoholic beverages was held not germane.
On April 24, 1929,\2\ while the bill (H. R. 1) to establish a Farm
Board to promote the effective merchandising of agricultural
commodities in interstate and foreign commerce, and to place
agriculture on a basis of economic equality with other industries, was
under consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, Mr. Loring M. Black, Jr., of New York, offered in lieu of
the first section of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph L. Hooper, of Michigan, Chairman.
\2\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 466.
Sec. 2967
the bill, providing for the establishment of a Federal Farm Board for
the orderly marketing of farm products, the following:
There is hereby established a Federal Farm Beverage Board in the
Department of Agriculture to consist of three members, to be appointed
by the Secretary of Agriculture.
The board may grant licenses, to expire at the end of one year from
the date of issuance, to farm organizations and cooperative marketing
associations for the processing and selling beer and wine containing
alcohol for beverage purposes, providing such are not intoxicating in
fact.
The revenue derived from licenses under this act shall be devoted to
agricultural relief generally in a manner directed by the Secretary of
Agriculture.
A point of order being raised by Mr. Fred S. Purnell, of Indiana, the
Chairman \1\ held that the amendment was not germane to the bill and
sustained the point of order.
2967. To a bill proposing to rise the price of agricultural products
to a basis of comparative equality with the price of other commodities
through the establishment of a Federal Farm Board authorized to promote
effective marketing an amendment proposing to raise agricultural prices
through the authorization of export debentures on agricultural products
was held not to be germane.
On April 25, 1929,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 1) to establish a Federal
Farm Board to promote effective merchandising of agricultural
commodities in interstate and foreign commerce, and to place
agriculture on a basis of economic equality with other industries, when
Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, offered an amendment reading in part as
follows:
Whenever the board finds it advisable, in order to carry out the
policy declared in section 1 with respect to any agricultural
commodity, to issue export debentures with respect to such commodity,
the board shall give notice of such finding to the Secretary of the
Treasury. Upon the receipt of such notice it shall be the duty of the
Secretary of the Treasury, commencing and terminating at such time as
the board shall prescribe, to issue export debentures to any farmer,
cooperative association, stabilization corporation, or other person
with respect to such quantity of the commodity or any manufactured food
product thereof as such person may from time to time export from the
United States to any foreign country.
Mr. Bertand H. Snell, of New York, interposed a point of order and
said:
We have before us at this time presented by the Agricultural
Committee a bill which has for its express purpose improving
agricultural conditions by a special and distinct method of promoting
and making more efficient the cooperative marketing associations of the
country. While there is a general purpose stated in the first section
of the bill, as there is in most all bills, the real heart of the bill
goes to the separate and distinct plan by which the Agricultural
Committee intends to accomplish these results. To that bill the
gentleman from Texas has offered an amendment rather in the form of a
substitute, which intends and provides for improving the conditions in
agriculture by providing for the issuance of export debentures upon the
exportation of such commodities. The two ways proposed to accomplish
the result are entirely distinct and start out in opposite directions.
For instance, individually, I think that you could improve agricultural
conditions by improving the internal waterways of the country, and
especially by improvement of the St. Lawrence River. I could introduce
a bill and make some general statement in the first section and provide
to accomplish that by improvement of the St. Lawrence River, but no man
in this House would have the temerity to stand up and state that it
would be germane to the proposition under consideration. Another man
may consider that the best way to accomplish this result
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, Chairman.
\2\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 566.
Sec. 2967
would be by a revision of the tariff, and if the gentleman's amendment
were in order--and you can add new methods to the one contained in the
bill--it would be in order to present here an entire revision of the
tariff schedules for the purpose of accomplishing that result.
Of course, no one would ever content that that would be possible.
There is an elementary principle in parliamentary procedure that merely
because amendments seek to accomplish the same result as the bill under
consideration, they are not necessarily germane to the bill. The
question of the germaneness has to be considered very carefully, for
the simple reason that it is necessary to keep out propositions that
have not been carefully considered before by the committee, and not
allow the House to pass snap judgment on entirely new matter.
Mr. Jones replied:
In the declared purposes of the bill it is provided:
``to protect, control, and stabilize the current of interstate and
foreign commerce in the marketing of agricultural commodities and their
food products''--
which is also applicable. In another place in the declared policy of
the bill we find the language:
``to prevent such surpluses from unduly depressing prices for the
commodity.''
It seems to me that the debenture plan comes within the all-covering
provisions of all three of those statements. I could not write a better
title for my amendment.
The Chair is familiar with the line of decisions that if a measure
may not be in line with any particular paragraph, it may be offered as
a separate paragraph where it is most nearly germane to the various
propositions. I have offered this debenture plan as an additional power
of the board following several other main powers. The line of decisions
is practically universal that you can not add one specific power to
another specific power, but that if you have two or more powers, in
other words, if you have general powers, you may add an additional
specific or general power.
Mr. Chairman, here are some seven or eight powers which this board
has been given in the bill. It has been stated, it has been repeated,
that it is the purpose of this measure to clothe the board with broad
powers, that the board may have power to handle the commodity so as to
relieve the situation presented by the farm problem which has been
puzzling those who have had to deal with it for several years. The
general purpose is farm relief. The general intention of this bill is
to provide for a relief of this situation. In order to reach that end
they establish a farm board. That board is given a number of enumerated
powers. I simply seek to give that board additional power and in line
with the general purposes of the bill and altogether in line with the
declaration of policy in the bill set out in the first paragraph.
The purpose of the rules of the House are to enable it to do
business, to enable it in an orderly way to do what it wants to, not to
keep it from doing so. This amendment is strictly in line with the
declared purposes of the bill.
The Chairman \1\ held:
The practice and the rule as to germaneness, so far as this farm
legislation is concerned, are pretty well fixed by the rulings that
have been made during the consideration of the legislation at different
times during the last few years. The gentleman from Texas says that the
general purpose of his amendment is the same as the general purpose of
the bill before the committee; that is, farm relief. But the Chair
thinks that that is not enough to make the amendment germane. It is not
enough to make the amendment germane to show that it seeks to
accomplish the same purpose as the legislation pending before the
committee if the method employed to accomplish that purpose is entirely
different. The rule has been often stated to be that if an amendment
proposes such modification of the bill that it could not reasonably
have been anticipated or can not be said to be a logical sequence of
the matter contained in the bill, or is not such a modification as
would naturally suggest itself to the legislative body considering the
bill, then it is not germane.
The Chair has read, in substance, from a decision rendered by a
former chairman of the committee, Mr. Fitzgerald, of New York, who was
one of the best parliamentarians in the House. I do not think that
anyone would seriously contend that the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas comes within the rule as stated in that decision
by Mr. Fitzgerald.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, Chairman.
Sec. 2968
As has been said, the pioneer in this legislation was the gentleman
from Indiana, Mr. Sanders, who was chairman of the Committee of the
Whole during the consideration of the original or first McNary-Haugen
bill. He announced several principles during the consideration of that
first bill, which have served as guides during the consideration of the
other bills.
The parliamentarian in his notes has made a digest of some of the
rulings made at that time which I would like to read:
``Simply because an amendment seeks to solve the same problem as that
sought to be solved by the pending bill does not make the amendment
germane.
``The purpose of the rule of germaneness is to prevent the
consideration of legislation which has not been considered in
committee, and therefore the rule may be applied more strictly to a
long amendment by way of a substitute for the entire bill under
consideration.
``To a bill undertaking to raise the price of agricultural products
to a ratio consistent with the price of other commodities, an amendment
seeking to relieve agriculture by a different plan--that is, by a
comprehensive system of cooperative marketing--was held not germane,
although one of the incidental features of the pending bill dealt with
cooperative marketing.''
The substance of what I have read has been incorporated in Cannon's
Precedents, section 2912.
In addition to announcing the general principles which I have read,
this precise question was passed upon by Chairman Sanders in an
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Henry T. Rainey,
to the bill then under consideration. As the gentleman from Texas has
said, the legislation differed somewhat in form, but the Chair thinks
it did not differ in substance.
The question came up again one year ago, and the Chairman at that
time, following the precedent of 1924, sustained the point of order and
declared the debenture plan not germane to that bill.
The gentleman from Texas says that the fund to be administered by the
Federal Farm Board in the pending bill comes out of the Treasury and
that the money to be paid to the exporters under the debenture plan
also comes out of the Treasury, which is quite true, but the benefit
which the farmer will receive under the pending bill is an indirect
benefit. The debenture plan provides for a direct payment out of the
Treasury to exporters, and is in effect if not in fact a direct subsidy
to the exporters.
The debenture plan would only benefit those who export surpluses, and
it has been repeatedly stated by different members of the committee
during the consideration of this bill under general debate that this
bill does not attempt to deal with the surplus; some say not at all,
but certainly it deals with it only incidentally.
There are a great many legislative proposals to relieve or aid the
agricultural situation which are not germane to the pending bill. The
Chair thinks that this debenture plan is one of them.
The Chair appreciates the earnestness with which the gentleman from
Texas advocates the debenture plan, but he feels that both on principle
and under the precedents the amendment is not germane to the
legislation under consideration, and therefore sustains the point of
order.
2968. On February 27, 1932,\1\ the House resolved into the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of
the bill (H. R. 9642), authorizing supplemental appropriations for
highway construction.
The Clerk read:
Be it enacted, etc., That there is hereby authorized to be
appropriated the sum of $120,000,000, to be immediately available for
expenditure in emergency construction on the Federal-aid highway
system, with a view to increasing employment. such sum shall be
apportioned by the Secretary of Agriculture to the several states by
the method provided in section 21 of the Federal highway act.\2\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 4879.
\2\ U.S. Code, Supp. V, title 13.
Sec. 2969
Mr. John C. Ketcham, of Michigan, offered an amendment as follows:
except that such apportionment shall be upon the basis of population
instead of area, population, and mileage.
Mr. Lindsay C. Warren, of North Carolina, made the point of order
that the amendment was not germane to the bill.
The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order and said:
The bill provides a specific method of distribution, to wit, that
contained in the highway act. The method of distribution in the highway
act is a specific method. It has been held many times that, where a
bill provides a specific method, an amendment providing a different
method is not germane. The Chair has before him a decision made by the
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Mapes, directly on the point. That
decision was made April 24, 1929. The Chair will quote the syllabus:
``To a bill seeking to afford agricultural relief by one specified
method, an amendment seeking to afford the same relief by a different
method was held to be not germane.''
The Chair will follow that decision and sustain the point of order.
2969. To a bill proposing farm relief through the refinancing of
farm-mortgage loans, an amendment providing for farm relief through
expansion of the currency was held not germane.
On April 13, 1933,\2\ the bill (H. R. 4795), to provide emergency
relief with respect to agricultural indebtedness, to refinance farm
mortgages at lower rates of interest and to amend and supplement the
Federal farm loan act, by the granting of credit through the Federal
Land Bank system, was read a third time.
Mr. Gerald J. Boileau, of Wisconsin, moved to recommit the bill to
the Committee on Agriculture with instructions to report it back
forthwith with an amendment striking out all after the enacting clause
and substituting a bill providing for the liquidation and refinancing
of agricultural indebtedness by the expansion of the currency through
issuance of bonds redeemable in Federal Reserve notes.
Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
The Speaker \3\ held:
The question presented has been passed upon two or three times and
presents nothing new. The bill under consideration provides a method of
farm relief, essentially by the issuance of bonds, to be marketed in
the ordinary way. The Frazier bill, which is the subject of the motion
to recommit, provides also for farm relief, also for bond issues, and,
in addition to that, provides a method of meeting the bond issues by
currency printed and issued, clearly inflation, which may amount to as
much as 3\1/2\ billion dollars. The two methods are as wide apart as
the poles.
The present Speaker of the House argued a like question back in 1924
when the very first farm relief bill was under consideration, the first
of the McNary-Haugen bills. That bill provided a method of farm relief,
fixing farm prices with reference to related products, and the present
Speaker of the House proposed an amendment to the bill which provided
an entirely different method, and the present Speaker agrees with the
gentleman from Texas when he said that his method was much better than
the method provided in that bill; but that did not make any difference.
A point of order was made against the amendment proposed by the present
Speaker, by Mr. Cannon of Missouri, the author of Cannon's Precedents,
and the gentleman from Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, Chairman.
\2\ First session Seventy-third Congress, Record, p. 1679.
\3\ Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 2970
argued the point of order and convinced the Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole, Mr. Sanders, although he did not convince me then, that
my amendment was not germane. The object of my amendment then and the
object of the bill under consideration at that time were to provide
methods of farm relief, but they were widely different, although not as
widely different as is proposed in the so-called ``Frazier bill'' and
in the bill under consideration.
Again, on April 24, 1929, the same question came up.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole at that time was Mr.
Mapes. He rendered a decision based upon the decision rendered by Mr.
Sanders in 1924. The opinion by Mr. Chairman Mapes was a well-
considered opinion covering the entire subject.
The Chair feels he cannot ignore the precedents that he has cited,
and he might add that he could call attention to a number of others.
The Chair, therefore, feels constrained to and does sustain the point
of order.
2970. The fact that two subjects are related does not necessarily
render them germane.
To a bill authorizing an investigation of the supply and demand for
foodstuffs, an amendment prohibiting waste, monopolies and hoarding of
foodstuffs was held not to be germane.
If any portion of an amendment is out of order the entire amendment
is subject to a point of order.
On May 24, 1917,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 4188) for the distribution of
agricultural products.
Mr. Gilbert N. Haugen, of Iowa, offered this amendment to be inserted
as a new section:
That it is hereby made unlawful for any person to commit or permit
preventable waste or deterioration of any necessaries; to hoard, or to
hold, or enter into any contract or arrangement for any necessaries in
excess of an amount reasonably needed to supply his individual or
business requirements for a reasonable time; to monopolize or attempt
to monopolize, either locally or generally, any such necessities; to
engage in any discriminatory and unfair or any deceptive practice or
device in handling or dealing in or with such necessaries; to enter
into any contract arrangement, or conspiracy to restrict the supply,
or, except as permitted by law, for preventing gluts and for effecting
equitable apportionment of perishable products among markets, to
restrict distribution, or to enhance the prices of any such
necessaries; to exact excessive prices for any such necessaries; or to
aid or abet the doing of any act made unlawful by this section. Any
person who violates any provision of this section shall be deemed
guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall upon conviction thereof, be punished
by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than two
years, or both.
Mr. Asbury F. Lever, of South Carolina, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane to the bill.
In debating the point of order. Mr. Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota,
said:
The rule provides that no motion or proposition on a subject
different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color
of amendment.
Under that rule the philosophy relating to germaness has been
developed. Now, we do not look to the title of this bill to determine
what the proposition under consideration is. We look to the contents of
the bill itself. The chairman of the Committee on Agriculture has
already gone over the bill section by section, with a view of stating
exactly what is involved in each proposition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2838.
Sec. 2971
Now, what does the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa do? It does
not facilitate, as section 3 does, the obtaining of certain information
relative to the food supply. It proposes 8 or 9 or 10 or a dozen new
crimes. It is purely a criminal statute. It proposes to create new
crimes which are in no way directly or indirectly connected with the
subject matter of this bill. For instance, the amendment proposed by
the gentleman from Iowa proposes to make it a crime to monopolize food.
There is not a single word in this bill about monopoly.
The amendment of the gentleman from Iowa makes it a crime to enhance
the price of food. There is not a word in this bill about regulating
the price of food. The amendment of the gentleman from Iowa, as I
recall it, makes it a crime to engage in any unfair or discriminatory
practices. Not a word in this bill about discriminatory or unfair
practices. It makes it a crime to enter into a contract, arrangement,
or conspiracy to restrict the supply of food. Not a word in this bill
relative to the restricting of the supply of food. There may be
propositions in the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa which are
germane to the bill, but there are also contained in his amendment
propositions which are not germane to the bill, and which do not relate
to the subject matter thereof.
It seems to me that the amendment is clearly out of order.
The Chairman \1\ ruled:
The Chair understands the gentleman from Iowa does not offer his
amendment to any particular section of the bill, but as a new section,
and puts it on the ground that it is germane to the subject matter of
the bill.
A hasty examination of the amendment leads the Chair to conclude it
deals with waste, hoarding, monopolizing, unfair and deceptive
practices, restricting of supplies, and restricting of distribution.
The bill itself, as it appears, deals with the question of authorizing
the Secretary of Agriculture to investigate and ascertain the demand
for and supply, and so forth, of foodstuffs, and for the purchase and
sale of seeds, cooperation with local officials, the appointment of
additional secretaries, and that the President is authorized to ask any
agency or organization of the Government to cooperate with the
Secretary of Agriculture in carrying out these purposes, and for the
purposes of this act the following sums are hereby appropriated, and so
forth.
Now, it seems to the Chair that while this amendment is somewhat in
line with the purposes of this bill, and related to them, but I find in
the rules these propositions laid down:
``Two subjects are not necessarily germane because they are related.
Thus the following have been held not to be germane: To a proposition
relating to the terms of Senators, an amendment changing the manner of
their election; to a bill relating to commerce between the States, an
amendment relating to commerce within the several States; to a
proposition to relieve destitute citizens of the United States in Cuba,
a proposition declaring a state of war in Cuba and proclaiming
neutrality.''
And yet they did relate to each other.
There is another proposition I would call the gentleman's attention
to. If any portion of the amendment is not germane, of course the whole
amendment must go out.
There is a portion of this amendment that does relate to food
distribution and waste, but there are incorporated in the amendment
certain matters that certainly are not referred to in the bill nor
germane thereto. The Chair thinks, therefore, that it is not in order
on this bill, and sustains the point of order.
2971. Two subjects are not necessarily germane because they are
related.
To a proposition to increase salaries of Government employees, an
amendment proposing the establishment of a minimum wage for such
employees was held not to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Courtney W. Hamlin, of Missouri, Chairman.
Sec. 2972
On December 19, 1916,\1\ the legislative, executive, and judicial
appropriation bill was under consideration in the Committee of the
Whole on the state of the Union.
Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, proposed the following to be
inserted as a new section:
That to provide, during the fiscal year 1918, for increased
compensation at the rate of 10 per cent per annum to employees who
receive salaries at a rate per annum less than $1,200, and for
increased compensation at the rate of 5 per cent per annum to employees
who receive salaries at a rate not more than $1,800 per annum and not
less than $1,200 per annum, so much as may be necessary is
appropriated.
Mr. John I. Nolan, of California, offered this amendment:
Provided, That during the fiscal year 1918 the minimum compensation
for any person provided for in this bill shall be not less than $3 per
day, or, if employed by the hour, not less than 37\1/2\ cents an hour,
and if employed by the month, $90 a month; or, if employed by the year,
$1,080 per annum.
Mr. Thomas U. Sisson, of Mississippi, made a point of order against
the amendment.
The Chairman \2\ held:
In the opinion of the Chair, the Byrns amendment simply proposed a
lump appropriation to increase the compensation of employees of the
Government provided for in this bill of a certain class, namely, those
receiving less than $1,800 per annum. The Nolan amendment proposes new
affirmative legislation, namely, to adopt a policy by the Government
that none of its employees appropriated for by this bill shall receive
less than $3 per day. The Chair can not see how the new affirmative
legislation is germane to the intent or spirit of the Byrns amendment.
Therefore, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order.
2972. To a proposal to reduce allowances a proposal to increase
allowances is not germane.
On April 28, 1932,\3\ the legislative appropriation bill was under
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when a paragraph providing for the reduction of travel
allowances was read as follows:
The traveling allowances provided for in the act approved February
28, 1925, shall not exceed $2 per day.
Mr. Tom D. McKeown, of Oklahoma, proposed this amendment.
After the word ``exceed,'' strike out ``$2'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``$4.''
Mr. Lewis W. Douglas, of Arizona, made the point of order that the
proposed amendment was not germane to the paragraph.
The Chairman \4\ sustained the point of order.
2973. Two propositions dealing with the same subject matter are not
necessarily germane.
To a proposition to use proceeds from the sale of battleships for the
construction of another battleship, a proposition to utilize such
proceeds in the construction of roads was held not to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 571.
\2\ Pat Harrison, of Mississippi, Chairman.
\3\ Lindsay C. Warren, of North Carolina, Chairman.
\4\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 9184.
Sec. 2973
On June 23, 1914,\1\ the House was considering the following Senate
amendment to the naval appropriation bill, remaining in disagreement
after the conference report on other disagreeing votes had been agreed
to:
The President may, in his discretion, direct the sale, in such
manner, at such price, and upon such terms as he shall deem proper, of
the battleships Idaho and Mississippi. All moneys received from the
sale of said vessels shall, after payment therefrom of the expenses of
such sale, be deposited by the Secretary of the Navy in the Treasury,
and shall, until expended, be available for the construction of such
other vessel or vessels, at least equal for purposes of offense and
defense to the most modern vessels of the same class now projected here
or abroad, as the President may in his discretion authorize.
Mr. Lemuel P. Padgett, of Tennessee, moved that the House recede from
its disagreement to the Senate amendment and concur therein with the
following amendment.
Strike out the Senate amendment and in lieu thereof insert:
``The President may, in his discretion, direct the sale in such
manner, at such price, and upon such terms as he shall deem proper, of
the battleships Idaho and Mississippi. All moneys received from the
sale of said vessels shall be deposited by the Secretary of the Navy in
the Treasury after said sale. In addition to the two battleships
hereinbefore authorized, the President is hereby authorized to have
constructed a first-class battleship carrying as heavy armor and as
powerful armament as any vessel of its class, to have the highest
practicable speed and greatest desirable radius of action, and to cost,
exclusive of armor and armament, not to exceed $7,800,000. Out of the
money when so deposited in the Treasury there is hereby appropriated
toward the construction of said battleship on account of increase of
the Navy, construction and machinery, $2,000,000; armor and armament,
$2,535,000; and equipment, $100,000.
Mr. John L. Burnett, of Alabama, offered the following as a
substitute for the amendment proposed by Mr. Padgett.
That the House recede and concur with an amendment providing for the
appropriation of the money, the proceeds of the sale of said
battleships, to the construction and maintenance of the public roads of
the country traversed by rural and star-route mail carriers of the
United States.
Mr. Padgett made the point of order that the proposed substitute was
not germane.
The Speaker \2\ ruled:
There are three propositions pending here. All of them would have
been out of order originally in the House. Part of them are in order by
reason of this Senate amendment. They all agree to sell these
battleships. When we get through selling them, then there is a dispute
about what we are going to do with the money.
There are three propositions. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Padgett, wants to build a new battleship. The proposition of the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Mann, is really to strike out. That is
always in order--to strike anything out of anything. Now comes the
gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Burnett, and wants to build wagon roads
with this money. It does not make any difference whether building roads
by the Government is a good thing or not. It might be a very
meritorious proposition, but it has nothing on earth to do with a naval
appropriation bill.
Now, let us see where we are on the road question. The pressure for
an appropriation from the Federal Government to build wagon roads
became so strong that the House created a Roads Committee. The House
created a special committee to take charge of this public wagon-road
business, and under the lead of that committee the House authorized an
appropriation of $25,000,000 at the beginning of this session.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 10962.
\2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 2974
Now, if you can build roads on the naval appropriation bill, you can
take charge of the entire business of the government under the naval
appropriation bill. The point of order is sustained against the
substitute of the gentleman from Alabama, and the question is on the
motion of the gentleman from Illinois to strike out.
2974. To an amendment relating to ``pineapples in barrels and other
packages'' a proposed substitute relating to ``pineapples in bulk'' was
held not to be germane.
On April 8, 1909,\1\ the House was considering the bill H. R. 1438,
the tariff bill, when Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, offered the
following amendment:
275. Pineapples in barrels and other packages, 8 cents per cubic foot
of the capacity of barrels or packages.
Mr. Swagar Sherley, of Kentucky, proposed the following as a
substitute for the pending amendment:
275. Pineapples in barrels and other packages, 6 cents per cubic foot
of the capacity of the barrels or packages; in bulk, $6 per thousand.
Mr. Payne made the point of order that the proposed substitute was
not germane to the amendment to which offered.
The Chairman \2\ ruled:
The gentleman from New York offers an amendment relating to
pineapples in barrels and other packages. The gentleman from Maryland
offers an amendment to that amendment, changing simply the rate of
duty.
Now, the gentleman from Kentucky offers as a substitute for the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland an amendment which
relates not only to pineapples in barrels and other packages, and which
in that regard is the identical amendment offered by the gentleman from
Maryland, but the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky goes
further and applies to a different item or subject-matter of duty, to
wit, pineapples in bulk. The Chair thinks that without any reference to
the special order or rule of the House under which we are now
proceeding that would not be properly a substitute and could not be
entertained as a substitute either for the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York or the amendment to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Maryland.
2975. To a proposition to punish for violation of a law a proposition
to award for action tending to achieve the purpose of the law is not
germane.
To a bill providing penalties for failure to comply with the draft
law an amendment to award with citizenship those volunteering for
service was held not to be germane.
On February 13, 1918,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union had under consideration the bill H. R. 5667, the
alien slacker bill, providing for the deportation of aliens failing to
comply with the draft law.
Mr. Henry I. Emerson, of Ohio, offered the following amendment to be
inserted as a new paragraph:
That any alien who enlists or is drafted into the military or naval
service of the United States and waives his exemptions, serves his time
of enlistment, and is honorably discharged, and is at least 21 years of
age at the time of his discharge, shall, because of such service,
become a citizen
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1211.
\2\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2075.
Sec. 2976
of the United States without complying with any of the naturalization
laws, and may vote on his discharge papers.
Mr. John L. Burnett, of Alabama, raised the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
The Chairman,\1\ after debate, held:
The point of order is made against this amendment, and after some
investigation by the Chair he finds that the section provides for
denying citizenship and for deportation, while this amendment provides
for creating citizens and giving them the right to vote, exactly at
cross-purposes with the section that it seeks to amend. The Chair
thinks the point of order should be sustained. The amendment is out of
order.
2976. To a bill providing for enforcement of a law an amendment
proposing modification of the law was held not to be germane.
On July 19, 1919,\2\ during the consideration in Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union, of the bill (H. R. 6810) the
prohibition enforcement bill, Mr. John F. Fitzgerald, of Massachusetts,
proposed the following to be inserted as a proviso:
Provided, That nothing in this act or in any title thereof shall
prohibit or make unlawful the making or possessing by any person at
this own home wine, beer, or cider for his personal use or for use of
his immediate family.
Mr. Andrew J. Volstead, of Minnesota, raised a question of order
against the amendment.
The Chairman \3\ held:
The gentleman from Minnesota makes a point of order to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts that it changes the law in
regard to war-time prohibition. This bill simply provides machinery for
enforcing that law. The point of order is sustained.
2977. To a section providing a penalty an amendment authorizing trial
to determine the imposition of such penalty was held not to be germane.
On July 19, 1919,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 6810) the prohibition
enforcement bill, when the Clerk read this section:
That any person violating the terms of the injunction as provided for
in this title shall be punished for contempt by a fine of not more than
$1,000, and by imprisonment of not less than 30 days nor more than one
year; and the court shall have the power to enforce such injunction by
such measures and means as in the judgment of the court may be
necessary.
Mr. Warren Gard, of Ohio, proposed the following amendment:
May try the accused, or upon demand of the accused, the trial may be
by jury, in which latter event the court may impanel a jury from the
jurors then in attendance on the court, or a judge thereof in chambers
may cause a sufficient number of jurors to be selected and summoned as
provided by law, to attend at the time and place of trial, at which
time a jury shall be selected and impaneled as upon a trial for
misdemeanor, and such trial shall conform as near as may be to the
practice in criminal cases prosecuted by indictment or upon
information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph J. Russell, of Missouri, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2864.
\3\ James W. Good, of Iowa, Chairman.
\4\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2898.
Sec. 2978
Mr. Andrew J. Volstead, of Minnesota, submitted that the proposed
amendment was not germane to the section.
After debate the Chairman \1\ said:
Section 25 of the bill provides for a penalty. The amendment offered
by the gentleman from Ohio provides for a method of trial. It has been
repeatedly held that where a provision in the bill provides for a
penalty, it is not in order to offer an amendment simply providing for
a method by which that penalty may be inflicted.
Mr. Gard appealed from the decision of the Chair, and the question
being submitted to the committee it was decided in the affirmative yeas
83, nays 27, sot the decision of the Chair stood as the judgment of the
committee.
2978. One method of attaining an object is not germane to another
method of attaining such object unless closely related.
To a bill providing for the distribution of coal by vesting in the
Interstate Commerce Commission power to establish priorities an
amendment providing for distribution through governmental purchase was
held not to be germane.
On August 30, 1922,\2\ The Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 12473) proposing
to prevent extortion in the sale of fuel, by authorizing the Interstate
Commerce Commission to declare car service priorities.
Mr. Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, offered an amendment proposing to
authorize the President within his discretion to buy coal and sell it
to consumers at a fair price.
Mr. Walter H. Newton, of Minnesota, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \3\ ruled:
The provision of our rules which is to be interpreted in this case is
as follows:
``No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
``No motion or proposition on a subject different shall be considered
germane.'' There have been many Speakers that have held that merely
because an amendment offered referred to a particular subject that was
under consideration in the bill did not necessarily make it germane.
For instance, in the consideration of the food control law several
provisions regarding the purposes for which food might be used were
offered. One prohibited the use of any food substance for the purpose
of manufacturing liquor. That was ruled out of order by the Chair as
not being germane. So that merely because the matter here relates to
coal would not bring it within the rule as germane, as that requirement
has been interpreted by prior occupants of the chair.
The provision of the bill under consideration is for regulation
regarding the transportation of coal. The object and purpose of it is
to prevent if possible extortionate charges and to see that there is an
equitable distribution of coal. I do not know how far it would be
proper to go as considering an extortionate charge a part of
transportation, but that has nothing whatever to do with the question
under consideration. The subject and object and purpose of the bill is
that which relates to the transportation of coal.
Now we have an amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
stating that if the emergency, which is referred to in the bill under
consideration, exists or is shown to exist, then
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James W. Good, of Iowa, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 11993.
\3\ Horace M. Towner, of Iowa, Chairman.
Sec. 2979
for purposes specified the President shall have power virtually to take
over the mines and run them, because the requirement that the output of
the mines be sold only to the Government is equivalent to taking over
the mines and the operation of them by the Government. It would have no
other foundation under the Constitution except that which would exist
under the right of eminent domain, so that we really have under
consideration a proposition here of whether or not it is germane within
the rules to offer an amendment involving the proposition that the
Government shall take over and operate the mines; whether such an
amendment shall be considered as germane to a bill regulating the
transportation of coal in interstate commerce. I do not think there can
be any question under the authorities that such an amendment is not
germane.
I want to call attention in this connection to a decision which was
rendered a good many years ago, in 1898. This is the statement, and
that is sufficient, I think, to indicate the full extent of it:
``To a bill granting a right of way to a railroad an amendment
providing for the purchase of the railroad by the Government was held
not to be germane.''
It seems to me that that is very nearly analogous to the case that we
have before us to-day. ``To a provision granting a right of way to a
railroad an amendment was offered providing for the purchase of the
railroad.'' Here we have a bill for the transportation of coal, to
which is offered an amendment for the purchase, sale, and distribution
of coal. Taking over and operating the mines would practically be the
effect. It seems to me that decision would be pertinent to the question
now under consideration. Let me also call attention to a case that is
numbered 5891 in the fifth volume of Hinds' Precedents:
``To a proposition for the appointment of a select committee to
investigate a certain subject an amendment proposing an inquiry of the
Executive on that subject was held not to be germane.''
Here we have a proposition for the control of interstate commerce by
the Interstate Commerce Commission. To that is offered an amendment
proposing that the President shall take charge of the entire matter,
not only controlling the transportation but the production and sale of
the coal. The Chair rules that the point of order is well taken and the
amendment is held not to be germane.
2979. To a proposition to effect a purpose by one method a
proposition to effect such purpose by another method wholly unrelated
is not germane.
To a bill providing for the conservation of food by educational and
demonstrational methods an amendment to conserve food by prohibiting
the use of food materials in the manufacture of alcoholic beverages was
held not to be germane.
On May 21, 1918,\1\ the House in the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 11945) to
stimulate food production and the distribution of agricultural
products, when Mr. Charles H. Randell, of California, proposed the
following amendment:
Provided, That in order to further eliminate waste and to promote
conservation of food, it shall be unlawful during the existence of the
war with Germany to use any food or food materials in the manufacture
or preparation of alcoholic beverages.
Mr. Ezekiel S. Chandler, of Mississippi, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \2\ held:
In order that the situation may be clearly apprehended by members of
the committee, the Chair will read, first, the language of the
paragraph and then the language of the proposed amendment. The language
of the paragraph is:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 6867.
\2\ Edward W. Saunders, of Virginia, Chairman.
Sec. 2979
``Fourth. For increasing food production and eliminating waste and
promoting conservation of food by education and demonstrational
methods, through county, district, and urban agents and others,
$6,100,000.''
The amendment proposed by the gentleman from California is in the
following words:
``That in order to further eliminate waste and to promote
conservation of food, it shall be unlawful, during the existence of the
war with Germany, to use any food or food materials in the manufacture
or preparation of alcoholic beverages.''
In order to ascertain whether or not this amendment is germane to the
paragraph, it becomes necessary to determine the purport, and effect of
the matter proposed to be amended. If the paragraph had concluded with
the word ``food'' in line 25, so that it would read as follows:
``For increasing food production and eliminating waste and promoting
conservation food, $6,100,000''--
there would be no doubt in the mind of any member of the committee that
the amendment would be absolutely in order. But that is not the
paragraph. The paragraph in its entirety proposes to increase food
production, eliminate waste, and promote conservation of food by
certain indicated processes, namely, by educational and demonstrational
methods, through county, district and urban agents. In other words,
lecturers are to be sent out to instruct the public with respect to
their farming activities and the household arts so that in the result
production will be increased, waste will be eliminated, and food will
be conserved. If it was proposed by the amendment that some of the
money which is appropriate should be utilized in the employment of
agents to instruct the public in the folly of converting food products
into alcoholic beverages for public consumption, such an amendment
would be in order and in perfect harmony with the avowed purposes of
the paragraph. It would come within the manifest scope and intent of
this particular portion of the bill. But that is not what is intended
to be done by the amendment. The amendment does not propose to educate
the public, or by demonstrational methods, convince them of the folly
of utilizing food products to produce alcoholic drinks, but to
absolutely inhibit the use of such products for alcoholic conversion.
The Chair does not think that it can be successfully maintained that
the chief purpose of this paragraph is to increase food production,
eliminate waste and promote the conservation of food. If that was the
chief purpose of the paragraph then it would end with the word ``food''
in line 25, thereby rendering possible an infinite variety of methods
to accomplish the purposes indicated. Eliminate the words providing the
methods by which production is to be increased, waste eliminated and
food is to be conserved, and the amendment of the gentleman from
California would be plainly germane and in order. But the committee
evidently did not intend that the department should have free rein to
accomplish the results intended, and secure the elimination of waste by
any means that seemed good to them. Hence the use of the restrictive
language confining the activities of the department to certain
indicated lines of accomplishment. The one and only meaning of the
paragraph therefore is to provide the means whereby the results
intended may be secured on certain restricted lines of endeavor. The
Agricultural Department is ``cabin'd, cribbed, confined,'' so to say,
to the restricted paths of activity marked out for them to pursue.
As to the suggested meaning of the word ``others,'' it occurs to the
Chair that this word ought to be interpreted to mean ``other
educational and demonstrational methods,'' in view of the general
meaning of the paragraph. For instance bulletins might be sent out. It
is perfectly true that a general subject may be amended by a specific
subject of the same character, but the amendment of the gentleman from
California is not a specific subject of this general subject. This
amendment does not propose to eliminate waste, to increase food
products, or to promote conservation by any educational process, but is
a flat legislative inhibition upon certain practices. Therefore it is
not a specific subject of the same character as the general subject.
The general subject is to increase food production, and so forth, by
educational and demonstrational methods.
The methods indicated are not illustrative of what may be done, but
are restrictive, confining the expenditure of the money appropriated to
them, and them only. The department could not expend this money
otherwise than as indicated, namely, on educational and on
demonstrational methods. The suggestion has been made that certain
legislation in this bill has been made in order by the rule, and that
this amendment would be in order to this legislation. In this con-
Sec. 2980
nection the Chair will say that if there is any legislation in this
bill, made in order by the rule, to which this amendment would be
proper, relevant, and germane, then the amendment can be offered when
that legislation is reached, and will then be in order. This matter has
been very earnestly argued by gentlemen who have taken a different view
of the meaning of the paragraph from that held by the Chair. If their
interpretation of the paragraph is correct, then the Chair will admit
that the amendment is in order. Hence the propriety of the ruling on
this point depends upon the meaning proper to be imputed to the
paragraph. In that view it might be well to take an appeal from the
decision of the Chair so as to afford the opportunity for full
discussion of the paragraph on the appeal, and thereby secure an
authoritative disposition of this question by the committee itself. The
Chair has sought to set out in full the reasons for the conclusion
reached and in view of that conclusion is constrained to sustain the
point of order.
2980. To a proposition to attain a definite purpose by a designated
method an amendment proposing another method entirely remote is not
germane.
To a bill proposing to increase the food supply by educational and
demonstrational methods an amendment proposing to effect such increase
through sale of nitrate of soda was held not to be germane.
If a portion of an amendment is inadmissible the entire amendment is
subject to the point of order.
On May 26, 1917,\1\ while the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 4188) for the
distribution of agricultural products, the following paragraph was
reached:
For increasing food production and eliminating waste and promoting
conservation of food by educational and demonstrational methods,
through county, district, and urban agents and others $4,500,000.
Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, offered an amendment reading in
part as follows:
Sec. 5. That whenever the Secretary of Agriculture shall find that
there is or may be a special need in any restricted area for nitrate of
soda necessary for the production of food or feed crops he is
authorized to purchase such nitrate of soda, store it, and sell it to
the farmers at cost, including transportation and all other expenses,
such cost price to be payable in advance. The Secretary of Agriculture
is authorized to require any person having at his disposal a supply of
nitrate of soda to furnish the whole or any part thereof to the
Secretary of Agriculture in such quantities, at such times, and at such
price as shall be determined by him to be reasonable. Upon failure of
the person to comply with such requirement the Secretary of Agriculture
is authorized to requisition and take possession of such nitrate of
soda and pay for it at the price so determined. If the price so
determined be unsatisfactory to the person entitled to receive the
same, such person shall be paid for such nitrate of soda on delivery
the amount prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture and shall be
entitled to sue the United States to recover such further sum as, added
to the amount so paid, will be just compensation for such nitrate of
soda; and jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the United States
district courts to hear and determine all such controversies. For the
purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section the Secretary of
Agriculture is authorized to cooperate with the Secretary of the Navy
or any other agency of the Government, and for such purpose there is
hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, available immediately and until expended, the sum of
$10,000,000. Any moneys received by the United States from the sale of
nitrate of soda to farmers under this section may, in the discretion of
the Secretary of Agriculture, be used as a revolving fund for further
carrying out the purposes of this section. Any balance of such moneys
not used as part of such revolving fund shall be covered into the
Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2933.
Sec. 2980
Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order and said:
The Chair realizes that it is not always an easy matter to determine
just what is germane and what is not. This amendment is not offered as
an amendment to any particular section in the bill, but as a new
section. The Chair also realizes that there is a well-established
principle that one individual proposition may not be amended by adding
another individual proposition.
The Chair is also aware of the fact that a single proposition may be
added to a general proposition if it is otherwise germane. The Chair is
not prepared to discuss generally the rules governing the proposition
of germaneness, except in a general way, but will offer this
suggestion: The Chair thinks, in order to be germane to the subject
matter of the bill, an amendment must relate directly to something in
the bill, and is not germane simply because it relates to some similar
subject, or to the same kind of a subject covered by the bill. It seems
to the Chair that if this amendment should be held germane it would
throw open the floodgates. In other words, if this amendment is
germane, then a proposition for the Government to purchase mules or
horses or wagons or plows or harrows, or even land itself, or to
reclaim land, and sell these things to the farmer at cost would be
germane, because that might tend generally to stimulate agriculture or
the production of food products. If this is germane, either one of
those other propositions would unquestionably be germane, and the Chair
does not think that the bill contemplates anything of the kind. The
Chair realizes that it is rather a close question and he realizes that
he may be wrong, and would be glad to leave it to the judgment of the
committee. If the gentleman desires to appeal from the decision, the
Chair would be very glad to have him do so. But it is the opinion of
the Chair that the amendment is not in order on this bill, and the
Chair sustains the point of order.
Mr. Byrns modified the amendment and again offered it in this form:
The Secretary of Agriculture is empowered, whenever he shall find
that there is or shall be a special need in any restricted area for
nitrate of soda for the production of food or feed crops, to purchase
such nitrate of soda, store it, and sell it to farmers at cost,
including transportation and all other expenses, such cost price to be
payable in advance. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to
require any person having at his disposal a supply of nitrate of soda
to furnish the whole or any part thereof to the Secretary of
Agriculture in such quantities, at such times, and at such price as
shall be determined by him to be reasonable. Upon failure of the person
to comply with such requirement the Secretary of Agriculture is
authorized to requisition and take possession of such nitrate of soda
and pay for it at the price so determined. If the price so determined
be unsatisfactory to the person entitled to receive the same, such
person shall be paid for such nitrate of soda on delivery the amount
prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture and shall be entitled to sue
the United States to recover such further sum as, added to the amount
so paid, will be just compensation for such nitrate of soda, and
jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the United States district courts
to hear and determine all such controversies. Any moneys received by
the United States from the sale of nitrate of soda to farmers under
this section may, in the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture, be
used as a revolving fund for further carrying out the purposes of this
section. Any balance of such moneys not used as part of such revolving
fund shall be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. For
carrying out the purposes of this section, $4,500,000.
Mr. Anderson having again raised a question of order, the Chairman
ruled:
The gentleman from South Carolina offers an amendment to which the
gentleman from Minnesota makes a point of order. The Chair has before
him the rule to which attention has been called. It is in this
language:
``No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Courtney W. Hamlin, of Missouri, Chairman.
Sec. 2981
The paragraph sought to be amended reads as follows:
``For increasing food production and eliminating waste and promoting
conservation of food by educational and demonstrational methods,
through county, district, and urban agents and others''--
And so forth.
The gentleman's amendment provides for the Government buying nitrate
of soda and selling to the farmers, and argues that it is in order for
the reason that such action would tend to increase food production.
Clearly the food production provided for in this paragraph is in a
specific way, and that is by ``educational and demonstrational
methods.'' The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Saunders, fair, as he
always is, admits that unless certain language now in the paragraph is
stricken out the amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
Byrnes, would not be in order, but contends that the language now in
the paragraph which stands in the way of the amendment, in the face of
a point of order, can be stricken out and the other language contained
in the amendment inserted at the same time. The Chair does not think
that this can be done. In the face of a point of order the affirmative
matter contained in the amendment offered can not even be considered.
You can not do by indirection that which can be done directly. A motion
to strike out certain language in the bill would, of course, be in
order, but the very fact that that motion has coupled with it matter
which is not in order renders the whole amendment out of order. If this
amendment is in order, you could amend the bill by providing for the
purchase of a million acres of land to be given to the farmers of the
country to encourage food production. The Chair thinks this is clearly
out of order and sustains the point of order.
2981. To a proposition to pay wages a proposition to pay a bonus is
not germane.
To a bill establishing a minimum wage scale an amendment to add a
bonus was held not to be germane.
On July 16, 1919,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 5726) to establish a minimum
wage for certain employees of the Government.
The Clerk having read a section providing for salaries of employees
of the Post Office Department, Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, offered this
amendment:
Provided, That fourth-class postmasters shall hereafter be paid the
sum of $240 per year in addition to the compensation paid them under
existing law.
Mr. John I. Nolan, of California, raised a question of order against
the amendment.
The Chairman \2\ sustained the point of order.
Subsequently,\3\ Mr. Martin L. Davey, of Ohio, proposed the following
amendment:
And provided further, That the minimum wage of temporary clerks and
carriers of the Post Office Department shall be 50 cents per hour, and
that each permanent employee of the Post Office Department in the
classified service shall receive the special bonus of $240 per annum
during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1920, as provided for other
Government employees, and this shall be in addition to the amount
otherwise provided.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2681.
\2\ William R. Wood, of Indiana, Chairman.
\3\ Record, p. 2684.
Sec. 2982
Mr. Nolan having again raised the question of germaneness, the
Chairman said:
The first part of the gentleman's amendment is in order, but that
portion with reference to the bonus is not in order.
Mr. Davey then offered an amendment in this form:
And provided further, That that minimum pay of temporary clerks and
carriers of the Post Office Department shall be 50 cents per hour, and
that the minimum salaries of permanent employees of the Post Office
Department in the classified service shall be not less that $240 per
annum above the amount already provided by law during the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1920.
The Chairman held the amendment to be in order.
2982. To a bill establishing telephone rates an amendment prohibiting
reductions in wages of telephone employees while such rates remained
effective was held not to be germane.
On June 19, 1919,\1\ the bill (S. 120) to amend the telephone,
telegraph, and radio control act was read a third time.
Mr. John A. Moon, of Tennessee, moved to recommit the bill to the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce with instructions to that
committee to report it back to the House forthwith and with the first
section of the bill continuing current telephone rates amended by the
addition of the following proviso:
Provided further, That no reduction of wages of telephone or
telegraph employees now in effect shall be made so long as the orders
of the Postmaster General fixing present rates are effective.
Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, raised a question of order
against the motion on the ground that the amendment proposed in the
motion to recommit was not germane to the bill.
After debate the Speaker \2\ held:
The Chair has no right to consider the merits of the amendment. The
only question before the Chair is whether it is germane. This bill
simply provides that the telephone rates as established in the existing
law shall continue, to which the gentleman from Tennessee makes the
motion that no reduction of wages shall be allowed. The bill does not
refer at all anywhere to the question of wages, and therefore that
question is obviously not germane to the bill, and it is clear that the
Chair must sustain the point of order.
An appeal by Mr. Moon was, on motion of Mr. Walsh, laid on the table
by a vote of 189 yeas to 161 noes.
2983. To a bill granting soldiers the right to retain Government
clothing an amendment to grant them extra pay was held not to be
germane.
On December 18, 1918,\3\ the House was considering the bill (H. R.
13366) authorizing the retention of uniforms and personal equipment by
discharged soldiers.
Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, proposed an amendment as follows:
And all persons honorably discharged from the military or naval
service should receive one month's extra pay on discharge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1395.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 523.
Sec. 2984
Mr. S. Hubert Dent, jr., of Alabama, made the point of order that the
proposed amendment was not germane.
The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order.
2984. To a plan providing for acquisition by gift a substitute
providing for acquisition by purchase is not germane. To a bill for the
acceptance as a gratuity of a tract of land as a site for a sanatorium
an amendment providing for the purchase of a tract of land for that
purpose was held not to be germane.
To a proposal to establish an institution in one location a
proposition to establish it in another location is germane.
To a bill providing for the establishment of a sanatorium at Dawson
Springs, Ky., an amendment to establish it on public lands in the State
of Minnesota was held to be germane.
On December 4, 1918,\2\ the House was in the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union considering the bill (H. R. 12917)
providing for the establishment of a sanatorium for discharged soldiers
and sailors on a tract of land to be donated for that purpose near
Dawson Springs, Ky.
Mr. Cassius C. Dowell, of Iowa, proposed an amendment to strike out
the provision for the acceptance of land near Dawson Springs, Ky., and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
That the United States is authorized to acquire by purchase or
otherwise a tract of land to be selected by the Secretary of the
Treasury in either of the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, or
Texas suitable.
Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, made the point of order that as
the bill provided for acquisition by gift, an amendment providing for
acquisition by purchase was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \3\ ruled:
The Chair begs to state that this bill now before the committee
provides for the building of a sanatorium at Dawson Springs, Ky., and
the land can only be secured at Dawson Springs, Ky., by gift. There is
no provision in the bill saying that this land can be purchased; so
that if the people of Dawson Springs, Ky., should conclude after the
bill has become a law that they would not give the Government this
land, then, in the opinion of the Chair, it would not be possible to
establish the sanatorium there without further legislation, because it
says that it must be acquired by gift and that the land can only be
secured in that way. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Iowa
says that this sanatorium may be established in either the State of
Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, or Texas by purchase or otherwise. The
Chair begs to state that so far as he has been able to ascertain from a
brief time spent in looking up the precedents this is the only one
where it was proposed to offer an amendment to give away public land,
and the Chair at that time held that that was not in order.That
decision is found in Volume V of Hinds' Precedents, paragraph 5877. The
point of order was made on January 20, 1859, by Mr. Cobb, of Alabama,
and the decision was rendered by Speaker Orr, of South Carolina.
The Chair believe, in the view he takes of this amendment, that if
this bill should pass with this amendment in it the Secretary of the
Treasury might go to either one of these States and if
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\2\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 108.
\3\ Martin D. Foster, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 2985
he was unable to secure the land otherwise than by purchase the
sanatorium would not be built, and then that would compel the purchase
of ground upon which to place the sanatorium, so that it would change
the entire scope of the bill as now proposed, which is specifically to
provide for the establishment of the sanatorium by gift. Under these
circumstances, the Chair thinks that the amendment of the gentleman
from Iowa would not be in order.
Mr. Halvor Steenerson, of Minnesota, then offered an amendment
proposing as a site for the sanatorium.
One hundred thousand acres of the national forest bordering on Tuck
Lake and Cass Lake and Lake Winnibigoshish, in Minnesota, or so much
thereof as may be required, be set aside.
Mr. Frank Clark, of Florida, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
The Chairman held:
The Chair is ready to make up his mind. The Chair begs to state that
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota proposes to
strike out all of lines 5, 6, 7, and 8 and the first three words of
line 9 and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``One hundred thousand
acres of the national forest bordering on Tuck Lake and Cass Lake and
Lake Winnibigoshish, in Minnesota, or so much thereof as may be
required, be set aside.'' Now, the Chair thinks this bill provides for
the location of a sanatorium at Dawson Springs. That is a particular
point. The Chair thinks it would be in order to change the location of
the same sanatorium and believes that this provides only for a change
of location, not for the buying of any land, but that it shall be
established where the Government buys no land, and the Chair begs to
call the attention of the committee to the fact that in the case of the
canal decision, which has been quoted here many times, that it was in
order to change the location of a canal, and therefore, believes this
amendment is in order and overrules the point of order.
2985. To a proposition to sell a commodity, service, or equity a
proposition to give such commodity, service, or equity is not germane.
To a bill providing for the payment of compensation under certain
circumstances as a part of the benefits of insurance policies to be
issued by the Government in consideration of the payment of annual
premiums an amendment providing for the payment of such compensation as
a pension was held not to be germane.
On September 12, 1917,\1\ while the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 5723) to
amend the war risk insurance act, the following paragraph was read:
compensation for death or disability
Sec. 300. That for death or disability resulting from personal injury
suffered or disease contracted in the course of the service by any
commissioned officer or enlisted man or by any member of the Army Nurse
Corps (female) or of the Navy Nurse Corps (female) when employed in the
active service under the War Department or Navy Department, the United
States shall pay compensation as hereinafter provided.
To this paragraph Mr. Richard Wayne Parker, of New Jersey, offered
the following amendment:
After the word ``compensation,'' insert the words ``by way of
pension.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 7061.
Sec. 2986
Mr. William C. Adamson, of Georgia, having made the point of order
that the amendment was not germane, the Chairman \1\ held:
The Chair thinks that the amendment is not germane, and sustains the
point of order.
2986. To a proposition to market a commodity for a consideration a
proposition to donate such commodity as a gratuity is not germane.
To a law providing for the sale of insurance to soldiers in
consideration of the payment of annual premiums an amendment proposing
to grant such insurance for two years without payment of premiums was
held not to be germane.
On September 13, 1919,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on that
state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 8778) to amend the
war risk insurance act, when Mr. Roscoe C. McCulloch, of Ohio, proposed
an amendment providing insurance for persons honorably discharged from
the Army or Navy to continue for a period of two years after such
discharge without cost to the insured.
Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
After extended debate the Chairman \3\ held:
As we all know, there is a tendency in this House and in the body at
the other end of this Capitol to attach all sorts of legislation to
bills in the form of what are called riders. This has been carried to
such an extent that sometimes matters entirely unrelated and
incongruous are combined in the same bill, to the detriment of the law
as to clearness of meaning and to the despair of persons trying to find
the law after it is enacted.
Rule XVI, paragraph 7, provides that--
``No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
What is the subject under consideration? The subject under
consideration is a bill amending the war-risk insurance act in several
respects. Section 400 of article 4 of the war-risk insurance act
provides--
``That in order to give to every commissioned officer and enlisted
man, etc., when employed in active service under the War Department or
Navy Department greater protection for themselves and their dependents
than is provided in article 3, the United States, upon application to
the bureau and without medical examination, shall grant insurance
against the death or total permanent disability of any such person in
any multiple of $500, and not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000,
upon the payment of the premiums as hereinafter provided.''
The words ``as hereinafter provided'' evidently refer to sections
401, 402, 403, 404, and 405.
Section 401 prescribes the time for making applications. It also
makes provision for persons in service disabled or dying without
applying for insurance, allowance if disabled, allowance in case of
death, and limitation of payments of 240 installments.
Section 402 provides the form of policy, viz:
``That the director, subject to the general direction of the
Secretary of the Treasury, shall promptly determine upon and publish
the full and exact terms and conditions of such contract of
insurance.''
Section 402 also provides that the insurance shall be nonassignable
for alternative policies, the basis of premiums, and the beneficiaries.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 5343.
\3\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
Sec. 2886
Section 403 provides--
``That the United States shall bear the expenses of administration
and the excess mortality and disability cost resulting from the hazards
of war. The premium rates shall be the net rates based upon the
American Experience Table of Mortality, and interest at 3\1/2\ per cent
per annum.''
Section 404 provides for term insurance during the war, for
conversion after the termination of war, and for conversion rights.
Section 405 provides for disagreements, attorney fees, and so forth.
The subject under consideration is not ``insurance,'' nor even ``war-
risk insurance,'' but the ``granting of insurance by the United States
upon the payment of premiums.'' In short, article 4 provides for
insurance upon the payment of premiums. There is nothing in the law
which would indicate that it was the intention of Congress to give
insurance or to fix premium rates or payments, except by means of the
American Experience Table of Mortality.
The joint amendment of the gentleman from Ohio proposes to amend the
bill by adding a new section as follows:
``The term insurance in force on the life of every commissioned
officer and enlisted man or member of the Army or Navy Nurse Corps
(female) on the date he leaves the active military or naval service
shall continue in force for two years after the end of the calendar
month in which he is separated from the active service, without the
payment of premium by the insured: Provided, however, That in the case
of the persons who are or have been so separated from the service and
who have paid their premiums after being so separated the period of two
years herein provided shall begin to run on the first day of the
calendar month succeeding the passage of this act or on the first day
of the calendar month succeeding the month for which the premium was
last paid, whichever date was the earlier: Provided further, That every
person who converts or has converted his term insurance before the
expiration of the two-year period herein provided shall, during such
period or the remainder thereof, be entitled to a commutation credit on
his term or converted insurance equivalent to what the monthly premium
on his term insurance would have been during the said two-year period
if he had not converted it and if this amendatory act had not bee
passed.''
What is the subject of the proposed amendment? ``The term insurance
in force shall be continued in force for two years without the payment
of premiums.'' The object of this amendment, when stripped of all
verbiage and reduced to its last analysis, is to give to the insured
two years' free insurance.
In other words, the present law, as well as the bill under
consideration, provides for insurance upon the payment of premiums,
while the amendment provides for insurance without the payment of
premiums. Surely such a radical change of the policy of the Government
presents a different subject within the inhibition of the rule.
In Hinds' Precedents (v. 5877) is cited a case in point:
``To a bill relating to the sale of the public lands an amendment
proposing to give them to settlers was held not to be germane.''
Clearly the two propositions are related, but ``two subjects are not
necessarily germane because they are related.''
Many other cases can be cited.
The Chair is not altogether able to follow the logic of the gentleman
from Iowa, Mr. Towner, in his contention that the proposition of the
amendment is not the granting of free insurance, but is to prevent the
lapsing or forfeiture of policies. If the gentleman will refer to the
act, section 401, he will find this provision:
``Any person in the active service on or after the 6th day of April,
1917, who while in such service and before the expiration of 120 days
from and after such publication he becomes or has become totally and
permanently disabled, or dies or has died, without having applied for
insurance, he shall be deemed to have applied for and to have been
granted insurance, payable to such person during his life in monthly
installments.''
On June 17, 1919, the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Good, offered an
amendment to the Senate amendment No. 21 on the deficiency
appropriation bill. The Senate amendment directed the Secretary of the
Treasury to complete the hospital at Broadview in Chicago, and also
amended section 6 of the act approved March 3, 1919, creating an
emergency fund of $1,500,000 for the
Sec. 2987
United States Public Health Service. Mr. Good's amendment restricted
the Secretary of the Treasury as to taking further action under a
number of sections of the above act.
The Speaker sustained the point of order, setting out his reasons in
a carefully prepared ruling. If the present occupant of the Chair would
follow the long line of precedents clearly established, he must of
necessity sustain the point of order.
The Chair sustains the point of order made by the gentleman from New
York.
2987. To a joint resolution repealing declarations of war an
amendment authorizing the negotiation of treaties of peace was held not
to be germane.
It is not in order to strike out an amendment already agreed to by
the House.
On June 13, 1921,\1\ the House was considering the joint resolution
(S. J. Res. 16) repealing the joint resolution of April 6, 1917,
declaring a state of war to exist between the United States and
Germany, and the joint resolution of December 7, 1917, declaring a
state of war to exist between the United States and the Imperial and
Royal Austro-Hungarian Government.
The question being on the passage of the joint resolution, Mr. Henry
D. Flood, of Virginia, moved to recommit it to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs with instructions to that committee to forthwith report the
joint resolution back to the House with an amendment striking out all
after the enacting clause and inserting the following:
That the President be, and he is hereby, requested and authorized to
enter into negotiations with the Government of Germany and her allies
and with the powers associated with the United States in the European
War with a view to concluding a settlement of all controversies between
the United States and Germany and her allies, and to conclude, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate, any and all international
acts or agreements necessary to reach a definite adjustment with all of
the powers engaged in the European War in respect to any questions or
controversies relating to the conflict.
Mr. John Jacob Rogers, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that
the amendment proposed in the motion to recommit was not germane to the
joint resolution.
After extended debate the Speaker \2\ ruled:
The Chair will not consider the suggestions that this motion refers
to the Allies of the United States and the Allies of the other nations,
because, as the gentleman from Virginia suggested, he could withdraw
his motion to recommit and amend it and remedy that defect. The Chair
will base his ruling upon the main question, and the Chair will state
frankly that he would prefer to hold that it is germane, because, as he
understands, those have been the two contentions, one that peace must
be secured by a treaty and the other that it can be secured by
declaration, and the Chair would be glad to allow the issue to be
settled by a vote, and appreciates the force of the suggestion that a
motion to recommit is intended to allow the minority to express its
views. But the Chair thinks he ought to not depart from parliamentary
precedent even to accomplish what the general intent of the rules of
the House may have been, and it seems clear to the Chair that a
resolution declaring that a war is at an end can not, if the point of
order be made, be amended by the recommendation that a treaty shall be
entered into. The very issue that has been made is that the House has
no right to declare peace; that that is an entirely different
proposition from making a treaty of peace, so different that the House
has no right to do it; and that the only way to secure peace is by a
treaty. Therefore the Chair feels constrained to rule that the motion
to recommit is not in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2546.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 2988
There is another ground on which the Chair perhaps could easily base
his decision, and that is the well-established rule that where the
House itself has adopted an amendment as it has in this case, then that
amendment can not be stricken out by a motion to recommit, as is
attempted by this motion; but the Chair prefers to base his ruling on
the general proposition of germaneness. The Chair therefore sustains
the point of order.
2988. To a proposition to attain a definite object by a specific
method a proposition to achieve the same object by another unrelated
method is not germane.
To a bill proposing to regulate grain exchanges by taxation an
amendment proposing to regulate them by prohibiting the transmission of
messages was held not to be germane.
On May 12, 1921,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 5676) taxing contracts for
the sale of grain for future delivery and options for such contracts
and providing for the regulation of boards of trade.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 3. That in addition to the taxes now imposed by law there is
hereby levied a tax of 20 cents a bushel on every bushel involved in
such transactions, upon each and every privilege or option for a
contract either of purchase or sale of grain, intending hereby to tax
the transactions known to the trade as ``privileges,'' ``bids,''
``offers,'' ``puts and calls,'' ``indemnities,'' or ``ups and downs.''
Mr. John L. Cable, of Ohio, proposed to strike out the section and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
Sec. 3. That it shall be unlawful, by means of telephone or telegraph
lines, wires, or other means of communication extending from one State
to another or to foreign countries, to make or offer to make or assist
in making any contract respecting the purchase or sale either upon
credit or margin of any grain, not intending the actual bona fide
receipt or delivery of any such grain, but intending a settlement of
such contract based upon the differences of the public market quotation
of prices made on any board of trade or exchange upon which such grain
is dealt in, and without intending a bona fide purchase or sale of the
same.
Mr. David H. Kincheloe, of Kentucky, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the section.
After debate the Chairman \2\ held:
The bill under consideration has for its purpose the regulation of
boards of trade dealing in grain under a governmental license by means
of the taxing power. The substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio,
instead of licensing boards of trade to carry on their dealings would
absolutely forbid all transactions of the character referred to in the
bill that are authorized under certain conditions and limitations.
Under the general rule of the House relating to germaneness, as found
in Rule XVI, without referring to clause 3, Rule XXI, which still
further limits the privilege of amendment on revenue bills, which this
is, this amendment would be excluded because it is extraneous to that
which is under consideration by the committee. It involves an entirely
different subject for consideration than that in the bill under
consideration. The bill provides for licensing under the taxation power
of Congress; the amendment is to prohibit entirely under the commerce
clause. It is clearly a different proposal, and therefore without
resorting to the strict rule found in Rule XXI, that on revenue bills
an amendment must be germane, not only to the subject matter but to the
item under consideration, the Chair believes that it is not germane
under the ban of the general rule, and therefore sustains the point of
order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First Sixty-seventh Congress, Record p. 1376.
\2\ William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, Chairman.
Sec. 2989
2989. To a proposal to authorize certain activities an amendment
proposing to investigate the advisability of undertaking such
activities is not germane.
To a bill for the improvement of rivers and harbors an amendment
providing for a commission to study, consider and report on the subject
was held not to be germane.
On June 26, 1917 \1\ the river and harbor appropriation bill was
under consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union.
Mr. John H. Small, of North Carolina, offered an amendment reading in
part as follows:
That a commission, to be known as the waterways commission,
consisting of the Secretary of War, Secretary of the Interior,
Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, and three additional
members to be appointed by the President of the United States from the
active or retired list of the Engineer Corps of the Army, or other
Government services, or from civil life, one of whom shall be
designated by the President as chairman, is hereby created and
authorized, under such rules and regulations as it may adopt, to bring
into coordination and cooperation the engineering, scientific, and
constructive services, bureaus, boards, and commissions of the several
governmental department of the United States and commissions created by
Congress that relate to study, development, or control of waterways and
subjects related thereto, with a view to uniting such services in
investigating questions relating to the development, improvement,
regulation, and control of rivers and harbors to secure the necessary
data, and to formulate and report to Congress, as early as practicable,
a comprehensive plan or plans for the development of waterways for the
purposes of navigation and recommendations for the modification or
discontinuance of any project herein or heretofore adopted.
Mr. Allen T. Treadway, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane.
After debate, the Chairman \2\ ruled:
When the revenue bill was up some time in 1913 a motion to recommit
was made providing for the appointment of a commission to investigate
and gather information touching the tariff question, and Speaker Clark,
in an elaborate opinion, held that on a revenue bill they would not
have the right to appoint a commission to gather this data. There is
another decision handed down by the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Garrett, along similar lines. The Chair thinks, in view of these
decisions, that the point of order should be sustained, and therefore
sustains the point of order.
2990. To a proposal to buy bonds from farm-loan banks for a specified
purpose an amendment proposing the purchase of bonds from another
source which would necessarily contribute directly to the same purpose
was held not to be germane.
On May 18, 1920,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union had under consideration the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 351)
proposing to amend the Federal farm loan act and reading as follows:
Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has asked for a
reargument of the case involving the constitutionality of the Federal
farm loan act; and
Whereas the reargument of the case will postpone a decision until
next October at the earliest; and
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4331.
\2\ Pat Harrison, of Mississippi, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7254.
Sec. 2990
Whereas the Federal land banks are now and it is feared will be
unable under these circumstances to sell bonds to meet outstanding
commitments for loans to farmers pending a final decision: Therefore be
it
Resolved etc., That the provisions of the act of congress approved
January 8, 1918, entitled ``An act to amend section 32 of the Federal
farm loan act, approved July 17, 1916,'' be, and the same hereby are,
extended to the final years ending June 30, 1920, and June 30, 1921, to
the extent that the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby is,
authorized, as by the terms of said act, to purchase during the fiscal
years ending June 30, 1920, and June 30, 1921, or either of them, any
bonds which he might have purchased during the fiscal years ending June
30, 1918, and June 30, 1919, or either of them, under the provisions of
the original act.
Mr. W. M. Morgan, of Ohio, offered an amendment proposing to
authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase such bonds at par
and accrued interest in the open market.
Mr. Edmund Platt, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
Following debate on the point of order the Chairman \1\ ruled:
The pending resolution, for certain reasons set forth in the
preamble, seeks to extend the life of the Federal farm loan act and to
authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase certain farm-loan
bonds. The gentleman from Oklahoma offers an amendment to the amendment
of the committee to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase
certain farm-loan bonds in the open market and not from the Federal
farm-loan bank, as provided by existing legislation and by the
resolution now pending before the committee.
The point of order has been made that the amendment of the gentleman
from Oklahoma is not germane. The amendment, of course, must be germane
to the subject of the resolution itself, and it must also be germane to
the section to which it is offered.
The preamble sets forth the purpose of the resolution in the
following language:
``Whereas the Federal land banks are now, and it is feared will be,
unable under these circumstances to sell bonds to meet outstanding
commitments for loans to farmers pending the final decision: Therefore
be it resolved''--
And so forth.
So the preamble itself shows that the purpose of this resolution is
to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase these bonds from
the land banks in order to relieve the land banks, and the purpose as
set forth in the preamble and the resolution is not apparently to
relieve the owners. There is not any very close precedent which the
Chair has been able to find on this proposition, but the Chair does
think that the argument advanced by the gentleman from Oklahoma is not
in accordance with the precedents that exist, namely, that where
legislation authorizes the purchase of bonds on one city an amendment
authorizing the purchase of bonds of another city would be germane,
because that, in the Chair's view, is directly contrary to existing
precedents. The Chair thinks that in this amendment the gentleman from
Oklahoma seeks to go beyond the scope of the resolution and to
introduce in it a new purpose not set forth in the preamble and not set
forth in any part of the resolution, and that the provision to
authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to buy bonds generally in the
open market is not germane to the provision authorizing the Secretary
of the Treasury to purchase from a particular source, and therefore the
Chair sustains the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James W. Husted, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 2991
2991. To be a bill levying a tax on gasoline an amendment fixing the
price of gasoline was held not to be germane.
On February 11, 1924,\1\ the bill (H. R. 655) to provide a tax on
motor fuels in the District of Columbia, was being considered in the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union:
The Clerk read as follows:
That it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation, or
any dealer or distributor of motor-vehicle fuel to receive and accept
any shipment from any dealer or to pay for the same, or to sell, or
offer for sale, any motor-vehicle fuel unless the statement provided
for in section 5 of this act appears upon the invoices of said
shipment.
Mr. Tom D. McKeown of Oklahoma, offered this amendment:
After the word ``shipment'' insert:
It shall be unlawful for any dealer to charge any additional sum than
the regular price and 2 cents per gallon tax.
Mr. Everett Sanders, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
The Chairman \2\ held:
The Chair does not think that is germane. The gentleman is
undertaking to regulate price. The Chair must sustain the point of
order.
2992. To a section conferring on carriers the right to recover for
loss of freight an amendment conferring on shippers the right to
recover was held not to be germane.
On November 17, 1919,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 10453) to
provide for the termination of Federal control of railways, and the
Clerk had read the following section:
Whenever property is diverted or delivered by one carrier to another
carrier contrary to routing instructions in the bill of lading, unless
such diversion or delivery is in compliance with a lawful order, rule,
or regulation of the commission, such carriers shall, in a suit or
action in any court of competent jurisdiction, be jointly and severally
liable to the carrier thus deprived of its right to participate in the
haul of the property for the total amount of the rate or charge it
would have received had it participated in the haul of the property. In
any judgment which may be rendered the plaintiff shall be allowed to
recover against the defendant a reasonable attorney's fee, to be taxed
in the case.
To this section Mr. Clay Stone Briggs, of Texas, proposed an
amendment as follows:
And in case of loss or of injury or damage to any such property, the
owner thereof shall be entitled to recover the fair and reasonable
value thereof, or, as the case may be, such amount as will reasonably
compensate such owner for such injury or damage sustained by such
property.
Mr. Everett Saunders, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2276.
\2\ Theodore E. Burton, of Ohio, Chairman.
\3\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 8668.
Sec. 2993
The Chairman \1\ held:
The paragraph to which this amendment is offered confers on carriers
the right in a suit or action in any court of competent jurisdiction to
recover for the loss of freight by reason of improper diversion of the
delivery of the freight, contrary to routing instructions contained in
the bill of lading. The amendment of the gentleman from Texas provides
that in case of loss or damage to freight being so transported, having
been so improperly diverted, the shipper may recover the damage in a
proper proceeding in a court for the injuries sustained by the loss or
damage to such property. In the opinion of the Chair the remedy
proposed to be given to the shipper for this loss or injury is not akin
to the provisions of the paragraph conferring a remedy, a right on a
carrier, and in the Chair's view the amendment proposed is not germane
to the section offered. The chair therefore, sustains the point of
order.
2993. To a bill providing that funds derived from the sale of certain
public lands be paid into a reclamation fund to be used in the
construction of reclamation works amendments proposing that such funds
be paid into a national good-roads fund to be used in the building of
roads, or deposited in the Treasury to the credit of a Navy petroleum
fund, were held not to be germane.
Definition of the term ``germane.''
On September 22, 1914,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 16136) to authorize
exploration for and disposition of coal, phosphate, oil, gas, potassium
or sodium.
The Clerk read:
Sec. 30. That all moneys received from royalties and rentals under
the provisions of this act, excepting those from Alaska, shall be paid
into, reserved, and appropriated as a part of the reclamation fund,
created by the act of Congress approved June 17, 1902, known as the
reclamation act, but after use thereof in the construction of
reclamation works and upon return to the reclamation fund of any such
moneys in the manner provided by the reclamation act and acts
amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto, 50 per cent of the amounts
derived from such royalties and rentals so utilized in and returned to
the reclamation fund shall be paid by the Secretary of the Treasury
after the expiration of each fiscal year to the State within the
boundaries of which the leased lands or deposits are or were located,
said moneys to be used by such State for the support of public schools
or other educational institutions or for the construction of public
improvements as the legislature of the State may direct.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, offered an amendment as follows:
Substitute for section 30:
``That all moneys received from royalties and rentals under the
provisions of this act, except those from Alaska, shall be deposited in
the Treasury as a special fund, to be known as the `national good-roads
fund,' which fund shall be applied as Congress may from time to time
direct by, appropriation or otherwise, for the building of good
roads.''
Mr. Scott Ferris, of Oklahoma, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
The Chairman \3\ ruled:
A few days since, while this bill was under consideration, notice was
given that amendments would be offered to this section to provide for
the disposition of the receipts from various leases
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 15553.
\3\ John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 2993
authorized in the bill, in a manner different from that provided in the
bill. As a result of the intimation then given, the Chair has given
considerable attention to the questions that might arise under this
section.
The rule of the House--Rule XVI, paragraph 7--is that no motion or
proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall
be admitted under color of amendment. That is the rule which generally
is mentioned as required amendments to be germane to a bill or to the
particular part of the bill to which an amendment is offered. Under
general parliamentary law amendments need not be germane. Mr. Jefferson
states in section 460 in his Manual that--
``Amendments may be made so as totally to alter the nature of the
proposition; and it is a way of getting rid of a proposition by making
it bear a sense different from what it was intended by the movers, so
that they vote against it themselves.''
In a decision by Mr. Carlisle in 1880 the history of the adoption of
the rule by the House requiring amendments to be germane is set forth
in great detail. Ever since 1822 the rule in the House has been as it
is at present. Mr. Carlisle in his decision, which is found in volume
5, section 5825, of Hinds' Precedents, said:
``When therefore it is objected that a proposed amendment is not in
order because it is not germane, the meaning of the objection is simply
that it (the proposed amendment) is a motion or proposition on a
subject different from that under consideration. This is the test of
admissibility prescribed by the express language of the rule; and if
the Chair upon examination of the bill under consideration and the
proposed amendment, shall be of the opinion that they do not relate to
the same subject, he is bound to sustain the objection and exclude the
amendment, subject, of course, to the revisory power of the Committee
of the Whole on appeal.
``It is not always easy to determine whether or not a proposed
amendment relates to a subject different from that under consideration,
within the meaning of the rule, and it is especially difficult to do so
when, as in the present instance, the amendment may, by reason of the
terms it employs, appear to have a remote relation to the original
subject.''
That an amendment be germane means that it must be akin to, or
relevant to, the subject matter of the bill. It must be an amendment
that would appropriately be considered in connection with the bill. The
object of the rule requiring amendments to be germane--and such a rule
has been adopted in practically every legislative body in the United
States--is in the interest of orderly legislation. Its purpose is to
prevent hasty and ill-considered legislation, to prevent propositions
being presented for the consideration of the body which might not
reasonably be anticipated and for which the body might not be properly
prepared.
The provision in this bill to which the amendment is offered
provides:
``That all moneys received from royalties and rentals under the
provisions of this act, excepting those from Alaska, shall be paid
into, reserved, and appropriated as a part of the reclamation fund
created by the act of Congress approved June 17, 1902, known as the
reclamation act, but after use thereof in the construction of
reclamation works and upon return to the reclamation fund of any such
moneys in the manner provided by the reclamation act and acts
amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto, 50 per cent of the amounts
derived from such royalties and rentals so utilized in and returned to
the reclamation fund shall be paid by the Secretary of the Treasury
after the expiration of each fiscal year to the State within the
boundaries of which the leased lands or deposits are or were located,
said moneys to be used by such State for the support of public schools
or other educational institutions, or for the construction of public
improvements, as the legislature of the State may direct.''
Any amendment to a section which is relevant to the subject matter,
and which may be said to be properly and logically suggested in the
perfecting of the section in the carrying out of the intent of the
bill, would be germane to the bill and thus in order. To determine
whether an amendment is relevant and germane, while not always easy,
can best be done by applying certain simple tests. If it be apparent
that the amendment proposes some modification of the bill, or of any
part of it, which from the declared purposes of the bill could not
reasonably have been anticipated and which can not be said to be a
logical sequence of the matter contained in the bill, and is not such a
modification as would naturally suggest itself to the legislative body
considering the bill, the amendment can not be said to be germane.
Sec. 2993
It seems to the Chair that applying these tests to the amendment of
the gentleman from Illinois to determine whether it is germane, the
question to be answered is whether the amendment is relevant,
appropriate, and a natural and logical sequence to the subject matter
of the bill. It is quite clear to the Chair that the amendment can not
be so characterized, and that the committee could not have anticipated
or reasonably expected that to a proposition that the money to be
derived from the royalties of the leases, authorized to be made under
this legislation, should be put in the reclamation fund, a well-
established fund created for specific and definite purposes; that a
proposition to create a new fund, to be known as the ``national good-
roads fund,'' could be considered as a natural, appropriate, relevant,
and logical sequence to the proposal in the bill; and therefore the
Chair sustains the point of order.
Mr. Mann having appealed from the decision of the Chair, the decision
was sustained--yeas 59, nays 0.
Mr. Irvine L. Lenroot, of Wisconsin, then proposed this amendment:
Provided, That any moneys which may accrue to the United States under
the provisions of the act from lands within the naval petroleum
reserves shall be set aside for the needs of the Navy and deposited in
the Treasury to the credit of a fund to be known as the ``Navy
petroleum fund,'' which fund shall be applied to the needs of the Navy
as Congress may from time to time direct by appropriation or otherwise.
Mr. Mann made the point of order that the amendment was not germane.
The Chairman said:
The Chair intended, in making his former ruling, to call attention to
a decision of Mr. Speaker Clark made on June 23, 1914. On that occasion
there was under consideration a Senate amendment in which it was
proposed to provide that the proceeds of the sale of certain ships
should be appropriated to build an additional battleship. To that
amendment there was proposed an amendment providing that the money
should be available for the construction of good roads. Mr. Speaker
Clark held that that amendment was not in order, because it was not
germane.
Very frequently the difficulty in reaching a conclusion as to whether
an amendment is germane arises from the fact that while the proposed
amendment is somewhat similar to the subject matter of the bill, the
particular predilection of Members favorable to the amendment makes
them reason themselves into a frame of mind to believe the amendment to
be germane without careful analysis of its relation to the matter
proposed to be amended. Under the act of June, 1910, the president is
authorized to withdraw public lands for any public purposes. While it
does not appear on the face of this bill that certain lands have been
withdrawn for the purpose of providing oil for the Navy, it is a matter
well within the knowledge of the Chair and of Members generally that
such action has been taken. Suppose the President had also withdrawn
public lands and set them aside to be utilized as military reservations
or as forest reserves or for park or some other purpose, would
amendments be in order to this provision which would provide that the
royalties of any leases of such lands should be segregated in the
Treasury and dedicated to the development of military reservations or
of public parks or for some other public purpose assigned as the reason
in the order of withdrawal made by the President? It seems to the Chair
that such proposals could not reasonably be anticipated, nor could they
be held as logical sequences to the provision in the bill.
The meaning of the word ``germane'' is akin to, or near to, or
appropriate to, or relevant to, and ``germane'' amendments must bear
such relationship to the provisions of the bill as well as meet the
other tests; that is, that they be a natural and logical sequence to
the subject matter, and propose such modifications as would naturally,
properly, and reasonably by anticipated. The Chair has been unable to
find any comprehensive definition of the term ``germane'' as used in a
parliamentary sense. It is not easy to define, and it is difficult to
state concisely, yet comprehensively, the rule to be applied to
determine unerringly whether amendments are germane. The Chair believes
that the true rule, and the tests to be used in applying it, have been
here epitomized.
The fundamental purpose of this bill is not to provide revenue and to
dedicate or segregate it in the Treasury. The fundamental purpose of
the bill is ``to authorize exploration for and dis-
Sec. 2994
position of coal, phosphates, oil, gas, potassium, or sodium,'' and the
segregation of the proceeds of the leases authorized is merely
incidental to the general scheme of the legislation.
The amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin provides that ``any
moneys which may accrue to the United States under the provisions of
this act from lands within the naval petroleum reserve shall be set
aside for the needs of the Navy and deposited in the Treasury to the
credit of the fund to be known as the Navy petroleum fund, which fund
shall be applied to the needs of the Navy as Congress may from time to
time direct by appropriation or otherwise.''
To simplify determining whether this amendment is in order, without
changing its fundamental purpose, let it be assumed that instead of
designating this fund as a ``Navy petroleum fund'' it were to be
designated as a ``Navy battleship fund,'' and to be applied by
appropriation or otherwise by Congress to the needs of the Navy. The
Chair does not believe that it would be seriously argued that the
creation of such a fund as an amendment to this provision would be
considered germane. The mere designation of the fund as a Navy
petroleum fund, because this bill applies to oil leases, while perhaps
confusing, does not change the character of the amendment. It would be
no different if it were proposed that royalties from leases made of
parts of public lands reserved for military purposes be placed in the
Treasury for the support of the Army, or of lands reserved for health
purposes be applied for the support of the Public Health Service. The
very suggestion of such amendments clarifies the situation and, in the
opinion of the Chair, obviates any difficulty in determining the
question of order. In the opinion of the Chair the amendment is not
germane, and the Chair sustains the point of order.
2994. The a resolution to approve the report of a committee an
amendment providing for disapproval of the report and amendment of an
existing law was held not to be germane.
On January 29, 1913,\1\ the House was considering the joint
resolution S. J. Res. 158, reading as follows:
Resolved, etc., That the plan, design, and location for a Lincoln
memorial, determined upon and recommended to Congress December 4, 1912,
by the commission created by the act entitled ``An act to provide a
commission to secure plans and designs for a monument or memorial to
the memory of Abraham Lincoln, '' approved February 9, 1911, be and the
same are hereby, approved.
Mr. Thetus W. Sims, of Tennessee, offered this amendment:
Strike out the word ``approve'' and insert ``disapprove, and that a
memorial arch on Sixteenth Street at a suitable point north of the
intersection of U Street and Sixteenth Street, at a cost not to exceed
$2,000,000, be erected instead of the building provided by the
commission.''
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, raised a question of order against
the amendment and said:
This resolution is a resolution providing:
``That the plan, design, and location for a Lincoln memorial,
determined, upon and recommended to Congress December 4, 1912, by the
commission created by the act,'' referred to in the resolution, ``be,
and the same are hereby, approved.''
The act referred to in the resolution is an act approved February 9,
1911, which the Speaker will find in Thirty-sixth Statutes at Large,
page 898. That was passed in the last Congress. That act provides that
the gentlemen named in the act are created a commission to secure and
determine upon a location, plan, and design for a monument or memorial
in the city of Washington, D.C., to the memory of Abraham Lincoln,
subject to the approval of Congress. Section 3 of the act provides--
``That the construction of the monument or memorial herein and hereby
authorized shall be upon such site as shall be determined by the
commission herein created and approved by Congress.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Third session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 2250.
Sec. 2995
The resolution pending before the House is simply a resolution to
approve the location, the plan, and the design on the report of the
commission which has been submitted to Congress in conformity with the
act. It is not a resolution to amend the original act; it does not
propose to amend the original act at all, but it is simply a resolution
in accordance with the provisions of the original act to approve the
plans which have been submitted by the commission.
The Speaker \1\ ruled:
The pending resolutions is very simple. It is simply to approve
certain findings of that commission; that one proposition and nothing
else.
The present occupant of the chair has ruled more than once that where
a law contains several sections and some gentleman brings in a bill to
amend one section of that law only, then the House can not wander
around and undertake in that bill to amend other sections of that law,
because there must be an end and a limit to all things. The statute
provides that the Lincoln monument or memorial shall be ``in the
District of Columbia.'' That settles that part of it. I do not believe
that under that statute you can go outside the District of Columbia. I
do not believe that a fair, careful reading of this resolution will
permit any amendment providing for passing on another memorial in the
city of Washington or out of it.
There are various ways of defeating this proposition. The first step,
if the House desires to take it, is to vote this resolution down. Any
step might be taken after that. There are two ways of getting rid
entirely of this limitation as to the District of Columbia. One of them
is by a bill amending the statute creating the commission, and another
by a joint resolution, which is tantamount to a bill, for the same
purpose. Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.
2995. The burden of proof of the germaneness of an amendment rests
upon its proponents.
Propositions however closely related are not necessarily germane.
To a proposal to fix the commencement of the terms of Representatives
in Congress a proposition to extend the duration of such terms is not
germane.
On March 8, 1928,\2\ during the consideration of the joint resolution
(S. J. Res. 47) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States fixing the commencement of the terms of President and
Vice President and Members of Congress, and fixing the time of the
assembling of Congress, in the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, offered an
amendment proposing to increase the terms of Members to four years.
Mr. C. William Ramseyer, of Iowa, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the joint resolution.
Mr. Bankhead proposed to yield to Mr. Ramseyer for debate when Mr.
Ramseyer submitted that the burden of proof of germaneness rested on
the proponents of the amendment.
The Chairman \3\ agreed:
The burden to show that it is in order is on the gentleman from
Alabama. The Chair thinks the gentleman from Alabama would also be
entitled to rebut the arguments made in behalf of the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\2\ First session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 4368.
\3\ Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, Chairman.
Sec. 2995
After debate the Chairman ruled:
The Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union has before
it for consideration the text of the committee substitute for the
Senate Joint Resolution 47. This substitute being read for the purpose
of amendment, the gentleman from Alabama offers the following
amendment:
``Sec. 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
chosen every fourth year by the people of the several States.''
To this a point of order is made that the amendment is repugnant to
the provisions of the rule on germaneness, which reads as follows:
``And no motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
In order to determine whether this amendment is on a subject
different from that under consideration it is necessary to examine the
subject matter of the legislative proposition to which it is offered as
an amendment. An examination of the entire article shows that it is
composed of four sections having two distinct and definite purposes.
Sections 1 and 2 provide that the term of the President shall commence
on the 24th day of January and the terms of Senators and
Representatives shalll commence on the 4th day of January, instead of
as now on the 4th day of March, and that the Congress shall assemble on
the 4th day of January, instead of as now on the first Monday of
December. That is the distinct proposition involved in the first two
sections, the reason for the proposition being to abolish the session
of Congress after its successor has been elected and to bring the
session of the new Congress nearer the date of election, so that the
Congress will be more responsive to the will of the people.
The other proposition deals entirely with who shall exercise the
powers of the Chief Executive and perform his duties in the event of
the failure to elect the President, Vice President, or both, or in the
event of the death of the President elect, or the Vice President elect,
or both. These are the distinct and clear-cut propositions involved in
the article, and there are no other propositions.
There is no proposition to alter permanently the length of the terms
of any of the officers dealt with, either President, Vice President,
Members of the Senate, or Members of the House. While in one instance
throughout the future history of the country the terms of these
officers are shortened by two months, that is merely incident to moving
forward the date of the assembling of Congress and the abolition of the
session of Congress subsequent to election.
Now, an examination of the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Alabama shows that its effect not only deals with the length of the
term of the members but necessarily affects the make-up of the Senate
and of the Congress. Although the Constitution does not in express
words say so, it is a necessary result of the structure of our
legislature as laid down in the Constitution that a Congress begins
with the term of the Members of the House of Representatives and ends
with the expiration of the term of the Members of the House of
Representatives. That is not the case with the Senate, because the
Senate is considered a continuing body, one-third of its Members going
out every two years.
So, if this amendment were adopted, it would result in this, that
where now in each Congress every member of the Senate and every Member
of the House is a Member at the beginning and remains a Member of the
Senate and House until the expiration of Congress, we would have a
situation where one-third of the Members of the Senate who began with
the Congress would go out in the middle of its work and one-third of
the membership of the Senate would come in when the work of the
Congress was half done. That shows that this proposition involves not
merely the length of the term of the Members of the House of
Representatives, and for that reason might be deemed germane to section
1, but other consequences by reason of which it could not be held
germane to section 1.
As to the doctrine of germaneness, the Chair has diligently refreshed
his memory from the precedents, and will refer first to the decision of
former Speaker John G. Carlisle, to which reference has been made.
Mr. Carlisle, prior to this election as Speaker, frequently served as
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
and in that capacity in 1880 he rendered a decision in which he
discussed at great length the rule requiring amendments to be germane.
Sec. 2995
``When, therefore, it is objected that a proposed amendment is not in
order because it is not germane, the meaning of the objection is simply
that it (the proposed amendment) is a motion or proposition on a
subject different from that under consideration. This is the test of
admissibility prescribed by the express language of the rule; and if
the Chair, upon an examination of the bill under consideration and the
proposed amendment, shall be of the opinion that they do not relate to
the same subject, he is bound to sustain the objection and exclude the
amendment.''
Representative Fitzgerald, on September 22, 1914, in passing on a
point of order that an amendment is not germane, among other things
said:
``If it be apparent that the amendment proposed some modification of
the bill, or of any part of it, which from the declared purposes of the
bill could not reasonably have been anticipated and which can not be
said to be a logical sequence of the matter contained in the bill, and
is not such a modification as could naturally suggest itself to the
legislative body considering the bill, the amendment can not be said to
be germane.''
The question might arise whether the doctrine as to germaneness
applies to an amendment to the Constitution, and for that reason the
Chair directs attention to precedent to be found in the fifth volume of
Hinds', paragraph 5882.
It will be observed that the proposition then pending to amend the
Constitution was substantially the same proposition that is pending at
the present time. The difference between the amendment of the gentleman
from Alabama and the amendment held not germane by Mr. Speaker Crisp is
that the manner of the election of the Members of the Senate was sought
to be added to the propositions then, and the lengthening of the term
of Members of the House of Representatives is sought to be appended to
similar propositions on this occasion.
Just a word further with respect to the germaneness of this amendment
to the text of the committee substitute. The Chair calls attention to
the language used on September 19, 1918, by Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of
Tennessee, presiding in the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union, on the question of germaneness. He said:
``The present occupant of the chair had the honor of presiding as
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole when the amendment was proposed
to create the Tariff Commission as a part of a revenue bill. The point
of order was made, and the Chair held generally that the meaning of the
expression `germaneness' under the facts that were presented was that
the fundamental purpose of the amendment must be germane to the
fundamental purpose of the bill.''
The Chair commends that language to the House--``that the fundamental
purpose of the amendment must be germane to the fundamental purpose of
the bill.''
The proposition is now advanced, however, that while the amendment
may not be germane to the provisions of the subject matter under
consideration, inasmuch as the resolution under consideration amends
the Constitution in several particulars, it, therefore, is in order to
amend it in any particular, although the amendment may not be germane
to the amendments carried in the resolution itself. That is based on a
doctrine which is frequently reiterated in this House, that if a bill
amends a law in several particulars, the law may be amended by an
amendment to the bill in all particulars. The Chair has been unable to
find substantial authority for this doctrine. In discussing this
contention, Mr. Speaker Clark, on December 5, 1912, stated his opinion
very succinctly. He said:
``The rule is not that if there are two substantive propositions in
the bill you can add anything else to it.''
Mr. Speaker Gillett, on June 19, 1919, speaking on this phase of the
question of germaneness, said:
``That although more than one clause or section of a law is amended,
that fact does not necessarily bring the whole law before the House,
but the law itself is only subject to amendment when the propositions
under consideration are numerous and go to the heart of the law and
change the law in a vital way.''
``It is insisted that these proposed amendments do not go to the
heart of our Constitution or change it in a vital way. The gentleman
from Alabama in his argument has referred to the decision found in
Hinds' Precedents, volume 5, section 5824. The Chair is familiar with
that decision and
Sec. 2995
calls attention to the situation that led to the ruling upon which the
gentleman from Alabama relies. In holding an amendment to the original
law in order because the bill under consideration amended the original
law in various particulars the Speaker pro tempore, who was Mr.
Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, said this:
``It is apparent from even a casual examination of the bill that it
is a general amendatory bill. Section 1 relates to clause 15 of section
1 of the existing bankruptcy law; section 2 relates to clause 5 of
section 2 of the existing bankruptcy law; section 3 relates to clause 4
of subdivision A of section 3 of the bankruptcy law; section 6 relates
to section 17, and section 10 relates to section 40, and so on,
skipping from section to section throughout the entire law, without
regard to the particular relation of these sections to each other. In
other words, 16 sections in all of the 70 sections of the bankruptcy
law are here sought to be amended, or more than one-fourth of the
entire law.''
In other words, the decision upon which reliance is placed for the
doctrine was in a case where the bill under consideration revised
generally the original law.
Mr. Sidney Anderson, on June 10, 1921, in passing on an amendment to
a bill amending the war risk insurance act in various particulars, the
amendment under consideration applying to a section of the original
act, not dealt with by the pending bill, said:
``The Chair does not think that the general rule can be laid down
that where several portions of a law are amended by a bill reported by
a committee, it is not in any case in order to amend another section of
the bill not included in the bill reported by the committee nor does
the Chair think that the opposite rule can be laid down and rigidly
applied in every instance. The Chair thinks that a question of this
kind must be determined in every instance in the light of the facts
which are presented in the case.''
The point of order was sustained.
Chairman Stafford, on December 10, 1921, in passing on a similar
point of order as now under consideration, said:
``The gentleman invokes the rule that because the bill under
consideration amends two or three provisions of the Judicial Code,
therefore it is in order to amend all or any section of the entire
Judicial Code. The Chair can not subscribe to that doctrine, since it
would violate the fundamental principles that guide the procedure of
the House in the consideration of questions that come up from time to
time.''
The Chair has fortified himself with many other precedents, but does
not deem it necessary to go further into an exposition of what the
records disclose.
In order to point out the fact that the decision that the Chair is
about to render is not based on the decisions only of certain presiding
officers, the Chair calls attention to the fact that a decision was
made on this very point on May 20, 1920, and that an appeal therefrom
was taken, and the decision at that time, holding that the amendment
was not germane, was sustained by an almost two to one vote; so that
the highest authority that can exist for the ruling that the Chair
indicates he is about to make, is the decision of the House itself, on
an appeal, sitting in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union.
On that occasion a bill containing a series of amendments to the war
risk insurance act was under consideration, dealing with various
matters of administration but not with the beneficiaries or the
benefits provided for in the act. Mr. Sims of Tennessee offered an
amendment to include a certain class within the beneficiaries under the
act. The point of order that the amendment was not germane was
sustained.
The decision was made by the present incumbent of the chair, who
reads it not because it has intrinsic merit but that it may be known
just what question was involved in the precedent established by the
House itself:
On May 20, 1920, Mr. Lehlbach ruled as follows:
``The amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Sims, reads:
`` `That section 401 of the war risk insurance act is amended as
follows:
`` `The Chair presumes the intent is to add to the end of section 401
this additional proviso.
The bill under consideration is a bill to improve the facilities and
service of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance and further amending and
modifying the war risk insurance act as amended. The first
Sec. 2996
section of the bill provided for the installation of regional offices
and suboffices, and the various other sections of the bill provide for
the mode of administration and method and manner of making payments
under the bill. The bill is entirely within that general scope. It is
not a bill generally amending the war risk insurance act. It does not
amend it in various particulars, but only amends it in the method or
manner of making certain payments; in matters of administration, in
other words. It does not deal with a class of beneficiaries or change
the advantages that beneficiaries may enjoy, nor does it any way define
or modify who such beneficiaries may be. The Chair therefore thinks
that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee is not
within the scope of the bill or any of the provisions of the bill and
is, therefore, not germane, and sustains the point of order.' ''
The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order that this amendment
is not germane to the joint resolution, nor is it in order, under the
rule of germaneness, because the resolution amends the Constitution
itself in various particulars.
Mr. Bankhead having appealed, the decision of the Chair was
sustained. On division, yeas 207, nays 33.
2996. A proposition is not necessarily germane because related to the
subject under consideration.
To a bill providing for reapportionment of Representatives in
Congress an amendment authorizing redistricting of States in accord
with such apportionment is not germane.
An instance in which a bill was considered in the House under the
provisions of a special order without having been reported by a
standing committee.
The rule on germaneness is not affected by the manner in which a bill
is brought before the House or the fact that it has not had previous
consideration by a standing committee.
On June 6, 1929,\1\ when the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (S. 312) to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial
censuses, and to provide for apportionment of Representatives in
Congress, the Chairman \2\ announced that a point of order by Mr. John
J. O'Connor, of New York, was pending against an amendment proposed by
Mr. Daniel A. Reed, of New York.
At the instance of the Chair the amendment was again reported as
follows:
Provided, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to
prevent the legislature of any State (subject, however, to the
initiative and referendum law in any State wherein such a law exists)
at any time after the approval of this act, in order to secure
contiguous and compact territory and equalization of population in
accordance with the rules enumerated in section 3 of the apportionment
act, approved August 8, 1911, by concurrent resolution, from
redistricting the State for the purpose of electing Representatives to
Congress, and upon each and every such redistricting the
Representatives to Congress shall in any such State be elected from the
new districts so formed.
Mr. Burton L. French, of Idaho, in debating the point of order took
the position that as the bill under consideration proposed to repeal
certain sections of the law relating to the apportionment of
Representatives in Congress it was therefore in
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 2444.
\2\ Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 2996
order to offer amendments relating to other sections of the same law,
including the section relating to redistricting.
Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, took the further position
that in view of the fact that the bill had not been considered and
reported by a standing committee the rule of germaneness did not apply
with its usually strictness, and said:
We are operating at the present moment under unusual and
extraordinary conditions by reason of the fact that the committee which
would ordinarily have had jurisdiction of the bill has not been
appointed by the House, and therefore the bill is now before the House
and the Committee of the Whole under a special rule, never having been
considered by a committee.
The rules of the House which would ordinarily guide the Chair in
deciding the germaneness of the amendment can not be applied, because
the rules of the House contemplate that every bill which comes from the
Senate goes through the ordinary legislative channels of the House, one
of which is to be referred to a committee having jurisdiction of the
subject matter, and from that committee reported to the House and from
the House considered in the Committee of the Whole. That is not the
fact here. Therefore, the Chair can not approach this question under
the ordinary rules or precedents of the House established when we have
committees and a committee has considered the bill. The Chairman in
this instance is exactly in the same position that a chairman of a
committee would be. If this amendment were offered in the Census
Committee, and the point of order were made, clearly the chairman of
that committee would hold that it is germane, that it is related, that
it does pertain to the subject matter of the bill, and would hold it in
order. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole in this instance is
in exactly that position, because the Committee of the Whole is acting
in the capacity of a House committee considering a bill in the first
instance. We have no Census Committee functioning. It was therefore
necessary to bring in a special rule setting aside all the rules of the
House, in order to bring this bill properly before the House and for
consideration in the Committee of the Whole.
The Chairman held:
With reference to the suggestion of the gentleman from New York the
Chair will say that in the view which the Chair takes of the present
situation there is no difference in the application of the rules of the
House in regard to the subject of germaneness by reason of the fact
that this bill has not been considered by the standing committees of
the House. The Chair thinks that the effect of the special rule adopted
by the House for the consideration of this bill was merely to bring the
bill before the House without the intervention of the action of a
standing committee, and, of course, in contravention of the ordinary
rules of the House. In that connection the Chair is very distinctly of
the opinion that all amendments, whether made by a standing committee
having jurisdiction of the subject matter to either a House bill or a
Senate bill or offered on the floor of the Committee of the Whole, are
equally subject to the rule of germaneness.
There is nothing in the present bill which relates to the subject
matter of the amendment which subject matter is the action of State
legislatures and of State authorities in redistricting a State upon the
basis of a reapportionment of Members of the House made by Congress.
The Chair takes it that no one now is prepared to claim that there is
anything in the bill pending before us (S. 312) which directly relates
to the matter of the redistricting of the States.
However, the gentleman now claims that the provision in section 21 is
applicable, which reads as follows:
``That the act entitled `An act to provide for the fourteenth and
subsequent decennial censuses,' approved March 3, 1919, and all other
laws and parts of laws inconsistent with the provisions of this act are
hereby repealed.''
The gentleman calls attention to that provision and claims that that
relates to certain sections of the act of August 8, 1911, which bore on
the subject of redistricting by the States, but it seems to the Chair
that the gentleman overlooked the effect of the words--``all other laws
and parts of laws inconsistent with the provisions of this act are
hereby repealed.''
If there is nothing in this bill relating to redistricting, then
there can be nothing in it which is inconsistent with the act of 1911
on that subject. There can be no repeal by this bill of any law
Sec. 2997
or parts of laws which are not inconsistent with that act on the
subject of redistricting by State legislatures.
All the way through every provision of the act of August 8, 1911,
relates to ``this apportionment''; that is, the apportionment provided
for in the act of August 8, 1911.
Therefore, it seems to the Chair very clearly that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York is not germane to the pending
bill; and the Chair sustains the point of order.
2997. A specific proposition may not be amended by a general
provision.
To a paragraph applying to one bureau in the Navy Department an
amendment applying to the Navy Department as a whole was held not to be
germane.
On February 28, 1920,\1\ the House was considering Senate amendment
No. 34 to the second deficiency appropriation bill, reading as follows:
bureau of construction and repair
For the preservation and completion of vessels on the stocks and in
ordinary, etc., including the same objects specified under this head in
the naval appropriation act for the fiscal year 1920, $3,000,000.
Mr. George Holden Tinkham, of Massachusetts, offered this amendment:
Provided, That such parts of this appropriation as in the judgment of
the Secretary of the Navy may be necessary may be applied to the
objects of expenditure specified in the appropriations for various
bureaus of the department for the fiscal year 1920.
Mr. James. W. Good, of Iowa, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
The Speaker \2\ held:
The Chair sustains the points of order. The Chair thinks that clearly
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts extends this
appropriation, which is made for yards and docks over the whole Navy
Department, and is subject to the ruling which was made in the
committee on this subject.
2998. A general provision is not in order as an amendment to a
specific proposition.
To a bill relating to a specific class of canned goods an amendment
dealing with canned goods in general was not admitted.
On May 7, 1930,\3\ the House had under consideration the bill (H. R.
730) to amend section 8 of the pure food and drugs act.
Mr. Franklin Menges, of Pennsylvania, offered an amendment reading:
Provided, That the standards of quality and condition for any canned
foods which have been or which in the future may be established by or
under authority of any other act of Congress shall be and are hereby
adopted for the purpose of this act as the official standards of the
United States for canned foods.
Mr. Carl Chindblom, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill and argued:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3647.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 8532.
Sec. 2999
I wish to call the attention of the Speaker to the language in the
proposed amendment to section 8 of the pure food and drugs act:
``For the purposes of this paragraph the words canned food mean all
food which is in hermetically sealed containers and is sterilized by
heat, except meat and meat food products, which are subject to the
provisions of the meat inspection act of March 4, 1907 (34 Stat. 1260),
as amended, and except canned milk.''
Then, I call the attention of the Chair to the following words, which
follow immediately:
``The word class means and is limited to a generic product for which
a standard is to be established, and does not mean a grade, variety, or
species of a generic product. The Secretary of Agriculture is
authorized to determine, establish, and promulgate, from time to time,
a reasonable standard of quality, condition, and/or fill of container
for each class of canned food as will in his judgment promote honesty
and fair dealing in the interest of the consumer; and he is authorized
to alter or modify such standard from time to time as in his judgment
honesty and fair dealing in the interest of the consumer may require.''
All of these provisions are limited to class, and the term ``class''
is specifically defined to be limited to a generic product and does not
include a grade, variety, or species of a generic product. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is not limited to
class. It includes grades, varieties, and species of classes; that is,
of generic products.
Every other act which has been passed by Congress relates to canned
foods, aside from the pure food and drugs act, which alone is amended
by the pending bill. Therefore, it goes beyond the purposes of the bill
as reported by the committee, and is subject to the objection which I
am making.
The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order on the ground that:
The class of defined in this act and that the amendment of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania goes beyond the class as defined in the
bill.
2999. To an amendment affecting one item in a paragraph a proposed
substitute affecting all items in the paragraph was held not germane.
On April 8, 1909,\2\ the bill H. R. 1438, the tariff bill, was being
considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, offered an amendment
changing the proposed duty on one item in a paragraph comprising a
number of similar items.
To this amendment Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, moved an
amendment as follows:
Provided, That only 50 per cent of all the other rates of duty in
this paragraph shall be collected for a period of ten years next
ensuing after the date on which the act shall take effect.
Mr. Payne made the point of order that the proposed amendment was not
germane to the pending amendment to which offered.
The Chairman \3\ ruled:
The committee amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
applies only to the duty on decalcomanias in ceramic colors, and
proposes to change the rate from $2.50 to 80 cents. Now, the amendment
to the amendment as offered by the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Fitzgerald, does not relate to that item at all, but in express terms
relates only to ``all other'' rates in the paragraph.
This question is analogous to the question which was raised when the
present occupant was in the Chair during the consideration of the
Philippine tariff bill in 1906. The bill related only to sugar coming
from the Philippine Islands.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
\2\ First session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1229.
\3\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
Sec. 3000
An amendment was offered relating to sugar coming from other
countries. The present occupant of the chair ruled that the amendment
was not germane. The bill and the amendment were subjects of great
controversy and some feeling; an appeal was taken from the decision of
the Chair, and the Chair was sustained by a vote of nearly two to one
(5 Hinds' Precedents, 5857). The Chair has no hesitation in ruling that
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is not germane to
the committee amendment to which it is offered.
3000. To a proposition to impose a penalty an amendment imposing
additional and unrelated penalties is not germane.
To a bill providing for the deportation of aliens avoiding the draft
law an amendment prohibiting the acquiring title to real estate was
held not to be germane.
On February 13, 1918,\1\ the bill (H. R. 5667) providing for the
deportation of aliens failing to comply with the requirements of the
draft law was under consideration in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union, when Mr. Richard Wayne Parker, of New
Jersey, offered the following amendment providing that such aliens:
Shall forever be denied the right of acquiring any interest or
estate, legal or equitable, in any lands within the United States or
any of its possessions.
Mr. John L. Burnett, of Alabama, raised the question of order that
the amendment was not germane.
The Chairman \2\ tentatively held the amendment to be in order but
after debate said:
On second thought the Chair believes that the amendment is out of
order. Here is an authority in the Manual:
``One individual proposition may not be amended by another individual
proposition, even though the two belong to the same class.''
This is adding another penalty to the same class, and the Chair holds
it out of order.
3001. To a bill designed to prohibit speculation in cotton an
amendment adding wheat and corn was held not to be germane.
On July 16, 1912,\3\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 56) to
prohibit transmission of certain messages by telephone, telegraph, and
cable, when the Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 2. That it shall be unlawful for any person to send or cause to
be sent any message offering to make or enter into a contract for the
purchase or sale for future delivery of cotton without intending that
such cotton shall be actually delivered or received, or offering to
make or enter into a contract whereby any party thereto, or any party
for whom or in whose behalf such contract is made, acquires the right
or privilege to demand in the future the acceptance or delivery of
cotton without being thereby obligated to accept or to deliver such
cotton; and the transmission of any message relating to any such
transaction is hereby declared to be an interference with commerce
among the States and Territories and with foreign nations.
Mr. Thomas L. Rubey, of Missouri, offered this amendment:
Sec. 2. That it shall be unlawful for any person to send or cause to
be sent any message offering to make or enter into a contract for the
purchase or sale for future delivery of cotton, grain,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2076.
\2\ Joseph J. Russell, of Missouri, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 9142.
Sec. 3001
or other farm product without intending that such cotton, grain, or
other farm product shall be actually delivered or received, or offering
to make or enter into a contract whereby any party thereto or any party
for whom or in whose behalf such contract is made or acquires the right
or privilege to demand in the future the acceptance or delivery of
cotton, grain, or other farm product without specifying the grade to be
delivered, and being thereby obligated to accept or to deliver such
cotton, grain, or other farm product of the grades and quantities
specified in said contract, and a settlement of a contract by the
payment of a margin shall constitute prima facie evidence of a
violation of this section; and the transmission of any message relating
to any such transaction is hereby declared to be an unlawful
interference with commerce among the States, Territories, insular
possessions, District of Columbia, and with foreign nations.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After extended debate, the Speaker\1\ ruled:
If the Chair chose to do so, he could find precedents in the action
of eminent Speakers whereby he could submit this question to the House.
Mr. Speaker Blaine, one of the greatest men who ever occupied the
Speaker's chair, did that on more than one occasion. The Chair had two
or three hours' notice that this question would probably be raised, and
the Chair examined all the precedents, and they all run one way.
The parliamentary situation is this: The gentleman from Missouri
offers a substitute for section 2 of the bill, by which substitute he
proposes to add wheat, corn, and so forth, to the bill. The
proposition, whether brought in as an amendment or in a motion to
recommit, which is the same thing precisely, must be germane.
Now, it has been held, with reference to the last suggestion made by
the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald that if the other bill--
that is, the one treating of futures in wheat, corn, and several of the
subjects--were pending here, which is general in its character, then we
could add to it by way of amendment the item of cotton. There is no
question whatever about that, if we pay any attention to the
precedents. It has been held, for instance, that if a bill were pending
to admit one Territory into the Union as a State we could not add
another as an amendment; that situation would be identical with the
present situation; but when the proposition was turned around, and
there was a bill that proposed to bring more than one Territory into
the Union as States, then we could add another Territory to that bunch.
All of the decisions run in the same direction, and there are many of
them.
Now, let us apply these precedents to the case before us. What is the
subject matter of the section to which the gentleman from Missouri is
offering an amendment by way of substitute? And what is the subject
matter of this bill? The Chair expresses his own opinion, independent
of this report, that the only thing talked about or treated in this
bill is the question of dealing in cotton futures. The committee must
have known when it presented this report. Here is a paragraph from the
report:
``The purpose of the bill is to restrict, so far as may be, those
transactions on the cotton exchanges of the country which are
recognized as dealing only with the fluctuations in the price of cotton
and which do not involve the actual transfer of the commodity. It does
not seek to prohibit or to interfere with a single legitimate
transaction in cotton.''
The precedent that comes nearest to supporting the contention of the
gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, is one about renovated butter.
The title of the bill under consideration then was in reference to
``oleomargarine and other imitation dairy products.'' Evidently the
distinguished gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Lacey, who happened to be in the
chair at that time, let this amendment about renovated butter come in
under the words ``imitation of dairy products,'' because I know enough
about butter--and most of the Members of this House do, especially
those from the rural districts--to know that renovated butter is
essentially an imitation of butter.
The decision which General Grosvenor rendered about the canals was a
correct decision. The question then under consideration was building a
canal to connect the waters of the Atlantic
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 3002
and the Pacific, and the fact that the original bill referred to the
Nicaragua route and the amendments proposing the Panama route were mere
incidents.
In one case Mr. Speaker Cannon rendered a decision which is in point
here. There was a proposition pending in the House to appropriate money
to get rid of the boll weevil, and the gentleman from Massachusetts,
Mr. Gillett, offered an amendment to appropriate money to get rid of
the gypsy moth. Speaker Cannon ruled that one proposition had nothing
to do with the other.
The matter in controversy here is cotton and cotton futures, and
nothing else, and the point of order made by the gentleman from
Illinois is sustained.
3002. A general subject may be amended by a specific proposition of
the same class.
To a section enumerating a number of requirements to be complied with
in the marketing of certain foodstuffs an amendment providing an
additional requirement of the same class was held to be germane.
On September 27, 1919\1\, the House was in the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union considering the bill (H. R. 9521) to
regulate the preservation and distribution of cold-storage foods.
The Clerk read a section forbidding the sale and distribution of--
Any article of food that is or has been in cold storage, unless such
article of food or the container thereof is plainly and conspicuously
marked in accordance with this act or the regulations under this act,
(1) ``Cold storage,'' (2) with all the dates when put in and when taken
out of cold storage, (3) together with the name and location of all
warehouses in which so stored.
To this section Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, proposed the
following amendment:
After the word ``storage,'' add the following words: ``and the
selling or market price at which the article of food or contents of the
package went into cold storage.''
Mr. Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, made the point of order that the
amendment related to a subject different from that treated by the
pending bill.
After brief debate the Chairman \2\ ruled:
The object of this section is to identify the goods that are in cold
storage, and the chief method of doing it is to determine how they
should be marked. The language of the section is ``marked in accordance
with this act or the regulations under this act--`cold storage.''' The
marks of identification are the date, together with the name and the
location, and this amendment intends to add one other item, viz, the
price. These marks of identification having already been put in the
bill; in the opinion of the Chair, it will be germane to add this
other, the price of the article, and the Chair overrules the point of
order.
3003. A bill dealing with an individual proposition but rendered
general in its scope by amendment is then subject to further amendment
by propositions of the same class.
To a bill providing for food relief in a designated area but rendered
general in its nature by the addition of a second area an amendment
proposing the incorporation of a third area was held to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 6059.
\2\ Simeon D. Fess, of Ohio, Chairman.
Sec. 3004
On April 24, 1928,\1\ while the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union was considering the bill S. 3740, the flood control
bill, providing for flood relief on the Mississippi River, an amendment
was agreed to on motion of Mr. Robert A. Green, of Florida, extending
the scope of the bill to include the Sacramento River.
Subsequently Mr. Green offered an amendment further extending the
operation of the bill as follows:
The sum of $10,000,000 is hereby authorized to be appropriated for
the control of floods in the Florida Everglades.
Mr. Frank R. Reid, of Illinois, having made a point of order against
the amendment, the Chairman\2\ held:
The bill as originally reported to the House dealt solely with the
control of floods on the Mississippi River and its tributaries. An
amendment was submitted by the committee for the control of floods on
the Sacramento River, Calif. This amendment was clearly subject to a
point of order, but no point of order was made, and now it is in the
bill.
The bill now contains two similar projects to control floods in two
different sections of the country. It is a well-known rule of
germaneness that where there are two similar projects, a third project
may be added by a germane amendment. For instance, where two
Territories are admitted to the Union an amendment to admit a third
Territory is in order. In the same way where authority is given for the
construction of buildings in two cities it is perfectly in order to put
in an amendment for a building in a third city. For this reason the
amendment is in order and the point of order is overruled.
3004. To a proposition general in its nature an amendment specific in
character is germane if within the same class.
To a section of the river and harbor bill making a lump-sum
appropriation for the maintenance of river and harbor projects an
amendment designating specifically the projects on which the sum should
be expended was held to be germane.
On January 22, 1920,\3\ while the river and harbor bill was under
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, the Clerk read the following paragraph:
Be it enacted, etc., That the sum of $12,000,000 be, and the same
hereby is, appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, to be immediately available and to be expanded
under the direction of the Secretary of War and the supervision of the
Chief of Engineers, for the preservation and maintenance of existing
river and harbor works and for the prosecution of such projects
heretofore authorized as may be most desirable in the interests of
commerce and navigation.
Mr. Edward E. Denison, of Illinois, moved to strike out the section
and insert in lieu thereof an amendment designating a number of
projects on which the money should be expended.
Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 7121.
\2\ Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1895.
Sec. 3005
After debate the Chairman\1\ ruled:
This is a bill appropriating money for the improvement of rivers and
harbors. Section 1 of the bill provides for a lump-sum appropriation to
be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War. The gentleman
from Illinois offers an amendment to the section by way of substitute
incorporating a lump-sum provision and also providing for certain
specific appropriations. The gentleman from Massachusetts makes the
point of order that the amendment is not germane to the section of the
bill. It is true that certain circumstances might suggest that the
purpose of the amendment is to defeat the purpose of the first section.
The method proposed by the first section is one way of expending the
money provided. The gentleman from Illinois proposes another way of
doing it, and he also provides appropriations for certain improvements
that fall within the class for which the lump-sum appropriation is
made.
The general rule is that specific provisions can be made qualifying a
general provisions in a bill. The Chair holds that the section under
consideration is an appropriation for the improvement of rivers and
harbors generally and for the continuation of certain projects, and it
seems to the Chair that the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois is
germane not only to the subject of the bill itself but also to the
subject under consideration; and the Chair therefore overrules the
point of order.
3005. A bill general in its provisions may be amended by specific
provisions inclusive thereunder.
To a bill providing for a decennial census of the entire population
of the United States a specific provision relating to the alien
population of the United States was admitted as germane.
On June 4, 1929,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union was considering the bill (S. 312) providing for the fifteenth
and subsequent decennial censuses.
Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, offered the following amendment:
In taking such census the Director of the Census shall cause to be
registered the names and addresses of all aliens and shall have entered
upon such registration a statement by each alien showing by what right
or authority of law he had entered the United States.
Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, having lodged a point of
order against the amendment, the Chairman\3\ decided:
While it seems to the Chair that the matter of the registration, so
called, is a little vaguely expressed, its purport in connection with
the context to which it is offered doubtless would be that the census
enumerators would make up lists of the names and addresses of all
aliens, and in connection with those lists would show by what right or
authority of law the aliens had entered the United States. That is a
statistical matter, it seems to the Chair. The section deals with
matters of statistics and enumerates the various things which may be
subjected to a statistical enumeration and ascertainment of facts. It
will be noticed that the section is very broad in the matter of the
subject matter of these statistics and of the enumeration. It is not
limited merely to population, but in addition relates to agriculture,
irrigation, drainage, distribution, unemployment, and in the original
text, to radio sets and mines. With such a large number of items named
in the section as to which statistics may be obtained, it seems to the
Chair that the amendment is merely an enlargement of the general
purposes of the section and therefore is not subject to a point of
order, and the Chair overrules the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James W. Husted, of New York, Chairman.
\2\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 2339.
\3\ Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 3006
3006. A general subject may be amended by a specific proposition
within the subject.
To a bill authorizing an executive to select sites for certain public
institutions an amendment specifically designating the sites is
germane.
On January 22, 1930,\1\ the House had under consideration the bill
(H. R. 6807) establishing two institutions for the confinement of
United States prisoners, providing:
That the Attorney General is hereby authorized and directed to select
forthwith and procure two sites, of not less than 1,000 acres each, and
cause to be erected thereon suitable buildings for two institutions for
the confinement of male persons who have been or shall be convicted of
offenses against the United States.
Mr. John C. Shafer, of Wisconsin, offered an amendment specifically
designating the sites as:
After the word ``sites,'' insert the words ``one in the State of
Idaho and one in the State of Ohio.''
Mr. Tom D. McKeown, of Oklahoma, having objected that the amendment
was not germane, the Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order.
3007. To a proposition general in its nature an amendment specific in
character is germane if subsidiary to the pending proposition.
To a bill authorizing the appointment of a commission to report on
matters relating to the public domain an amendment specifying that the
commission report on a designated area of the public domain is germane.
On January 24, 1930,\3\ the bill (H. R. 6153) authorizing the
President to appoint a commission to study and report on the
conservation and administration of the public domain was being
considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union.
The bill having been read, Mr. James V. McClintic, of Oklahoma,
offered an amendment requiring the investigation by the proposed
Commission of a portion of the public domain known as the Oregon and
California land grant.
In response to a point of order by Mr. Don B. Colton, of Utah, the
Chairman \4\ ruled:
The bill reads:
``That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby,
authorized to appoint a commission to study and report on the
conservation and administration of the public domain.''
And the amendment reads:
``That the commission shall make a full investigation of that part of
the public domain known as the Oregon and California land grant, and
the law which permits such lands to be assessed in favor of certain
counties in the States of Oregon and Washington.''
The amendment, therefore, recites that the lands to which it relates
are a part of the public domain.
The Chairman can not, upon the information that has been furnished
him, determine the exact question whether the lands may be in the
public domain or not. The Chair will have to rely upon the language of
the bill and the language of the amendment, and upon that basis it
seems
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 2141; Journal,
p. 10.
\2\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 2335.
\4\ Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 3008
clear to the Chair that the amendment is germane. Both on their face
relate to the ``public domain,'' whatever that may be.
Secondly, with reference to the question whether to general language
contained in the bill a specific subject included in that language may
be offered by way of amendment, the Chair calls attention to a decision
in paragraph 9848 of Cannon's Precedents, volume 7, reading as follows:
``To a proposition general in its nature, an amendment specific in
character is germane if within the same class''--
and specifically holding as follows:
``To a section of the river and harbor bill making a lump-sum
appropriation for the maintenance of river and harbor projects, an
amendment designating specifically the projects on which the sum should
be expended was held to be germane.''
Under this and similar decisions the Chair will hold the amendment in
order.
3008. To a proposition general in its application an amendment making
specific provision within the proposition may be germane.
To a bill providing a lump-sum appropriation for the prosecution of
authorized river and harbor works an amendment designating specific
works upon which the appropriation should be expended was held to be
germane.
On January 22, 1920,\1\ the question was pending on the passage of
the river and harbor bill, when Mr. John H. Small, of North Carolina,
moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors with
instructions to report it back forthwith with an amendment striking out
the section providing a lump-sum appropriation for the ``prosecution of
such projects heretofore authorized as may be most desirable in the
interests of commerce and navigation'' and inserting in lieu thereof a
section naming specific projects on which the sum so appropriated
should be expended.
Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, raised the question of order that
the projects proposed in the amendment were not referred to or provided
for in the bill and the amendment was not germane.
The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order and said:
The Chair is disposed to think that a general clause making a general
appropriation for the ``prosecution of such projects heretofore
authorized as may be most desirable in the interests of commerce and
navigation'' could fairly be amended by specifically mentioning
projects which are now under construction by the department, and as the
Chair understands this present amendment is confined to existing
projects, the Chair overrules the point of order.
3009. To a proposition general in its nature a specific provision is
germane.
To a resolution requesting the sale of surplus food products an
amendment suggesting a specific plan for such sale was held to be
germane.
On July 29, 1919,\3\ the House had under consideration a resolution
reported by the Select Committee on Expenditures in the War Department
as follows:
Be it resolved, etc., That the Secretary of War be, and is hereby,
requested to place on sale, without delay, the surplus food products in
the hands or under the control of the War Department
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1923.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3356.
Sec. 3010
now stored in the United States, under such plan as will safeguard the
interest of the Government and insure an opportunity to the people of
the United States to purchase the same directly from the Government.
Mr. M. Clyde Kelly, of Pennsylvania, offered this amendment:
After the word ``Government,'' in the last line, strike out the
period, insert a comma and the following: ``And such plan shall include
utilizing the Parcels Post Service.''
Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, having raising a question of
order, the Speaker \1\ ruled:
The original resolution provides: ``That the Secretary of War is
requested to place on sale under such plans as will safeguard the
interests of the Government,'' and so forth.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania offers to amend by adding ``and such
plans shall include utilizing the parcels post.''
The original resolution provides a general plan, and the amendment of
the gentleman from Pennsylvania adds or includes a specific plan. It is
a rule that a general proposition can be amended by a specific one, and
the Chair thinks that this amendment is clearly in order.
3010. To a bill including several propositions of the same class an
amendment adding another proposition of that class is germane.
To a section providing a number of restrictions on the expenditure of
certain funds an amendment adding another restriction was held to be
germane.
On October 16, 1919,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 4438) to provide for
industrial vocational rehabilitation and providing a number of
restrictions upon the expenditure of the fund so appropriated.
Mr. William R. Wood, of Indiana, offered an amendment providing an
additional restriction as follows:
Provided, That if any discrimination is made on account of color,
sex, or religion, in the use of the funds herein authorized, the State
so offending shall forfeit all its rights to further participation in
the benefits provided for in this act.
Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \3\ overruled the point of order and said:
The Chair is inclined to think that if the pending bill as reported
by the committee did not make several reservations or provisions as to
what should be done further reservations would not be in order. But in
view of the fact that this section already makes five reservations the
Chair thinks it is competent for the House by amendment to add one more
reservation to the section. If there was only one reservation, the
Chair does not think it would be competent to add a further reservation
as proposed by the gentleman from Indiana, but under the practice of
the House it seems to the Chair, in view of the language of the bill
making several reservations as to how the money shall be expended, or
as to the conditions under which it shall be expended, that it is well
within the rules of the House for the Committee of the Whole to add one
or more reservations, as it sees proper to do so. The Chair, therefore,
overrules the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\2\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7023.
\3\ Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 3011
3011. A proposition dealing with a number of subjects may be amended
by an additional subject of the same class.
To a section embodying a declaration of policy and including a number
of purposes an amendment proposing to incorporate an additional purpose
was held to be germane.
On April 24, 1929,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 1) to establish a Federal
Farm Board to promote the effective merchandizing of agricultural
commodities in interstate and foreign commerce and to place agriculture
on a basis of economic equality with other industries.
The first section of the bill, embodying the declaration setting
forth a number of purposes which the legislation was intended to
accomplish, being read, Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, offered an
amendment proposing to add another purpose as follows:
to make the tariff effective on such commodities.
Mr. Fred S. Purnell, of Indiana, having raised a point of order, Mr.
Cannon said:
The first section of the bill now pending contains the declaration of
policy. Two purposes are included in that declaration, ``to promote
effective merchandising'' and ``to protect, control, and stabilize
commerce.'' Under the rule a general subject may be amended by specific
propositions of the same class. The proposed amendment embodying a
third policy, ``to make the tariff effective,'' is another specific
proposition of the same class and is therefore in order.
The Chairman \2\ ruled:
The Chair does not understand that the declaration of policy has any
particular effect upon the bill, and in this paragraph containing the
declaration of policy there are several different propositions. This
amendment suggests one more. It seems to the Chair that the amendment
is in order.
The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.
3012. A general subject may be amended by a specific proposition of
the same class.
To a bill providing appropriations for a number of Army camps at
designated locations an amendment providing for an additional camp at
another location was held to be germane.
On December 13, 1919,\3\ the pending question was on the passage of
the Army appropriation bill, including among other provisions
appropriations for the purchase of sites for a number of army camps.
Mr. Warren Gard, of Ohio, offered a motion to recommit the bill to
the Committee on Military Affairs with instructions to that committee
to report it back forth-with with an amendment providing an
appropriation for the acquisition of Dayton-Wright plant and real
estate at Dayton, Ohio, as a site for an air service engineering
experimental station.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 466.
\2\ Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 549.
Sec. 3013
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
The Speaker \1\ said:
The Chair finds the bill makes a number of appropriations for
different fields, and the Chair thinks a provision for the addition of
any field is not subject to a point of order, and therefore overrules
the point of order.
3013. To a proposal embodying a number of individual propositions of
the same class the addition of another individual proposition belonging
to that class may be germane.
To a bill providing for the assignment of district judges and circuit
judges to relieve congestion in the Federal courts an amendment
providing for the assignment of judges of the Court of Customs Appeals
was held to be germane.
On December 10, 1921,\2\ the bill (H. R. 9103) for the appointment of
additional Federal judges was under consideration in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union, when the Clerk read:
That whenever it shall be certified to the Chief Justice of the
United States by the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals of the
District of Columbia or in his absence by an associate justice of said
court of appeals, that on account of the accumulation or urgency of
business in said district it is impracticable for the judges of the
supreme court of said district to relieve such accumulation or urgency
of business the Chief Justice of the United States may, if in his
judgment the public interests so require, designate, and appoint the
judge of any district court in any circuit to sit in the Supreme Court
of the District of Columbia and to have and to exercise within said
district to which he is so assigned the same powers as are vested in a
supreme judge thereof.
Mr. Andrew J. Volstead, of Minnesota, proposed the following
amendment to be inserted as a new section:
The judges of the United States Court of Customs Appeals, or any of
them, whenever the business of that court will permit, may, if in the
judgment of the Chief Justice of the United States the public interest
so requires, be designated and assigned by said Chief Justice for
service from time to time and until he shall otherwise direct, in the
district court of any district or the Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia or the court of appeals of said district, when so requested by
the judge thereof, or in courts with more than one judge when requested
by the senior judge or chief justice thereof, and the judge so assigned
shall exercise and is hereby vested with all powers, jurisdiction,
rights, and duties conferred by law upon the judge of the court to
which he may be assigned.
Mr. Otis Wingo, of Arkansas, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
After debate the Chairman \3\ overruled the point of order and said:
The bill under consideration, so far as the assignment of judges is
concerned, provides not only for assignment of district judges, but in
section 6, for the assignment of circuit judges to relieve the
congested conditions in various district courts.
If the bill under consideration were restricted merely to the
appointment of district judges, it might be argued that, as it applied
only to one class, it would not be in order to provide for the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 207.
\3\ William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, Chairman.
Sec. 3014
designation of another class. but as there are two classes of judges
that may be designated to district courts, it comes within that
familiar rule where when a bill provides for more than one class, a
third class may be added. The Chair overrules the point of order.
3014. To a bill providing for several departments of service in the
Army an amendment providing an addition for a transportation service
was held to be germane.
On March 12, 1920,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 12775) to reorganize the
Army, including in its provisions authorizations specific and several,
for the General Staff, the Adjutant General's Department, the Inspector
General's Department, the Judge Advocate General's Department, the
Quartermaster Corps, the Finance Department, the Medical Department,
the Corps of Engineers, the Ordnance Department, the Chemical Warfare
Service, the Signal Corps, the Air Service, and the Bureau of Insular
Affairs.
Mr. Charles C. Kearns, of Ohio, offered an amendment to be inserted
as a new section providing for a separate transportation service.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, submitted that the amendment was not
germane to the bill.
The Chairman \2\ overruled the point of order.
3015. To a bill to pay several employees of the Government,
specifically named, for injuries received while in discharge of duty an
amendment to pay another employee for such injury was held to be
germane.
On February 3, 1911,\3\ the House was considering the bill (H. R.
26367) for the relief of injured Government employees, providing for
the payment of claims of 26 designated employees of the Government
injured in the line of duty.
Mr. D. R. Anthony, Jr., of Kansas, offered an amendment to be added
as a new paragraph as follows:
That the sum of $5,000 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated for
the relief of Catherine Ratchford, because of the death of her son,
James Ratchford, on or about the 7th day of August, 1895, caused by the
injuries received by him on or about the 24th day of July, 1895, while
an employee of the United States Government, riprapping on the Missouri
River, near Leavenworth, Kans., because of the negligent and careless
acts of omission of his foreman in using a rotten and defective rope
after be had notice of the same, and after they had promised to replace
the same.
Mr. George W. Prince, of Illinois, made the point of order against
the amendment that it was not germane.
The Speaker \4\ said:
The Chair will read from the Manual:
``One individual proposition may not be amended by another individual
proposition even though the two belong to the same class. Thus the
following are not germane: To a bill proposing the admission of one
Territory into the Union, an amendment for admission of another
Territory; to a bill for the relief of one individual, an amendment
proposing similar relief for another; to a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4241.
\2\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut.
\3\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1905.
\4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 3016
resolution providing a special order for one bill, an amendment to
include another bill; to a provision for extermination of the cotton-
boll weevil, an amendment including the gypsy moth,'' etc.
Now, that is where there is one proposition, but this is not one
proposition, not two propositions, but a whole class of propositions.
The Chair reads further from the Manual, subsection (c), page 391,
section 780;
``A general subject may be amended by specific proposition of the
same class. Thus the following have been held to be germane: To a bill
admitting several Territories into the Union, an amendment adding
another Territory: to a bill providing for the construction of building
in each of two cities, an amendment providing for similar buildings in
several other cities; to a resolution embodying two distinct phases of
international relationship, an amendment embodying a third. But to a
resolution a class of employees in the service of the House, an
amendment providing for the employment of a specific individual was
held not to be germane.''
That is not this case. This bill covers many claims for accidents and
deaths of those who were employed by the Government in various
departments. It seems to the Chair that the amendment is germane.
3016. To a proposition to collect statistics on population,
agriculture, manufacturing, and mining, an amendment providing for the
simultaneous collection of similar statistics on insurance was held to
be germane.
February 2, 1910,\1\ the bill (H. R. 18364) to amend the act
providing for the thirteenth and subsequent decennial censuses was
under consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union.
To a section providing for the compilation of statistics on
population, agriculture, manufacturing and mining, Mr. Philip P.
Campbell, of Kansas, offered this amendment:
And to collect authoritative statistics relating to farmers' mutual
insurance companies, showing the amount of such insurance and the
insurance results accomplished.
Mr. Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the section.
The Chairman \2\ ruled.
The Chair is of the opinion that section 8 of the census law being
presented here for amendment, the entire section is before the
Committee of the Whole, being a part of the test of the bill as
presented here for consideration. That being so, the matter of
insurance is only adding another phase to the inquires already provided
for in the bill, to wit, population, agriculture, manufacturing, and
mining, and is no more foreign, for instance, to population than
agriculture is to population, or manufacture is to population. So the
Chair is of the opinion that it is germane to section 8 of the census
law, which is presented here for consideration. Therefore, the point of
order is overruled.
3017. A bill dealing with a subject as a whole may be amended by
provisions relating to specific items within the subject.
To a bill authorizing the compilation of census statistics on
population, professions, properties, unemployment, and other subjects
an amendment authorizing the compilation of statistics showing the
number of persons whose right to vote has been abridged was held to be
germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1409.
\2\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
Sec. 3018
On June 4, 1929,\1\ during the consideration of the bill (S. 312)
providing for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses Mr.
George Holden Tinkham, of Massachusetts, offered an amendment proposing
to enumerate--
the number of inhabitants in each State being 21 years of age and
citizens of the United States, whose right to vote at the election next
preceding such census for the choice of electors for President and Vice
President of the United States, representatives in Congress, the
executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the
legislative thereof, has been denied or abridged except for rebellion
or other crime.
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
The Chairman \2\ overruled the point of order and said:
We are now considering the portion of the bill which relates to the
census, and for all practical purposes section 1 is a part of census
bill. That section provides for the taking of a census making
enumeration for the purpose of statistical information on a number of
different subjects. The original text included population, agriculture,
irrigation, drainage, distribution, unemployment, radio sets, and
mines, and the action of the committee has already added another item
relating to the enumeration of aliens in the United States. At this
point in the bill the Chair believes the amendment to be in order on
the theory which is well known to the membership of the House, that
where a large number of objects are enumerated other objects relating
to the same general subject matter may be added as being germane to the
text.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
3018. To a bill providing severally for the support and civilization
of a number of Indian tribes an amendment adding another tribe was held
to be germane.
On January 25, 1924,\3\ during consideration of the Interior
Department appropriation bill in the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union, a section of the bill was reached providing for
the support and civilization of a number of Indian tribes designated by
name.
Mr. Knud Wefald, of Minnesota, offered an amendment extending the
benefits of the provision to the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota.
Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After brief debate the Chairman \4\ held:
It seems clear that it is well within the rules for the committee to
bring in such an appropriation. In this case, at any rate, a Member has
the right to propose the amendment just offered from the floor. The
Chair overrules the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 2348.
\2\ Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, Chairman.
\3\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 1464.
\4\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
Sec. 3019
3019. To a bill relating to salaries of officers in a number of
bureaus of the Department of Agriculture an amendment relating to
salaries to of other officers of the department was held to be germane.
On February 7, 1923,\1\ the bill (H. R. 10819) relating to the
Department of Agriculture was being considered in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union, when Mr. Gilbert N. Haugen, of
Iowa, proposed an amendment increasing the salaries of various officers
in the Department of Agriculture, not provided for in the bill.
Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that
the purpose of the bill was to increase the salaries of officers
engaged in scientific research only, and provision for other officers
was not germane.
The Chairman \2\ ruled:
This is a bill the title of which is ``Relating to the Department of
Agriculture.'' Section 1 attempts to increase the maximum salaries of
certain scientific investigators and employees engaged in scientific
work.
Section 2 of the bill relates to the salaries of certain officials
described as ``officers in the Department of Agriculture,'' making no
reference whatever to whether they are scientific or other officers.
The only question, then, is whether the officers included in the
amendment are officers in the Department of Agriculture. If so, the
amendment is germane to the second section of the bill, which is the
section to which the amendment is offered. It would seem to be clear
that they are officers in the Department of Agriculture. The Chair
therefore overrules the point of order.
3020. To a paragraph providing a lump sum appropriation for repairs
to suburban roads an amendment proposing additional repairs for
designated suburban roads was held to be germane.
On March 29, 1920,\3\ while the District of Columbia appropriation
bill was being read for amendment in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union, the Clerk read:
Repairs to suburban roads: For current work of repairs to suburban
roads and suburban streets, including maintenance of motor vehicles and
the purchase or exchange of three light motor vehicles with truck
bodies, in lieu of three motor vehicles owned by the District of
Columbia, at a total cost not to exceed $1,800, $250,000.
Mr. Sydney E. Mudd, of Maryland, offered the following amendment:
After the figures $1,800 insert the following: ``And including
repairs to Bladensburg Road from Fifteenth and H Streets NE. to the
District line, at a total cost not to exceed $51,100; and including
Alabama Avenue from Pennsylvania Avenue to Ridge Road and Bowen Road,
between Ridge Road and the District line, at a total cost not to exceed
$21,000.
Mr. Thomas U. Sission, of Mississippi, made the point of order that
the amendment proposed an additional item and was not in order.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, argued:
Mr. Chairman, it is certainly in order to appropriate in this bill
specifically for the improvement of streets. The bill carries a great
many items of that sort--specific items. The paragraph under
consideration is repair of suburban roads. That provision appropriates
$250,000.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 3224.
\2\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4980.
Sec. 3021
Now, in a paragraph for the improvement of suburban roads it is
certainly in order to include an item for an additional amount that is
desired for specific roads or to provide that any portion of this total
sum shall be used for the improvement of specific roads. The whole
theory of the bill is based upon the point of Congress making
appropriations for the improvement of these roads. I do not see how it
can be held that the amendment is subject to the point of order. It
certainly is not.
The Chairman \1\ held:
The Chair thinks that what the gentleman from Illinois has stated is
the fact and that this amendment is in order and overrules the point of
order.
3021. To a proposition to pay a claim against the Government an
amendment authorizing the claimant to bring suit in a Federal court for
the amount claimed was held not to be germane.
On October 3, 1919,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House was
considering this bill:
Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is
hereby, authorized and directed to pay out of any money in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated, to Mrs. Thomas McGovern, the sum of $5,000
for damages suffered by reason for her husband Thomas McGovern, being
struck and fatally injured by a Government motor truck which was driven
by a regularly enlisted soldier of the United States Army.
Mr. Warren Gard, of Ohio, offered the following amendment:
Strike out all after enacting clause and insert:
That Mrs. Thomas McGovern, or the authorized legal representatives of
Thomas McGovern deceased, may sue the United States for the benefit of
the widow and children of said deceased in the district court of the
United States for the district of Nebraska under the rules governing
such court for damages because of the death of Thomas McGovern, and
said court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine said suit and
to enter a judgment or decree for the amount of such damages and costs,
if any, as shall be found to be due against the United States in favor
of the authorized legal representative of Thomas McGovern, deceased,
upon the same principles and measures of liability as in like cases
between private parties and with the same right of appeal.
Mr. Albert W. Jefferis, of Nebraska, raised a question of order
against the amendment.
After debate the Chairman \3\ held:
This is a bill authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to pay the
sum of $5,000 to the widow of the deceased--Mrs. McGovern. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio authorizes the legal
representative of the deceased to bring an action, a proper action, in
the district court of the United States for the district of Nebraska.
There is such a distinction between the bill and the amendment as has
arisen in former cases and upon which many ruling have been made:
``A bill to pay a claim may not be amended by an amendment directing
that the claim be referred to the Court of Claims.''
So that by analogy this being a bill to pay the claim outright can
not be amended by referring the claim to the district court of the
United States for the district of Nebraska, and the Chair sustains the
point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 6359.
\3\ Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, Chairman.
Sec. 3022
3022. To a provision delegating certain powers a proposal to limit
such powers is germane.
To a section authorizing the Interstate Commerce Commission to change
rates an amendment providing that the commission in making such changes
shall not increase rates was held to be germane.
On November 17, 1919,\1\ the bill (H. R. 10453) to provide for the
termination of Federal control of railroads was being read for
amendment in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union.
The Clerk read section 415 of the bill proposing to amend section 13
of the existing commerce act, authorizing the Interstate Commerce
Commission to change rates charged by interstate carriers, when Mr.
Marvin Jones, of Texas, offered an amendment as follows:
Provided, This section shall not be construed to empower the
commission to change any such intrastate rate by substituting any
greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of
passengers, or of property of like kind or kinds, for a shorter than
for a longer distance the same line or route in the same direction, the
shorter being included within the longer distance, or to charge any
greater compensation as a through route than the intermediate rates
subject to the provision of this act.
Mr. John J. Esch, of Wisconsin, raised a question of order against
the amendment.
The Chairman \2\ ruled:
The section under consideration is section 415 of the bill, which is
to amend section 13 of the commerce act. Section 13 of the commerce act
deals with complaints and investigation of complaints, and the issuance
of orders by the Interstate Commerce Commission as a result of its
investigation. This is offered as an amendment to paragraph (4) of the
section, which paragraph gives the commission authority to make such
findings and orders as may tend to remove undue advantage, preference,
or prejudice between persons or localities in intrastate commerce on
the one hand and interstate foreign commerce on the other hand, or any
undue burden upon interstate and foreign commerce, which is forbidden
and declared to be unlawful, and it further provides that such findings
and orders shall be observed while in effect by the carriers parties to
such proceedings affected thereby, the law of any State or the
decisions or order of any State authority to the contrary
notwithstanding.
The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Texas is a proviso to
the effect that the authority given in paragraph (4) particularly and
the section of the bill shall not be construed to empower the
commission to change any such intrastate rates by substituting a
greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of
passengers, and so forth, for the shorter than for a longer distance
over the same line in the same direction.
The Chair is of opinion that this is a restriction placed upon the
Interstate Commerce Commission in making its findings, namely, that
after it has investigated and had these joint hearings with the State
commissions or boards, and comes to make its findings, in making its
findings it shall not change any intrastate rates by substituting as
proposed, and the Chair overrules the point of order.
3023. To a proposal to grant certain authority an amendment proposing
to limit such authority is germane.
To a bill authorizing the Bureau of War-Risk Insurance to insure
vessels an amendment denying such insurance to vessels charging
exorbitant rates was held to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 8655.
\2\ Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
Sec. 3024
On June 1, 1917,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union had under consideration the bill (S. 2133) authorizing a
bureau of war-risk insurance.
The clerk read as follows:
SEC. 2. That the said Bureau of War-Risk Insurance, subject to the
general direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall, as soon as
practicable make provisions for the insurance by the United States of
America vessels, their freight and passage moneys, cargoes shipped or
to be shipped therein, and personal effects of the masters, officers,
and crews thereof against loss or damage by the risks of war, whenever
it shall appear to the Secretary that America vessels, shippers, or
importers in American vessels, or the masters, officers, or crews of
such vessels, are unable in any trade to secure adequate war-risk
insurance on reasonable terms.
Mr. Charles H. Dillon, of South Dakota, offered the following
amendment:
Provided, That when it shall appear to the Secretary of the Treasury
that the ocean rates charged by the owners or operators of such vessels
are unreasonable or confiscatory, or when such rates are fixed by an
unlawful combination of owners or operators engaged in shipping, then
it shall be the duty of the Bureau of War-Risk Insurance to refuse
insurance on such vessels.
Mr. Joshua W. Alexander, of Missouri, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane to any portion of the bill.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, said in opposition to the point of
order:
I do not think I am in favor of the amendment, but here is a section,
Mr. Chairman, which makes provision for the insurance by the United
States of American vessels, their freight and passage moneys, and so
forth and so on, including officers and everything else. Now, that is
the authority to make the insurance. A limitation upon that authority,
of course, is germane to it.
The Chairman \2\ agreed and said:
The Chair thinks this amendment is in the nature of a limitation on
the paragraph and overrules the point of order. The Chair thinks the
amendment is clearly germane to the paragraph.
3024. Provisions restricting authority may be modified by amendments
providing exceptions.
To a bill prohibiting the issuance of injunctions by the courts in
labor disputes, an amendment excepting all labor disputes affecting
public utilities, was held to be germane.
On March 8, 1932,\3\ the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.
R. 5315), amending the judicial code.
The Clerk read:
Be it enacted, etc., That no court of the United States, as herein
defined, shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or
temporary or permanent injunction in a case involving or growing out of
a labor dispute, except in strict conformity with the provisions of
this act; nor shall any such restraining order of temporary or
permanent injunction be issued contrary to the public policy declared
in this act.
Mr. James M. Beck, of Pennsylvania, offered as an amendment the
following proviso:
Provided, however, That neither this section or any subsequent
section of this bill shall apply to any labor dispute which involves
the suspension or discontinuance of a public utility
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 3204.
\2\ Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, Chairman.
\3\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 5504.
Sec. 3025
whose continuous operation is essential to the property, health, and
lives of the people of any State or community.
Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane to the bill.
The Chairman \1\ ruled:
The amendment of the gentleman for Pennsylvania is clearly an
exception, which provides that no court of the United States, as herein
defined, shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or
temporary or permanent injunction, and so forth. The amendment of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania excepts cases where the welfare and health
of the public are concerned.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
3025. To a bill dealing with radio communication in general an
amendment proposing to restrict the operation of the proposed law was
held to be germane.
On January 24, 1923,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 13773) to amend
the act to regulate radio communication approved August 13, 1912.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, offered the following proviso:
Provided, That where intrastate operation is so controlled and
regulated by States in cooperation with the Secretary of Commerce that
same does not conflict or interfere with interstate operations, then
such intrastate operations shall remain wholly within the jurisdiction
and control of such State.
Mr. Frederick C. Hicks, of New York, made a point of order against
the amendment.
After debate the Chairman \3\ held:
The measure under consideration is all pervading, so far as the
regulation of radio communication is concerned. It is a general law,
and in the first section covers radio communication among the several
States or with foreign nations, radio communication upon any vessel of
the United States engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, and also
the transmission of radiograms or signals which extend beyond the
jurisdiction of the State, Territory, or the District of Columbia.
Under the last clause it is apparent that its purpose is to cover
regulation of radiograms that extend beyond the jurisdiction of the
State, Territory, or District of Columbia, radiograms that lapse over
into a State from another State. This being a general law relating to
the regulation of radiograms, it is within the power of the committee
to restrict it in whatever way it seems fit. It is within the power of
Members to offer amendments to restrict it to communications on foreign
vessels. The committee may restrict control over activities exclusively
interstate. The extent of the jurisdiction to be exercised is for the
committee to pass upon, and the Chair holds the amendment is germane
and overrules the point of order.
3026. To a section dealing with a designated class an amendment
exempting from the provisions of the section a certain portion of that
class may be germane.
To a bill denying the benefits of war risk insurance to persons
discharged from service on the charge of being alien enemies an
amendment granting such benefits to alien enemies who had rendered
faithful service was held to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John J. O'Connor, of New York, Chairman.
\2\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2349.
\3\ William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, Chairman.
Sec. 3027
On June 9, 1921,\1\ in the consideration of the bill (H. R. 6611) for
the establishment of a veterans' bureau, the following section was
reached:
SEC. 29. The discharge or dismissal of any person from the military
or naval forces on the ground that he is an enemy alien, conscientious
objector, or a deserter, or is guilty of mutiny, treason, spying, or
any offense involving moral turpitude, or willful and persistent
misconduct shall terminate any insurance granted on the life of such
person under the provisions of article 4, and shall bar all rights to
any compensation under article 3 or any insurance under article 4:
Provided, That, as to converted insurance, the cash surrender value
thereof, if any, on the date of such discharge or dismissal shall be
paid the insured, if living, and, if dead, to the designated
beneficiary.
Mr. Andrew J. Hickey, of Indiana, proposed to amend the section by
the addition of the following proviso:
Provided further, That an enemy alien who volunteered or who was
drafted into the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps of the United States
during the World War, and whose service was honest and faithful, shall
be entitled to the benefit of the war risk insurance act.
Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \2\ held:
Section 29 of the pending bill, to which the provision of the
gentleman from Indiana is offered as an amendment, deals with the
termination of insurance or of compensation under the war risk
insurance act by virtue of the discharge or dismissal of any person
from the military and naval service, on the ground that he is an enemy
alien, conscientious objector, or a deserter, and so forth. The
amendment of the gentleman from Indiana provides that--
``An enemy alien who volunteered or was drafted into the Army, Navy,
or Maine Corps of the United States during the war and whose service
was honest and faithful shall be entitled to the benefits of the war
risk insurance act.''
The Chair thinks the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana is
germane to the section under consideration and overrules the point of
order.
3027. To a proposition extending certain benefits to a class a
proposal to establish qualifications limiting the number of individuals
in that class entitled to receive such benefits is germane.
To a bill authorizing aid to shipping an amendment limiting
participation in such benefits to ships equipped with ship-saving
devices was held to be germane.
On November 29, 1922,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 12817) to amend the
merchant marine act of 1920 by providing for the granting of certain
benefits to ships of the merchant marine.
Mr. J. Will Taylor, of Tennessee, offered this amendment to be added
as a new section:
All vessels which receive the benefits of this act shall be equipped
with an efficient and quickly applicable vessel-saving device for
quickly and effectively closing accidental openings in the hull of the
vessel below the water line so as to stop the inrush of water and
prevent the vessel from sinking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2351.
\2\ Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, Chairman.
\3\ Third session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 425.
Sec. 3028
Mr. George W. Edmonds, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \1\ ruled:
It seems to the Chair that if the Congress so desired it might
prescribe that all the ships receiving aid should be painted red,
white, and blue. The Congress would have the right to do this. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee provides that ships
receiving aid shall be equipped with a certain kind of life-saving
device, which seems to bring this amendment within the rule. Therefore
the Chair overrules the point of order.
3028. To a bill extending the operation of an existing law an
amendment excepting certain portions of the law was held to be germane.
On October 18, 1921,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union had under consideration the bill H. R. 8643, reading as
follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That titles 1 and 5 of the act entitled ``An act
imposing temporary duties upon certain agricultural products to meet
present emergencies and to provide revenue; to regulate commerce with
foreign countries; to prevent dumping of foreign merchandise on the
markets of the United States; to regulate the value of foreign money;
and for other purposes,'' approved May 27, 1921, shall continue in
force until February 1, 1922, unless otherwise provided by law.
Mr. Walter H. Newton, of Minnesota, moved to amend the bill by adding
the following proviso:
Provided, That this shall not apply to item 3 of title 1, reading as
follows:
``3. Flaxseed, 30 cents per bushel of 56 pounds.''
Mr. Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, raised a question of order as to the
germaneness of the proposed amendment.
After the debate the Chairman \3\ said:
What does the gentleman from Ohio say to the argument that this is a
bill which provides for the extension of the duties on certain articles
and fixing the time when those duties shall cease. This proposed
amendment selects out one of those articles, giving it an exceptional
position; is not that according to the ruling made by the gentleman
from Kansas Mr. Campbell on the 12th of April last? That ruling was
that a general subject may be amended by a specific proposition of the
same class. An amendment taking away from a general subject a specific
item is germane.
This brings to an end at a certain date one of the duties specified
in the amendment.
While the Chair does not consider this question free from doubt, he
overrules the point of order.
3029. Provision for delaying operation of a proposed enactment
pending an ascertainment of fact is germane to such proposed enactment.
To a bill providing for the deportation of a certain class of aliens
an amendment exempting a portion of such class was held to be germane.
On July 30, 1919,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 6750) to deport certain
undesirable aliens providing for the deportations of alien convicted of
certain designated crimes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6464.
\3\ Theodore E. Burton, Chairman.
\4\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3370.
Sec. 3030
Mr. J. Hampton Moore, of Pennsylvania, moved to amend the bill by
inserting at the end of the bill the following proviso:
Provided, That no alien whose property has been seized by the Alien
Property Custodian during the war who has not been convicted of crime
shall be deported against his protest pending the lawful determination
of the ownership of the property claimed by him.
Mr. Albert Johnson, of Washington, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
After debate the Chairman \1\ held:
At first blush the Chair thought that the point of order was well
taken, for the reason stated, that there were not sufficient references
to this bill to warrant the finding that the amendment was germane; but
on a closer examination of the proposition the Chair is well satisfied
that the amendment is germane, for this fundamental reason and upon
this principle: This bill is for the purpose of deporting aliens under
certain circumstances. This amendment offers a time restraint. It says
that it shall not be done until certain things have been found with
regard to property. Now, the germaneness of an amendment of this kind
is not dependent upon the nature of the time conditions, because it has
been decided more than once that the ascertainment of a fact which
delays the operation of the principal portion of the bill is a germane
amendment. For that reason and upon that ground the point of order is
overruled.
3030. To a provision to become effective immediately, an amendment
deferring the time at which it shall become effective, without
involving affirmative legislation, was held to be germane.
On May 5, 1932,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 11051), providing for the
leasing and utilization of Muscle Shoals, when the Clerk read section
18 of the bill as follows:
SEC. 18. This act shall take effect immediately.
Mr. William R. Eaton, of Colorado, offered the following amendment:
This act shall not become effective until those certain phosphate and
fertilizer lands of the United States in the States of New Mexico and
California heretofore leased and for which 139 prospecting permits have
been issued in eight States, under the act of February 25, 1920, show
signs of depletion within the present existing and authorized terms of
said leases and permits.
Mr. John J. McSwain, of South Carolina, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane to the provision of the bill to which
proposed.
The Chairman \3\ overruled the point of order.
3031. To a bill providing for the appointment of judges for an
unlimited term an amendment restricting the term to four years was held
to be germane.
It is not within the province of the Chair to pass upon the
constitutionality of a legislative provision.
On December 10, 1921,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 9103) for the
appointment of additional
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Horace M. Towner, Chairman.
\2\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 9669.
\3\ Daniel E. Garrett, of Texas, Chairman.
\4\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 192.
Sec. 3032
judges for certain courts of the United States providing for the
creation and appointment of Federal judges for an unlimited term.
Mr. Sid C. Roach, of Missouri, offered an amendment limiting the
tenure of office to four years.
Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that the
Constitution in authorizing such judges provided for life tenure, and
an amendment to limit the term of office was not in violation of the
Constitutional provision but was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \1\ held:
The gentleman from Missouri offers an amendment limiting the term of
the judges to be appointed by this act to four years. The gentleman
from Massachusetts makes the point of order that it is not germane, and
argues that because the Constitution provides in section 1 of article
III that judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold
their offices during good behavior, therefore this amendment is in
violation of that constitutional mandate. All the precedents that the
Chair is acquainted with are uniform to the effect that it is not for
the presiding officer to pass upon the constitutionality of any
proposed legislation.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole does not occupy the
position of a judge of the supreme Court to pass upon the
constitutionality of a bill or of amendments that are offered to bills.
Many times in the history of Congress bills are subject to objection on
the ground that they are beyond the constitutional prerogative of
Congress, and the individual Member may oppose them for that reason.
Yet the Supreme Court, recognizing the fact that we have a Government
of coordinate branches, does not even set aside a bill upon the ground
that it is unconstitutional because they would have, as member of the
legislative body, considered it such, but they resolve the doubt as to
constitutionality in favor of the Congress, and hold it
unconstitutional only when they have no doubt that the Congress has
exceeded its constitutional powers.
Leaving out of consideration, then, the question whether the
Constitution has any effect on this question, the point of order now
pressed by the gentleman from Massachusetts resolves itself for
decision whether in a bill providing for the creation and appointment
of judges for an unlimited term, as this bill proposes, an amendment
restricting that term would not be in order as not being germane. The
Chair, from that point of view, can not follow the reasoning of the
gentleman from Massachusetts. Suppose this bill had by its phraseology
provided that these district judges should be created for a term of
life or for a specific term of years, it would be in order for the
gentleman to offer an amendment limiting and restricting the term.
Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order.
3032. To a bill authorizing the conversion of ships to oil-burning
vessels an amendment denying the use of the appropriation proposed to
be authorized for the purchase of oil-burning engines constructed
outside of the United States was held to be germane.
On May 28, 1924,\2\ the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H. R. 8687) reading as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That alterations are hereby authorized for the
United States ships New York, Texas, Florida, Utah, Arkansas, and
Wyoming, to consist of the installation of additional protection
against submarine attack, of the installation of antiair attack deck
protection, of the conversion of such vessels to oil burning, and, in
addition, for the New York and Texas, the purchase, manufacture, and
installation of new fire-control systems, at a total cost not to exceed
$18,360,000 in all.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 9765.
Sec. 3033
Mr. Edgar Howard, of Nebraska, offered the following amendment to be
added as a proviso:
Provided, That no part of the money authorized to be appropriated by
this bill shall be used for the purchase or installation of any oil-
burning engine constructed outside of the United States, or under any
pattern owned by citizens of any foreign government.
Mr. Roy O. Woodruff, of Michigan, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \1\ ruled:
The only question in this matter, it seems to the Chair, is whether
the amendment is germane. If it is germane, it would be as proper as a
limitation to a bill of this kind as it would to an appropriation bill.
This section provides that alterations are authorized for certain
ships, naming them, and that these alterations shall consist of the
installation of additional protection against submarine attack, the
installation of antiair attack deck protection, and the conversion of
such vessels to oil burning. Now, the conversion of these vessels to
oil-burning vessels means the buying or obtaining in some way of oil-
burning engines; and, of course, if you can buy an oil burning engine,
it is proper for the House or the committee to say that you can not
spend your money on foreign engines or that you can not buy a certain
type. Then it becomes a germane limitation.
In the opinion of the Chair it is simply a question whether this is a
germane limitation and the Chair thinks it is. The wisdom of the
provision is for the committee to settle and not for the Chair. The
point or order is overruled.
3033. An amendment is not necessarily germane because presented in
the form of a limitation.
To a bill proposing to increase the efficiency of naval vessels an
amendment authorizing an effort to reduce naval armament was held not
to be germane.
On May 28, 1924,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 8687) providing for the
conversion of naval ships to oil-burning vessels, when Mr. Meyer
Jacobstein, of New York, proposed this amendment:
Provided, however, That no money authorized to be appropriated by
this section and the following section shall be expended until the
President has made an earnest effort to secure a further limitation in
naval armament among the great powers on a naval ratio basis acceptable
to the United States.
Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane to the bill.
After debate the Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order and said:
The Chair may say in the first place that, of course, if this
amendment is in order at all it is obviously as much in order here as
at any place. It provides ``That no money authorized to be appropriated
by this section and the following section shall be expended until the
President has made an earnest effort to secure a further limitation to
naval armament among the great powers on a naval-rate basis acceptable
to the United States.''
The gentleman who offered this amendment doubtless had in mind the
idea that it is a limitation. The rule of limitation does not apply to
a legislative bill. The limitation rule is for use
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ William J. Graham, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 9771.
\3\ William J. Graham, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 3034
on appropriation bills and authorities certain legislation by way of
limitation, which might not otherwise be in order.
Two recent decisions have been made along similar lines which, I
think, are in point. For instance, on the 24th of March last to a bill
for the relief of starving women and children in Germany an amendment
which was offered provided that the act should not take effect until
the soldiers' compensation legislation had become a law. The amendment
was held not germane.
Also, on April 12, Chairman Sanders ruled that to an immigration bill
an amendment dealing with foreign relations was not germane; to a bill
regulating immigration an amendment restricting the operation of the
act from conflict with the so-called gentleman's agreement with Japan
was held not germane.
What does this amendment do? It seeks to authorize and direct the
President to make an earnest effort to get the powers to agree to a
limitation of armament. That is not germane. There is to mention of an
armament conference in this bill. This bill is to authorize certain
expenditures for the repair and building of certain ships and does not
deal with the question of disarmament or of any arbitration. Therefore
it is not germane, and the Chair sustains the point of order.
3034. It is not in order to propose by way of limitation propositions
on subjects different from that under consideration.
To a bill authorizing expenditures on naval vessels an amendment
providing that no part of such expenditures be made for repairs in
Government yards which could be made at less expense elsewhere was held
not to be germane.
On February 16, 1923,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union had under consideration the bill (S. 4137) to
authorize the transfer of certain vessels from the Navy to the Coast
Guard, and authorizing repairs and alterations in vessels and equipment
incidental to such transfer.
Mr. Frederick W. Dallinger, of Massachusetts, proposed the following
amendment:
Provided, however, That no part of the moneys authorized to be
appropriated in each or any section of this act shall be used or
expended for repairs or changes by private parties or for the purchase
or acquirement of any article or articles that at the time of the
proposed repairs, changes, or acquirement can be made, manufactured, or
produced in each or any of the Government navy yards of the United
States, when time and facilities permit, for a sum less than they can
be made, produced, or acquired otherwise.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made the point of order that the
amendment was germane neither to the pending section nor to the bill.
Mr. William J. Graham, of Illinois, argued:
It is a proper limitation on the other sections of the bill so far as
they call for expenditures. A proper limitation on expenditures is a
limitation that they shall not be used except in a certain way, and
therefore is applicable only to the expenditures authorized by the
bill. This limitation comes within those requirements. For that reason
I think it is pertinent and germane. I well remember, for instance, the
argument made by our late colleague, Mr. Mann, here when he contended
on the floor of the House, and I think properly, that if the House
should provide a limitation that the expenditure should be made by a
red-headed man it would be a good limitation. That was a favorite
expression of his. I think this is germane.
After further debate the Chairman \2\ held:
This is not a question of limitation on an appropriation bill. It is
a legislative bill, and the only question here is the question of
germaneness. As the amendment is drawn, referring to a num-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 3803.
\2\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
Sec. 3035
ber of sections in the bill, it seems to the Chair that under the rules
of the House it is not germane to this particular section. The
amendment affects all the sections and all the expenditures authorized
in the bill. Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.
3035. A different subject from that under consideration may not be
proposed under the guise of a limitation.
To a bill for the relief of women and children in Germany an
amendment providing that the proposed legislation should not become
effective until a soldiers' compensation law had been enacted was held
not to be germane.
On March 24, 1924,\1\ during consideration in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union of the joint resolution (H. J.
Res. 180) for the relief of distressed and starving women and children
of Germany, Mr. Roy G. Fitzgerald of Ohio, offered this amendment:
Provided further, That this act shall take effect only if and when
the adjusted compensation measure for the American veterans of the
World War shall become a law.
Mr. Hamilton Fish, jr., of New York, having made the point of order
that the amendment was not germane to the joint resolution, Mr.
Fitzgerald argued that the amendment merely limited action proposed to
be taken and could not therefore be ruled out as not germane.
After further debate the Chairman \2\ ruled:
This House joint resolution is for the relief of distressed and
starving women and children of Germany. It deals with that question
exclusively. At the end of the resolution the gentleman from Ohio seeks
to add a proviso, as follows:
``Provided further, That this act shall take effect only if and when
an adjusted-compensation measure for the American veterans of the World
War shall become a law.''
The Chair will state that he finds himself in some doubt because of
two decisions which at first blush seemed to him to be conflicting. I
think, however, upon analysis and some thought, that there is a
distinction, which I shall endeavor to point out. The War Department
appropriation bill was before the House on June 24, 1922, with Speaker
Gillett in the chair, and an item had been read for the continuation of
work on Dam No. 2 on the Tennessee River, at Muscle Shoals, Ala., to be
immediately available, $7,500,000; and to that Mr. Huddleston offered a
substitute, an amendment which had the following language in it:
``Provided, however, That this appropriation shall not become
available until such time as the Congress shall have taken final action
on H. R. 11903, and not then if the subject matter of said bill is
enacted into law in a manner as will result in the consummation of
contracts for lease and sale of the Government Muscle Shoals properties
to Henry Ford: Provided further, That this provision shall not operate
to postpone such availability later than January 1, 1923.''
To that amendment Mr. Stafford, of Wisconsin, offered a point of
order. The Speaker said during the discussion:
``The Chair will state that it seems to the Chair very clear that the
provision carrying out the purposes of the Government as to contracts
for lease or sale is legislation. The Chair will hear the gentleman on
that.''
After further discussion the Chair ruled on the matter. The Speaker
said:
``The Chair is ready to rule. It seems to the Chair that this is
purely a limitation on the appropriation. It does not make an
appropriation available that the present law does not make available.
It simply makes it contingent on a future event, and that seems to the
Chair merely a limitation. The Chair overrules the point of order.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 4859.
\2\ William J. Graham, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 3036
That would seem, on the face of it, to be authority, but there is
this distinction: That was an appropriation bill and the Chair was
deciding the matter on a question of limitation, and not on the
question of making the appropriation available on the passage of some
other act.
Now, then, afterwards, on the 9th day of February, 1923, with Mr.
Speaker Gillett in the chair, a bill was before the House, and a motion
to recommit was made, as follows:
``Mr. O'Connor moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on Ways
and Means with instructions to that committee to report the same back
forthwith with the following amendment: At the end of the bill insert:
`This resolution shall not go into effect until the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty is repealed.' ''
A point of order was made against it by Mr. Stafford, and Speaker
Gillett sustained the point or order. The Chair thinks that is
authority, and sustains this point of order.
3036. The presentation of an amendment in the form of a limitation
does not render it germane.
An amendment is required to be germane to the particular section or
paragraph to which it is offered.
To a provision authorizing a corporation to borrow money an amendment
providing that no money so borrowed be expended for a particular
purpose was held not to be germane.
On May 31, 1924,\1\ the bill H. R. 9033, the farm relief bill,
providing for the creation of a corporation to deal in agricultural
products, was being considered in the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union.
The Clerk read the following section:
Sec. 32. The corporation may borrow money and issue its notes, bonds,
or other evidences of indebtedness therefor, except that the
corporation shall not have power to issue or obligate itself in an
amount of notes, bonds, or other evidences of indebtedness outstanding
at any one time in excess of five times the amount of its authorized
capital stock. The rate of interest, the maturity, and the other terms
of the notes, bonds, or other evidences of indebtedness, and the
security therefor, may be determined by the corporation.
Mr. James H. MacLafferty, of California, offered an amendment as
follows:
Provided, however, That neither the money subscribed for the capital
stock as provided in section 31 of this act nor the additional funds
raised by the issuance of obligations as provided in this section shall
be used for the purpose of exporting surpluses of agricultural products
by sea during emergencies unless the exportation is carried out in
ships of American registry.
Mr. L. J. Dickinson, of Iowa, raised the question of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \2\ held:
The section just read--section 32--is a grant of power to the
corporation to borrow money and issue bonds, and it contains nothing
further than that grant of power. The amendment is as follows:
``Provided, however, That neither the money subscribed for capital
stock as provided in section 31 of this act nor the additional funds
raised by the issuance of obligations as provided in this section shall
be used for the purposes of exporting surpluses of agricultural
products by sea during emergencies, unless the exportation is carried
out in ships of American registry.''
The rule is that an amendment to be in order must be not only germane
to the bill but germane to the particular section to which it is
offered. This amendment is not germane to the par-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 10037.
\2\ William J. Graham, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 3037
ticular section to which it is offered. The Chair expresses no opinion
as to whether it is germane to the bill itself, but as to this
particular section the point of order is sustained.
The rule of limitations is only applicable as ordinarily understood
to appropriation bills. This is not an appropriation bill. This is a
legislative bill, and, therefore, the only test as to whether this
amendment is in order is the test of germaneness. It is not germane to
the particular subject matter in this section. It may be to the bill,
but not to the particular section; and the Chair sustains the point of
order.
3037. An amendment delaying operation of proposed legislation pending
an unrelated contingency was held not to be germane.
On February 9, 1923,\1\ the House was considering the bill (H. R.
14254) for the funding of the foreign debt.
The bill having been read the third time, Mr. James O'Connor, of
Louisiana, moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on Ways and
Means with instructions to report it back forthwith with the following
amendment:
This resolution shall not go into effect until the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty is repealed.
Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, raised a question of order
against the motion on the ground that the amendment proposed in the
instructions was not germane to the pending bill.
The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order.
3038. A revenue amendment is not germane to an appropriation bill.
On March 27, 1920,\3\ while the District of Columbia appropriation
bill was under consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, the Clerk read a paragraph proposing to increase
rates of taxation in the District of Columbia.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, raised a question of order \4\
against the paragraph.
The Chairman \5\ held:
The Committee on the District of Columbia appropriation bill report
the following item in the pending bill:
``The rate of taxation on real estate in the District of Columbia,
under the provisions of section 5 of the District of Columbia
appropriation act approved July 1, 1902, is hereby increased from 1\1/
2\ per cent to 2\1/2\ per cent, and the rate of taxation on tangible
personal property in the District of Columbia, under the provisions of
section 6 of the said act, is hereby increased from 1\1/2\ per cent to
2\1/2\ per cent.''
Of course no one will contend that it is within the power of the
committee to report legislation on an appropriation bill, and it is
clear that this provision is legislation, in that it seeks to amend the
act of 1902. Furthermore, if the provision were offered as an amendment
by direction of the Committee on the District of Columbia under the
proviso to the Holman rule it would hardly be in order, since a revenue
amendment is not germane to an appropriation bill, nor is an
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 3371.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4930.
\4\ Points of order were raised against similar propositions on
December 10, 1914, May 22, 1916, and June 4, 1919.
\5\ Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 3039
amendment increasing income or revenue such retrenchment legislation as
would be in order under the Holman rule.
Therefore the Chair, without expressing any opinion as to the merits
of the case, feels that the point of order is well taken, and sustains
it.
3039. An amendment offered to a revenue bill proposing a tax for any
other purpose than that of securing revenue is not germane.
To an internal revenue bill an amendment proposing to levy a tax on
rents in excess of a fixed standard was held not to be germane.
On February 26, 1924,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was considering the bill H. R. 6715, the revenue
bill, when Mr. Tom D. McKeown, of Oklahoma, offered an amendment
proposing as a new title a provision for the levying of a tax on
dwelling-house rents in excess of a standard rent and prescribing in
detail a method for computing the standard.
Mr. Everett Sanders, of Indiana, made a point of order against the
amendment and said:
The amendment singles out the sole proposition of rents and then
undertakes to deal with excessive rents, and it comes within the ruling
of the Chair which was sustained by the committee that an amendment can
not be offered in a tax bill which has some ulterior purpose in view
which has for its purpose the regulation of some matter and merely adds
on the question of the tax. If the gentleman can do this, he can go out
and regulate the price of coal, the price of shoes, the price of
anything else in the whole category and merely say that if it exceeds a
certain profit then it shall be subject to taxation. It opens up this
tax bill to all of the wide, wild field of regulation of prices.
After further debate the Chairman \2\ ruled:
The gentleman from Oklahoma offers an amendment which is to
substitute a new title, and has in it several sections. The ruling of
the committee, twice expressed, one on the matter of undistributed
profits and the other on an excess-profits tax, was as the Chair
understands it, that any matter of internal-revenue tax would be
admissible as an amendment to this bill, whether offered as an
amendment to some section or as a new section or title. The ruling went
no further than that, as the Chair understood it.
The Chair has had this matter under advisement for a little while,
because of the fact that the amendment was printed in the Record, and
there are some rulings which the Chair has found in which the principle
is adhered to that the effect of the amendment must govern its
germaneness, and not the purpose of which the amendment is offered. But
that does not mean that everything that is offered as an amendment to
this bill would be in order because it contains a tax. The Chair thinks
that the common-sense and practical view of the matter would justify
him in coming to the same conclusion that the Chair has arrived at from
the offering previously of an amendment of this kind, to take into
account what the apparent purpose of the amendment is; and in this case
the Chair believes that he has the right to determine this matter from
a consideration of this question, namely, whether this amendment
imposes a new tax, whether that is its manifest purpose, or whether its
manifest purpose is to do something else and it is attempted to
incorporate a provision in this revenue bill something alien to the
subject matter.
This amendment in its first paragraph provides for the rent of a
dwelling house, when, if it is above the standard rent as defined in
the paragraph, 50 per cent of that increase over the standard rent
should be taxes. Then the amendment provides that it the landlord
increases the rent not exceeding 15 per cent on account of repairs, the
amount so expended on repairs shall not be deemed an increase for the
purpose of this title.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3177.
\2\ William J. Graham, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 3040
In the second paragraph the amendment provides that where the
standard rent is not in excess of 10 per cent net of the capital value
of the dwelling the amendment shall not apply, and the only return the
landlord shall be required to render is an affidavit to the effect that
the rent received during the taxable year does not exceed the standard
rent as defined in the amendment.
In the third section the provision is that when a person lets a
dwelling house or any part thereof at a rent which includes payment in
respect of the use of furniture which will yield the lessor a profit of
25 per cent per annum in excess of the standard rent of the dwelling
unfurnished, the excess rent shall be taxed 50 per cent.
Then the next section provides that if the landlord rents more than
one dwelling house or part of a dwelling house in excess of a standard
rent, the excess rent shall be taxed 75 per cent.
It is unnecessary for the Chair to go into a long dissertation on
which this amendment does. The Chair has come to the conclusion, after
looking it over and examining its contents, that it is a manifest
attempt to regulate rents and that it comes within the purview of the
ruling of the Chair on the corrupt practices amendment, and the Chair
sustains the point of order.
On appeal the decision of the Chair was sustained.
3040. To a bill providing for determination of the amount of a tax an
amendment requiring such determination to be made within a certain time
was held to be germane.
On February 22, 1924,\1\ during consideration of the bill H. R. 6715,
the revenue bill, in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, the Clerk read this paragraph:
Sec. 271. As soon as practicable after the return is filed the
commissioner shall examine it and shall determine the correct amount of
the tax.
Mr. Eugene Black, of Texas, proposed to amend the paragraph by adding
the following:
Provided, That except in cases of fraud, such determination as to
returns under this act shall be made within two years from the time
said return is filed.
Mr. William R. Green, of Iowa, submitted that the proposed amendment
was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \2\ ruled:
Section 271 is headed ``Examination of return and determination of
tax,'' and reads:
``Sec 271. As soon as practicable after the return is filed the
commissioner shall examine it and shall determine the correct amount of
the tax.''
To which the gentleman from Texas wants to add the following proviso:
``Provided, That except in cases of fraud such determination as to
returns under this act shall be made within two years from the time
said return is filed.''
The section is intended to have these returns passed upon as soon as
practicable. Suppose the section had said within two years after the
return. There is a time limit in one case ``as soon as practicable,''
but this might have been put in other language defining a certain
period of limitation.
The gentleman from Texas simply desires to modify that by language
``that except in cases of fraud the determination shall be made within
two years.'' There might be a better place in the bill for the
amendment, and it might be advisable for the committee to refuse to
adopt such amendments except to a later section, but that is a
legislative question and not a question of parliamentary law. The Chair
thinks that if the gentleman from Texas insists upon his amendment it
is germane, and overrules the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2968.
\2\ William J. Graham, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 3041
3041. To an internal-revenue tax bill an amendment requiring persons
making returns under the act to include a statement of campaign
contributions was held not to be germane.
On February 22, 1924,\1\ while the bill H.R. 6715, the revenue bill,
was under consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, Mr. R. Walton Moore, of Virginia, offered an
amendment to be added as a new section requiring persons making returns
under the act to include a statement of contributions made for campaign
purposes.
Mr. William R. Green, of Iowa, having raised a question of order
against the amendment, the Chairman \2\ ruled:
The title which the committee is now considering is ``Title III--
Corporations,'' and deals with the tax on corporations. The particular
part of the title which the committees has just finished is headed
``Corporation Returns,'' and provides for certain returns to be made by
corporations for the purpose of the assessment of their corporation
tax, and for no other purpose. Throughout the paragraph relative to
returns to be made by the taxpayer nothing else is included except
elements upon which this tax may be assessed. To that the gentleman
from Virginia seeks to add a new section to be known as 239(b), which
is as follows:
``Every person required by this act to make a return shall therein
specifically state each item, and the amount thereof, of all gifts,
advances, subscriptions, payments, contributions, and expenditures
made, and to whom, in behalf of, or for the purpose of influencing
directly or indirectly the nomination or defeat or election or defeat
of, any candidate or candidates for the office of President, Vice-
President, Senator, or Representative, or presidential and vice-
presidential electors, or for use in, or in respect to, any convention,
primary, or election in which there is nominated or elected a candidate
for any of the aforesaid offices, but when the aggregate thereof in any
taxable year does not exceed the sum of $1,000 no return thereof need
to be made.''
There is nowhere in this amendment any statement of any fact which
aids and assists the taxing officers in computing the amount of the tax
and that should be the reason for the return to be made by the
taxpayer. If there was any information contained in the amendment which
would affect the amount of the tax, it would be germane, but there is
nothing in it that affects that question. The only thing that is
affected by it is that if the taxpayer is a candidate for public office
and spends less than $1,000, he need not make this return to the taxing
authorities. Therefore, the matter is not in any particular germane to
the object to be accomplished, namely, to tax corporations; but this is
an attempt, as the Chair last night ruled, and I think properly, to
impose upon every candidate for office the necessity of complying with
certain corrupt practices provisions under the guise of an income-tax
return. If the House, in its wisdom, desires to overrule the Chair on
this ruling, it will have the right to do so, but the Chair can not
stultify himself, and come to any other conclusions than that he has
here-to-fore expressed, that such an amendment is not germane, and
therefore sustains the point of order.
3042. To a bill raising revenue by several methods of taxation the
Committee of the Whole (overruling the Chairman) held an amendment
proposing an additional method of taxation to be germane.
To a bill proposing an income tax, an estate tax, and certain excise
taxes, an amendment proposing a tax on the undistributed profits of
corporations accruing during the taxable year was held to be germane.
On February 21, 1924 \3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was considering the bill H. R. 6715, the revenue
bill, proposing to raise
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2950.
\2\ William J. Graham, of Illinois, Chairman.
\3\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2916.
Sec. 3043
revenue through the levying of various taxes, including an income tax,
a corporation tax, excise taxes, and taxes derived from other methods
of taxation.
Mr. James A. Frear, of Wisconsin, moved to amend the bill by adding a
new section as follows:
In addition to the taxes herein provided there shall be levied,
collected, and paid on that portion of the net income of every
corporation, not distributed in the form of cash dividends, a tax upon
the amount of such net income for such year in excess of the credits
provided in section 236, and a further deduction of $3,000 for such
year at the following rates: Five per cent of the amount of such excess
not exceeding $20,000; 10 percent of the amount of such excess above
$20,000.
Mr. John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After exhaustive debate the Chairman \1\ held that the proposed tax
on undivided profits was not in the class with other methods of
taxation provided by the bill and sustained the point of order.
Mr. Frear appealed from the decision of the Chair and the vote being
taken by tellers, the yeas were 150, the noes were 164, and the
decision of the Chair did not stand as the judgment of the committee.
3043. To a proposed constitutional amendment authorizing taxation of
income derived from securities issued under authority of the States an
amendment authorizing taxation of income derived from other sources was
held not be germane.
On January 23, 1923,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 314)
proposing to amend the Constitution by adding an article authorizing
the taxation of income derived from securities issued under the
authority of the States, as follows:
Section 1. The United States shall have power to lay and collect
taxes on income derived from securities issued, after the ratification
of this article, by or under the authority of any State, but without
discrimination against income derived from such securities and in favor
of income derived from securities issued, after the ratification of
this article, by or under the authority of the United States or any
other State.
Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, offered this substitute:
In the exercise of the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes as
granted by Article XVI, Congress shall lay and collect taxes on incomes
derived from securities issued by or under the authority of the United
States an by or under the authority of any State, Territory, or
possession, and on incomes derived from salaries or compensation by all
public officers, and on incomes derived from all other sources
whatsoever, all without discrimination on account of the source from
which derived.
Mr. William R. Green, of Iowa, submitted that the proposed amendment
was not germane to the joint resolution.
After debate the Chairman \3\ ruled:
The resolution brought in by the Committee on Ways and Means, H. J.
Res. 314, deals with State securities, public securities, bonds; while
the amendment offered by the gentleman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ William J. Graham, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2276.
\3\ Clifton N. McArthur, of Oregon, Chairman.
Sec. 3044
from Alabama deals with income-tax questions, the salaries of public
officials, and other matters, and in the judgment of the Chair it is
clearly not germane to the resolution pending.
3044. To a section of a revenue bill relating to tax returns required
by the bill an amendment relating to all tax returns was held not to be
germane.
On February 22, 1924,\1\ the bill H.R. 6715, the revenue bill, was
being read for amendment under the five-minute rule in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union.
Mr. James A. Frear, of Wisconsin, offered an amendment striking out
the pending paragraph and inserting in lieu thereof an amendment
reading in part as follows:
All tax proceedings and determinations subject to reasonable
regulation shall be public, and an advance calendar of all hearings of
contested tax rulings shall be open to the public.
Mr. William R. Green, of Iowa, raised the question of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \2\ sustained the point of order and said:
This is offered as a substitute for section 257.
Section 257(a) provides for returns to be pubic records and deals
entirely with income-tax returns and records and states that under
certain circumstances those income-tax returns shall be public records,
and under certain other circumstances they shall not be public records.
The gentleman from Wisconsin offers an amendment as follows: To insert
in lieu of that language this provision:
``That when returns of any person shall be made as provided in this
title, the returns, together with any correction thereof which may have
been made by the commissioner, shall be filed in the Treasury
Department and shall constitute public records and be open to
inspection as such, under the same rules and regulations that govern
the inspection of other public records.''
Thus far, obviously, the language is germane to the section. Then
follows this paragraph:
``All tax proceedings and determinations, subject to reasonable
regulation, shall be public, and an advance calendar of all hearings of
contested tax rulings shall be open to the public.''
The query arises, just what that language means. The language is
``all tax proceedings.'' What sort of tax proceedings? Income-tax
proceedings, internal revenue tax proceedings, external revenue tax
proceedings, or what sort of proceedings? In other words, it seems to
the Chair that the language ``all tax proceedings,'' if this amendment
is to be considered germane, should be limited by some appropriate
language so that it will be confined to the internal revenue provisions
contained in this bill.
3045. To a bill amendatory of an existing law as to one specific
particular, an amendment relating to the terms of that law rather than
to those of the bill was held not to be germane.
To a proposition relating exclusively to the educational test in the
current immigration law an amendment applying to the law as a whole was
held not to be germane.
On December 18, 1912,\3\ the bill (S. 3175) to regulate the
immigration of aliens to the United States, which was being considered
under a special order, was read the third time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2954.
\2\ William J. Graham, of Illinois, Chairman.
\3\ Third session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 863.
Sec. 3045
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, moved to recommit the bill to the
Committee on Immigration and Naturalization with instructions to that
Committee to report it back forthwith with an amendment in part as
follows:
The word ``alien'' wherever used in this act shall include foreign-
born, unnaturalized seamen. That the term ``United States,'' as used in
the title as well as in the various sections of this act, shall be
construed to mean the United States, including the Territories of
Alaska and Hawaii; and if any alien shall attempt to enter the United
States from the Canal Zone, the Philippines, Porto Rico, or any other
place outside of the United States but subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, such alien shall be permitted to enter only on the conditions
applicable to aliens entering the United States from a foreign country.
That the term ``seamen'' as used in this act shall include every person
signed on the ship's articles and employed in any capacity on board any
vessel arriving in the United States from any foreign port or place.
That nothing in this act shall be construed to apply to accredited
officials of foreign Governments nor to their suites, families, or
guests.
Mr. Augustus P. Gardner, of Massachusetts, made the point of order
that it was not permissible by a motion to recommit to propose
amendments not germane to the bill.
After debate, the Speaker \1\ ruled:
The rule about motions to recommit is simple enough in its statement,
though it is sometimes difficult to apply it. It is that the
propositions contained in a motion to recommit must have been germane
to the subject matter of the bill if offered as an amendment. The
situation in this case is very peculiar. The Chair does not believe
that a similar situation has arisen in the 18 years he has been in the
House. In the first place, this special rule is peculiar. It contains a
provision that the Chair does not remember ever to have seen in one
before; and while the House got out from under that rule when it got
back into the House, still the Chair will read the rule and see what
the House was trying to do and what the House intended to do:
``Resolved, that immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the
House shall resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for the consideration of S. 3175, with the amendment
reported by the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization.''
Of course, everybody who paid any attention to the debate knows the
amendment was a substitute and covered everything the House wanted to
do.
``That there shall be four hours' general debate, to be divided
equally between those favoring and those opposing the measure. At the
expiration of said four hours' general debate the same shall be
considered under the five-minute rule as follows: The amendment
proposed by the House committee shall be first read for amendment and
perfected. After same has been so perfected the vote shall be taken
upon the question of the adoption of said amendment. If same shall be
adopted, then the Senate bill shall not be read.''
That is the remarkable statement in that rule. If it ever was in any
other, the Chair has forgotten it.
``If same shall be adopted, then the Senate bill shall not be read,
but the committee shall rise and report the measure to the House. If it
shall not be adopted, then the Senate bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule, and when perfected the committee
shall rise and report the same to the House. Immediately upon the
perfected measure being reported to the House the previous question
shall be considered as ordered upon the bill and all pending amendments
to final passage''--and there was only one amendment, that is, the
committee amendment, and it was not changed in a single respect--``and
all pending amendments to final passage without intervening motions,
except one motion to recommit. But a separate vote may be demanded upon
any amendment or amendments thereto adopted by the Committee of the
Whole.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 3046
The only purpose of reading that rule was to show what the House was
trying to get at. Evidently the intention of the House was to consider
the educational test and nothing else. The Senate bill has never even
been read to the House. The question before the House is evidently this
educational test and nothing else.
The Senate bill discusses the whole question of immigration. It
defines the terms to be used. It has a section in it as to people in
the Philippines, and so on, to the end of the bill. But the House
indicated its intentions to hold this matter down to the educational
test. That is all the Chair reads this special rule for. Under the rule
the gentleman from Illinois could not offer the propositions in this
motion to recommit as amendments in the Committee of the Whole. The
House was so determined that it would not consider the Senate bill that
it provided it should not be even read--a most extraordinary provision.
There is another thing about this. The Chair has held--this occupant
of the chair, and it was held before, although not quite so elaborately
as the present Speaker stated it, because the matter had not been
argued, I suppose, so vociferously--but on one occasion the Chair held
that you could not do by indirection, in a motion to recommit, what you
could not do by direction, and the Chair was backed up by the authority
of a long line of illustrious Speakers. You can not take a proposition
that has been ruled out directly by the House and put it back again by
a motion to recommit.
In this case clearly the only thing before this House is the
educational test. If the general Senate bill had been pending and the
previous question had not been ordered, and the gentleman from Illinois
or any other gentleman had offered the educational test as an amendment
to a general immigration bill, the Chair would have held it in order,
because it would have been in order. But this situation turns the
question squarely around. The matter pending before this House is on
the educational test. This motion of the gentleman proposes to recommit
with an entire immigration bill as an amendment. Consequently the point
of order is sustained.
3046. To a bill regulating the entry of aliens into the United States
an amendment providing like restrictions on admission of anarchists,
Bolshevists, and others, was held not to be germane.
On October 15, 1919,\1\ the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 9782) to
regulate further the entry of aliens into the United States, when Mr.
Henry I. Emerson, of Ohio, proposed this amendment:
Which restrictions shall provide that no Bolshevist, anarchist, or
I.W.W. sympathizer shall be allowed to enter the United States.
Mr. John Jacob Rogers, of Massachusetts, submitted a point of order.
After debate the Chairman \2\ ruled:
The bill is designed to prevent the admission of aliens. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio adds to it other classes
which may not be admitted, anarchists, I.W.W.'s, Bolshevists, and so
on. The rule is clear that where a bill is limited to one class you can
not by amendment add several other classes, and the Chair sustains the
point of order.
3047. To a proposition relating to one class of individuals a
proposition relating to another class of related individuals is not
germane.
To a section proposing the admission of aliens fleeing from religious
persecution an amendment proposing the admission of aliens fleeing from
political persecution was held not to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 6982.
\2\ Simeon D. Fess, of Ohio, Chairman.
Sec. 3048
On April 21, 1921,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 4075) to limit the
immigration of aliens into the United States.
The Clerk read the following committee amendment providing for the
admission of aliens who prove to the satisfaction of the proper
immigration officer or of the Secretary of Labor that they are seeking
admission to the United States to avoid religious persecution in the
country of their last permanent residence, whether such persecution is
evidenced by overt acts or by laws or governmental regulations that
discriminate against the alien or the race to which he belongs because
of his religious faith.
Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, proposed to amend the committee
amendment by the addition of the following provision:
After the word ``faith,'' insert: ``Aliens fugitive or refugee for
political reasons, which facts may be established by the verdict of a
jury on an issue framed in a habeas corpus proceeding in the district
court of the United States where such alien may be sojourning.''
Mr. Albert Johnson, of Washington, raised the question of order that
the proposed amendment was not germane to the committee amendment to
which it was offered.
After debate the Chairman \2\ ruled:
The gentleman from Illinois offers an amendment which seeks to add a
different class to that of the committee amendment, namely, to
fugitives or refugees for political reasons. The amendment under
consideration excepts only those from the computation who seek
admission to this country to avoid religious persecution. This is
adding a new class apart and distinct to that in the amendment under
consideration and accordingly is out of order. The Chair will say that
he will recognize the gentleman to offer his amendment as a new
subdivision. The point of order made by the gentleman from Washington
is sustained.
3048. An amendment providing for the dissemination abroad of
information designed to attract a better class of immigrants was held
not to be germane to a bill to limit the immigration of aliens into the
United States.
On April 11, 1924,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 7995) to limit the
immigration of aliens into the United States, when Mr. James B. Aswell,
of Louisiana, offered as a new section an amendment in part as follows:
The Secretary of Labor shall from time to time in cooperation with
the various States and Territories desiring or in need of immigration
collect and publish for distribution in foreign countries information
concerning the resources, products, and physical characteristics of
each such State or Territory and the opportunities for profitable
employment existing therein, and such other information as will enable
consular officers to select immigrants of the class and occupation
needed and who are qualified by education, training, or previous
experience to meet the necessary requirements. The publication herein
provided for shall be in the language of the country where distributed,
and shall be in such form as shall by regulations be prescribed.
Consular officers shall post such information in public or other places
or otherwise distribute the same in such manner and to such extent as
will bring the information to the notice and attention of prospective
immigrants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 549.
\2\ William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, Chairman.
\3\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 6158.
Sec. 3049
Mr. John E. Raker, of California, raised the question of order that
the amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \1\ ruled:
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana is composed of
four or five different sections dealing with the question of
advertisements in the different foreign countries with respect to
prospective immigrants, and dealing subsequently with the conduct of
the immigrants who are admitted to this country.
The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is not germane to the
point in the bill at which it is offered, and the point of order is
sustained.
3049. To a bill excluding certain several classes of immigrants an
amendment excluding all immigrants was held to be germane.
On April 11, 1924,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 7995) to limit the
immigration of aliens into the United States, when Mr. Albert H. Vestal
of Indiana, offered the following amendment to be inserted as a new
section:
Whenever the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Commerce shall
jointly certify that unemployment exists in the continental United
States or any specified Territory or insular possession thereof to such
an extent as in their opinion immigration thereto should be suspended
in whole or in part from all or certain designated countries, the
President of the United States shall by proclamation suspend
immigration for the time and to the extent set forth in such
certificate and during such time immigration certificates shall not be
issued to any immigrant who is a national of any country designated in
such proclamation, nor shall such immigrant be permitted to enter the
continental United States or such specified Territory or insular
possession thereof.
Mr. John E. Raker, of California, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \3\ held:
The Chair is inclined to the opinion that the amendment is germane.
The whole bill deals with the question of restricting the number of
aliens who can come to this country, and it seems to the Chair that an
amendment providing that all could be kept out for a certain time would
be germane, and that, regardless of the fact that it departs from the
general trend of the bill, it does not depart to such an extent as to
affect the germaneness, and therefore the point of order is overruled.
3050. To a bill regulating immigration an amendment providing that
the operation of the proposed act should not conflict with an informal
``agreement'' with Japan was held not to be germane.
On April 12, 1924,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union had under consideration the bill H. R. 7995, the
immigration bill, providing for the exclusion of certain classes of
aliens applying for admission to the United States.
Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, proposed to insert as a new section
the following:
Nothing in this act shall affect the validity of the ``gentleman's
agreement'' of 1907 between the United States and Japan concerning
immigration from Japan, which agreement is hereby reaffirmed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Everett Sanders, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 6143.
\3\ Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, Chairman.
\4\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 6231.
Sec. 3051
Mr. Albert Johnson, of Washington, having raised the question of
order that the amendment was not germane, the Chairman \1\ said:
The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is an amendment
dealing with diplomatic relations. It is not germane at this point of
the bill if germane at all, and the point of order is sustained.
3051. To a bill providing for an eight-hour day and creating a
commission to investigate the subject, an amendment authorizing the
appointment of a commission to arbitrate labor disputes and prevent
strikes was held not to be germane.
On September 1, 1916,\2\ the House was considering the bill (H. R.
17700) to establish an eight-hour day for employees of interstate
carriers.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and was read the third time,
when Mr. John A. Sterling, of Illinois, moved to recommit it to the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce with instructions to
report it back forthwith with an amendment for the creation of a board
of mediation and conciliation authorized to induce employers and
employees to submit their labor controversies to arbitration and
providing for such arbitration.
Mr. William C. Adamson, of Georgia, made the point of order that the
amendment proposed in the motion to recommit was not germane to the
bill.
The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order and said:
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Mann, very correctly suggests that
the Speaker does not have to forget all he knows in order to rule upon
a point of order, and what the Chair does know is that those six
propositions laid down by the President embodied two principal
features, one of which was to prevent a strike from taking place on all
of the railroads of the United States at 7 o'clock next Monday morning,
and the other looking to a general system of preventing strikes in days
to come. The one that we are working on now is to prevent a strike at 7
o'clock next Monday morning. All of the propositions laid down in the
motion of the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Sterling, may be of the
highest merit. The Chair is not passing upon that; he does not have to
pass upon it. This bill contains four sections. One of them establishes
an eight-hour law. The second section is to appoint a commission of
observation--and that is exactly what it is--which is to make its
report at a certain time. The third is that, pending the report of this
commission and for a period of 30 days thereafter, the compensation of
the railway employees subject to the act shall not be reduced below the
present standard day's wage, and that for all necessary time in excess
of eight hours such employees shall be paid at a rate not less than the
pro rata rate for such standard eight-hour workday. Section 4
prescribes penalties for violating the provisions of the bill.
The Chair does not think that the motion of the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Sterling, is germane, and, therefore, sustains the point
of order.
An appeal by Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, was, on motion of Mr.
John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, laid on the table--yeas 204, nays 87.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Everett Sanders, of Indiana, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 13606.
\3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 3052
3052. To a bill prohibiting the mailing of revolvers an amendment
prohibiting the mailing of publications containing advertisements of
revolvers was held not to be germane.
To a bill prohibiting the mailing of revolvers except to certain
public officials an amendment proposing an additional excepted class
was construed as a further exception and admitted as germane.
On December 17, 1924,\1\ the House had under consideration the bill
(H. R. 9093) declaring revolvers and other firearms capable of being
concealed on the person unmailable.
Mr. Thomas L. Rubey, of Missouri, offered an amendment proposing to
exclude from the mails:
Any newspaper, circular, pamphlet, or any publication of any kind
containing any advertisement for the sale of any pistol, revolver, or
other firearm.
Mr. C. William Ramseyer, of Iowa, having raised a question of order
against the amendment, the Speaker \2\ held that the amendment was not
germane to the bill and sustained the point of order.
Thereupon Mr. John Philip Hill, of Maryland, proposed this amendment:
Provided, That no firearm shall be mailed to any person unless such
person is required to wear a prescribed and distinctive uniform when
armed with such firearm.
Mr. Ramseyer again raised the question of order as to germaneness.
The Speaker said:
The bill is all in one section. The part pertaining to the mailing of
firearms is an exception. The Chair can not see why there can not be
another exception. The Chair overrules the point of order.
3053. To a bill providing for the establishment of branch banks an
amendment proposing regulations for the control of such branches was
held to be germane.
On January 13, 1925,\3\ the bill (H. R. 8887) providing for the
amendment of the national bank act and the Federal reserve act was
being considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, when section 8 of the bill providing for the establishment
of branch banks by certain national banking associations was read.
Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, submitted an amendment as follows:
Provided, That all such branches of such associations shall be
established, maintained, and operated subject to the same rules and
regulations, if any, prescribed in pursuance of section 9 of the
Federal reserve act by the Federal Reserve Board for the establishment,
maintenance, and operation of branches by State banks and trust
companies which may be members of the Federal reserve banks.
Mr. Otis Wingo, of Arkansas, raised the question of order that the
amendment was not germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 735.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 1839.
Sec. 3054
The Chairman \1\ ruled:
Section 8 of this bill under consideration provides for the
establishment in certain locations and under certain circumstances of
branch banks of national banks and provides that such branches of such
national banking associations shall be subject to the general
supervising powers of the Comptroller of the Currency and shall operate
under such regulations as he may prescribe. Now the amendment offered
by the gentleman from New York provides further that not only should
the establishment of such branches be limited by the provisions
contained in the bill; that is, supervisory powers of the Comptroller
and the regulations he may prescribe, but that such establishment of
branches shall be subject to the further regulations, as provided in
section 9 in reference to the admission of State banks to the Federal
reserve system. Now with the wisdom or unwisdom of the proposition of
such further limitation upon the establishment of branches the Chair
has nothing to do, and is ruling only on the germaneness of the
amendment offered. The Chair thinks it will not be questioned that if
instead of referring to section 9 the limitations contained in section
9 were set forth in language and sought to be added to the limitations
already carried in the section as reported by the committee, the point
of order would not be good. This is a further limitation, prescribing
still further regulations with respect to the establishment of
branches, and therefore is germane, and the Chair overrules the point
of order.
3054. To a proposition providing for the attainment of an objective
by a specific method a proposal to achieve the same objective through
the adoption of another method closely related may be germane.
To a bill authorizing the Secretary of War in his discretion to
discharge enlisted men an amendment directing the Secretary of War to
prescribe regulations permitting the discharge of such men was held to
be germane.
An instance wherein a proposal to instruct an executive to take
definite action was held to be germane to a proposal to authorize him
to take such action.
A paragraph subject to the point of order that it constitutes
legislation on an appropriation bill but allowed to remain in the bill
is open to germane amendments.
On May 6, 1921,\2\ while the army appropriation bill was under
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, the Clerk read:
The Secretary of War shall discharge from the military service with
pay and with the form of discharge certificate to which the service of
each, after enlistment, shall entitle him all enlisted men under the
age of 18 on the application of either of their parents or legal
guardian, and shall also furnish to each transportation in kind from
the place of discharge to the railroad station at or nearest to the
place of acceptance for enlistment, or to his home if the distance
thereto is no greater than from the place of discharge to the place of
acceptance for enlistment, but if the distance be greater he may be
furnished with transportation in kind for a distance equal to that from
place of discharge to place of acceptance for enlistment; and the
Secretary of War is authorized in his discretion to grant applications
for discharge of enlisted men without regard to the provisions of
existing law respecting discharges.
Mr. Harry E. Hull, of Iowa, proposed this amendment:
After the word ``is,'' strike out the words ``authorized in his
discretion'' and insert ``directed under such reasonable regulations as
he may prescribe''; after the word ``discharges,'' insert the words
``until the number in the Army has been reduced to 150,000 enlisted
men, not including the Philippine Scouts.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 1134.
Sec. 3054
Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
Mr. Horace M. Towner, of Iowa, opposed the point of order and said:
Mr. Chairman, the whole paragraph is subject to a point of order, as
the Chair suggests. However, that point of order was not made.
Therefore it becomes a part of the bill proper for consideration. Now,
the point of order with regard to this particular amendment is that it
is not germane. It seems to me that clearly it is germane. The
particular sentence in the original bill is as follows:
``The Secretary of War is authorized in his discretion to grant
applications for discharge of enlisted men without regard to the
provisions of existing law respecting discharges.''
The amendment is as follows, so that that particular paragraph will
read:
``And the Secretary of War is directed under such reasonable
regulations as he may prescribe to grant applications for discharge,''
and so forth. So it will be seen, I think, clearly, by the Chair that
there is no question but what the amendment refers to the particular
matter directly. In effect it only charges ``is authorized in his
discretion,'' and ``directs'' him. To say that is not a germane
provision it seems to me is going altogether too far. So it appears
that as far as the question of germaneness is concerned the amendment
of the gentleman from Iowa is clearly within the rule.
The Chairman \1\ decided:
This is a general appropriation bill. The paragraph is clearly
legislation, and would have been subject to a point of order had anyone
raised that point of order. That point of order, however, was not
raised. Now comes the gentleman from Iowa and offers an amendment, to
which a point of order is made on the ground that it is not germane to
the paragraph in the bill.
It is not within the province of the Chair to decide as to the merits
of the proposition. Personally, as a Member of the House, the present
occupant of the chair would be opposed to the adoption of such an
amendment and therefore does not approach the consideration of it with
any predilection in favor of holding the amendment to be in order. The
question is, is it germane under paragraph 7 of Rule XVI? This
paragraph of the rule reads:
``And no motion or proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
This question of germaneness has been considered in a great number of
decisions, all turning upon this one point: When is a proposition or
subject different from that under consideration? The subject under
consideration in this paragraph is, in the first part of it, the
discharge of men under 18 years of age. If it stopped there, then this
paragraph might be held out of order as introducing a new subject. But
it does not stop there. It goes further. The Chair will read the last
clause of the paragraph:
``And the Secretary of War is authorized in his discretion to grant
applications for discharge of enlisted men without regard to the
provisions of existing law respecting discharges.''
What is the subject of consideration in this part of the paragraph?
It is the discharge of men from the Army. It provides a method; that
is, that the Secretary of War is authorized in his discretion to grant
applications for discharge, and so on, without regard to the existing
law. The amendment proposes a somewhat different way, and yet in the
opinion of the Chair it clearly relates to the same subject, in that
the Secretary of War is directed, under such reasonable regulations as
he shall prescribe, to grant application for the discharge of enlisted
men, without regard to the provisions of existing law respecting
discharges, until the number has been reduced to 150,000 enlisted men.
The Chair is unable, after a review of a number of decisions, to
discover such difference in subject matter as would warrant the Chair
in holding that this amendment is not germane to the paragraph.
Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
Sec. 3055
3055. To a proposition designed to achieve a certain objective in one
way a proposal to attain the same objective in another and closely
related way is germane.
To a resolution proposing to amend the rules of the House in a number
of particulars in order to establish a Budget system, as amendment
changing the rules in other particulars with the same object in view
was held to be germane.
On June 1, 1920,\1\ the House took up the consideration of the
resolution (H. Res. 324) proposing to amend the rules by transferring
from various legislative committees to the Committee on Appropriations
jurisdiction to report appropriations, and making certain other changes
in the rules in order to provide for the establishment of a Budget
system.
After consideration, the question being on agreeing to the
resolution, Mr. Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, moved to recommit the
resolution to the Select Committee on the Budget, reporting it, with
instructions to report the same back forthwith with an amendment
striking out all after the resolving clause and inserting in lieu
thereof the following:
There shall be a committee on the budget, to consist of the chairman
and ranking member of the majority party and the ranking member of the
minority party on the following committees: Appropriations, Ways and
Means, Rivers and Harbors, Agriculture, Foreign Affairs, Military
Affairs, Naval Affairs, Post Office and Post Roads, Indian Affairs,
Public Buildings and Grounds, and the District of Columbia. The
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations shall be the chairman of
the budget committee.
It shall be the duty of the budget committee to consider the budget
transmitted by the President at the beginning of each regular session
of Congress, and from time to time to determine the aggregate amount of
appropriations which may be reported by any committee having authority
to report appropriations under the rules. No committee shall report
appropriations in excess of the total amount authorized by the budget
committee for such committee for the ensuing fiscal year.
Mr. James W. Good, of Iowa, made the point of order that the proposed
amendment was not germane to the pending resolution.
After debate the Speaker \2\ held:
The original resolution amends the rules of the House in various
ways, all applying to the one general subject. Now the gentleman from
Minnesota offers his motion to recommit, and the objection is made that
it is not germane. This proposition has been for years one of the
alternative programs for establishing the budget system. It has been
advocated as accomplishing the same result as the main resolution. It
has been associated constantly with the subject and is substantially
akin to it and is certainly in order unless it is technically not by
precedents germane. The Chair would be disposed consequently to hold it
in order unless very clearly it were out of order, inasmuch as it
affords the House an opportunity to express its preference as to the
different budget methods. The original resolution covers several rules,
and the Chair thinks that the fact that this motion to recommit does
authorize a new committee does not make it out of order, because the
Chair thinks it is germane to the whole resolution. The Chair,
therefore, overrules the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 8120.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 3056
3056. To a proposition to accomplish a certain purpose by one method
a proposition to achieve the same purpose by another closely related
method is germane.
To a bill proposing the adjudication of claims arising out of
informal contracts with the Government, through the agency of the
Secretary of War, an amendment proposing to adjudicate such claims
through the agency of a commission appointed for that purpose was held
to be germane.
On January 9, 1919,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 13274) for the relief of
informal contracts, providing for the settlement of claims arising from
informal obligations incurred by the Government during the war, through
the mediation of the office of the Secretary of War.
Mr. J. Hampton Moore, of Pennsylvania, offered an amendment proposing
to adjudicate such claims through judicial determination of a
commission.
Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, raised the question of order that
the proposed amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \2\ held:
This bill before the House has for its object the validating and
settling of damages arising out of informal contracts made by the War
Department. The bill before the House provides that the Secretary of
the War, or any of his agents or representatives, can adjust and settle
these differences. The amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania
provides a different method or a different agent or a different
tribunal to settle these differences. The Chair believes it is germane
to the bill before the House. The Chair does not believe the House is
confined to the particular method of settlement of these claims that
the committee reports. The Chair believes the amendment is germane
proposing another vehicle, and it is for the House to determine which
shall be adopted. The Chair overrules the point of order.
3057. To a text authorizing arbitration of claims against the
Government an amendment providing an appropriation to pay claims so
arbitrated was held not to be germane.
On February 12, 1917,\3\ during consideration of the naval
appropriation bill in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, Mr. Lemuel P. Padgett, of Tennessee, proposed an amendment
authorizing the Government under certain contingencies to take over and
operate private factories and providing that the owners of such plants
should have the right to sue for compensation in the Court of Claims.
To this proposal Mr. Thomas S. Butler, of Pennsylvania, offered an
amendment providing for the appointment of commissioners to arbitrate
such claims and concluding as follows:
Whenever any department of the Government of the United States shall
have exercised any of the powers herein conferred, such department,
either before or after the proceedings above mentioned, is hereby a
authorized from time to time to pay to the injured party or parties,
either its discretion, out of any moneys appropriated for that purpose,
either the whole or any part of parts of treasonable damages admitted
by such department to have been sustained, or which
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 1209.
\2\ Charles R. Crisp, of Georgia, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Sixty-fourth congress, Record, p. 3140.
Sec. 3058
are likely to be sustained, by reason of the exercise of such power,
without prejudice to the rights of either party by reason of such
payment of payments and upon final judgment being entered in any such
proceeding, the proper department is hereby authorized and directed to
draw its warrant on the Treasury for the amount of said judgment and
costs, and said amount for the payment thereof is hereby appropriated
out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Mr. Padgett having raised a question of order against the amendment,
the Chairman\1\ ruled:
In the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee provision is
made in the last clause, page 6:
``It shall make just compensation therefor''--that is, the property
that has been taken by the Government--``and in default of agreement
upon the damages, compensation, price, or rental due by reason of any
action hereunder the person to whom the same is due shall be entitled
to sue the United States to recover his fair and reasonable damages in
the manner provided for by section 2, paragraph 20, section 145 of the
Judicial Code.''
Which, as the chair understands it, would allow suit in the Court of
Claims for damages. Now, the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania that suit may be brought in the proper district court of
the United States, or that within the jurisdiction of this court it may
be arbitrated in the judgment of the Chair and in the opinion of the
Chair that part of the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania is
germane to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee. But
in the later clause of the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania he creates an indefinite and continuing appropriation, and
the question of germaneness, as the Chair has stated, in the first part
of the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, he would hold it
was germane, but in the opinion of the Chair the amendment of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania creating a continuing and indefinite
appropriation destroys the germaneness, and the point of order is
sustained.
3058. To a section authorizing the assignment of clerks an amendment
prescribing qualifications to be considered in the appointment of such
clerks was held not to be germane.
On June 9, 1921,\2\ while the bill (H. R. 6611) to establish a
veterans' bureau was being considered in the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union, the Clerk read the following section:
For the purpose of this act, the director is authorized to detail
from time to time clerks or persons employed in the bureau, to make
examinations into the merits of compensation and insurance claims,
whether pending or adjudicated, as he may deem proper, and to aid in
the preparation, presentation, or examination of such claims; and any
such person so detailed shall have power to administer oaths, take
affidavits, and certify to the correctness of the papers and documents
pertaining to the administration of this act.
Mr. William R. Stevenson, of South Carolina, proposed this amendment:
Provided, That in appointing clerks to be detailed for such service,
or for any other service under this bill, former soldiers who are
eligible shall be preferred, in accordance with the act of July 11,
1919.
Mr. Everett Sanders, of Indiana, having made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane, the Chairman\3\ said:
The Chair, in the first place, can not concern himself about the
merits of this amendment. The Chair does not think that because this
bill is in the interest of ex-service men that any amend-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Robert N. Page, of North Carolina, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2346.
\3\ Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, Chairman.
Sec. 3059
ment which might be proposed in the interest of ex-service men would
therefore be in order as an amendment to this bill. The particular
section to which this amendment is offered deals solely with the detail
of clerks already in the service and its provisions are limited to such
details, while the amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina deals
with original appointments to the service. The Chair thinks that an
amendment dealing with original appointments to the service is not
germane to a provision which deals solely with details within the
service, and therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.
3059. To a bill discontinuing certain subtreasuries and repealing the
law authorizing them an amendment providing for officers and employees
of such subtreasuries was held to be germane.
On January 17, 1919,\1\ during consideration of the legislative,
executive, and judicial appropriation bill in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union, the Clerk read:
The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to
discontinue the offices of the assistant treasurers at Baltimore,
Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, St.
Louis, and San Francisco from and after July 1, 1919; and section 3595
of the Revised Statutes and all laws or parts of laws so far as they
authorize the establishment and maintenance of officers of assistant
treasurers in the cities enumerated are repealed from and after the
said date.
Mr. John E. Raker, of California, offered an amendment appropriating
for the salaries of the officers and employees of the subtreasuries
proposed to be discontinued.
Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \2\ ruled:
The paragraph in question provides that--
``The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to
discontinue the offices of the assistant treasurers at Baltimore,
Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, St.
Louis, and San Francisco from and after July 1, 1919; and section 3595
of the Revised Statutes and all laws or parts of laws, so far as they
authorize the establishment and maintenance of offices of assistant
treasurers in the cities enumerated, are repealed from and after the
said date.''
That provision or paragraph would be subject to a point of order as
new legislation if it were not for the Holman rule, which provides that
legislation may be incorporated in appropriation bills where it
retrenches expenditures or decreases the whole amount covered by the
bill. Manifestly, if these Subtreasuries are abolished, it would
diminish expenditure. For that reason, under the Holman rule the
paragraph is in order.
Now, the gentleman from California offers an amendment, the purport
of which is to restore provisions for the subtreasurers and the other
officers and employees in Subtreasuries, all now authorized by law.
We have on the one hand the proposition to abolish the Subtreasuries
and on the other hand the proposition to make provision by
appropriation for the continuance of the various offices named in this
paragraph of the bill. It seems to the Chair that the amendment offered
by the gentleman from California is germane to the subject matter of
the paragraph. On the one hand the proposition is to abolish the
Subtreasuries; on the other hand to make appropriations for the
subtreasuries now authorized by law. The point of order is overruled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 1613.
\2\ Joshua W. Alexander, of Missouri, Chairman.
Sec. 3060
3060. To a provision making appropriation for the acquiring and
diffusing of information pertaining to agricultural products an
amendment making appropriation for an investigation incident thereto
was held to be germane.
On December 21, 1926,\1\ during the consideration of the Department
of Agriculture appropriation bill in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union, the Clerk read as follows:
For acquiring and diffusing among the people of the United States
useful information on subjects connected with the marketing, handling,
utilization, grading, transportation, and distributing of farm and
nonmanufactured food products and the purchasing of farm supplies,
including the demonstration and promotion of the use of uniform
standards of classification of American farm products throughout the
world, independently and in cooperation with other branches of the
department. State agencies, purchasing and consuming organizations, and
persons engaged in the marketing, handling, utilization, grading,
transportation, and distributing of farm and food products, and for
investigation of the economic costs of retail marketing of meat and
meat products, $571,780: Provided, That practical forms of the grades
recommended or promulgated by the Secretary for wool and mohair may be
sold under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, and the
receipts therefrom deposited in the Treasury to the credit of
miscellaneous receipts.
Mr. Tom Connally, of Texas, offered the following amendment:
After the word ``receipts,'' insert: ``For instituting and conducting
scientific and technical research into American-grown cotton and its
by-products and their present and potential uses, with a view to
discovering new and additional commercial and scientific uses for
cotton and its by-products, $50,000.''
Mr. Walter W. Magee, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After extended debate the Chairman \2\ held:
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas is to make an
appropriation ``for instituting and conducting scientific and technical
research into American-grown cotton and its by-products and their
present and potential uses with a view to discovering new commercial
and scientific uses for cotton and its by-products.''
The gentleman from New York makes the point of order that the
amendment is not germane and is an appropriation unauthorized by law.
The gentleman from Texas answers the point of order made by the
gentleman from New York by stressing the word ``utilization'' in the
paragraph under consideration. The Chair has followed his argument and
has studied the definition of the word ``utilization'' and does not
find that in connection with the paragraph in question it deals
directly with production of commodities designated in this bill. The
Chair finds ``utilize'' is to make useful or to turn to profitable
account or use, to make use of, as the utilization of the whole power
of the machine; to utilize one's opportunities.
Now, the Chair considers that the paragraph in question has to do
with information for the production of agricultural commodities, not to
do with their marketing, and it was with that thought in view that the
chair asked the question as to whether authority in law could be cited,
that the term ``utilization'' should apply to consumption of an article
after it has been produced, but the citation requested was not
supplied. It therefore seems to the Chair, no citation of that nature
having been furnished, that the contention of the gentleman from New
York that the amendment is not germane even to the definition of the
word ``utilization'' and that the para-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 887.
\2\ Allen T. Treadway, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
Sec. 3061
graph itself has to do with information concerning production rather
than the use of the finished article.
The Chair will rule that the amendment is not germane and sustain the
point of order.
Mr. Connally thereupon offered this amendment:
After the word ``world,'' insert: ``including scientific and
technical research into American-grown cotton and its by-products and
their present and potential uses with a view to discovering new and
additional commercial and scientific uses for cotton and its by-
products.''
Mr. Magee having again raised the question of germaneness, the
Chairman ruled:
The organic act establishing the Department of Agriculture designates
as one of the objects of the establishment of the department the
diffusion among the people of the United States of useful information
upon the subject of agriculture. The Chair felt, in the first instance,
that the gentleman from Texas offered an amendment which was not
germane to the subject of the diffusion of knowledge among the people
of the country in reference to agriculture, but was setting up new
machinery to discover uses for cotton which was not in the nature, as
the Chair understood it, of agricultural information. The second
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas directly applies to the
part of the paragraph which provides, in accordance with the
phraseology of the organic act, for the diffusion of agricultural
knowledge among the people of the United States, and not having as its
first purpose the making of an investigation and the making of an
appropriation therefor. It seems to the Chair that while, very likely,
it is the intention of the gentleman from Texas that his new amendment
shall cover practically the same thing asked for under his original
amendment that nevertheless it comes within the terms of germaneness in
its phraseology at the place where he is offering it, namely, to
diffuse information among the people of the United States relative to
an agricultural product. The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of
order.
3061. To a proposition to construct two ships by contract or in navy
yards an amendment proposing to construct one in a navy yard and the
other either by contract or in a navy yard was held to be germane.
On April 15, 1908,\1\ the naval appropriation bill was under
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when the Clerk read:
That, for the purpose of further increasing the naval establishment
of the United States, the President is hereby authorized to have
constructed by contract or in navy yards, as hereafter provided, two
first-class battleships to cost, exclusive of armor and armament, not
exceeding $6,000,000 each similar in all essential characteristics to
the battleship authorized by the act making appropriations for the
naval service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1908.
Mr. William M. Calder, of New York, offered the following amendment:
At least one of such battleships shall be built and constructed,
under the direction of the Secretary of the Navy, at one of the navy
yards; the other of said battleships may also be constructed at one of
the navy yards, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Navy, or by
contract, as hereinafter provided.
Mr. Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, raised the question of order that
the amendment was not germane.
The Chair \2\ ruled:
The paragraph now before the committee contains the provisions that
the Secretary of the Navy may build the vessels herein authorized by
contract or in such navy yards as he may desig-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 4807.
\2\ James R. Mann, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 3062
nate. The That provision of itself might be considered legislation,
but, if so, any amendment germane to it would be in order. The Chair
thinks the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is germane
and the Chair therefore overrules the point of order.
3062. To a bill authorizing the sale of Government property to one
vendee an amendment proposing another vendee was held to be germane.
On February 17, 1925,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was considering the bill (S. 2287) to permit the
Secretary of War to dispose of, and the Port of New York Authority to
acquire, the Hoboken Manufacturers' Railroad.
Mr. John J. Eagan, of New Jersey, offered an amendment proposing the
sale of the railroad to the city of Hoboken instead of the port of New
York.
Mr. Ogden L. Mills, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane as it provided for the substitution of one
individual proposition for another individual proposition of the same
class.
The Chairman \2\ ruled:
The Chair must admit that the question raised here is not as clear or
as free from doubt as he would like to have it. It is the general rule
and well established that to one specific proposition another may not
be added by way of amendment, because it would not be germane to the
original specific proposition. The rule as to germane amendments is
that ``no proposition on a subject different from that under
consideration shall be admitted under color of an amendment.'' The
question always arises as to what is the ``subject under
consideration,'' as these terms are used under the rule. The case in
hand is not clear, because there are a number of substantive elements
entering into it. After such casual examination as the Chair has been
able to give to the question it would seem that the subject matter
under consideration in the bill is the disposition of certain property
and the acceptance therefore of bonds instead of cash. The proposed
amendment makes no substantial change in this regard. It therefore
seems to the Chair that this is not a new proposition on a different
subject, since it only substitutes one proposed recipient of the
property for another. In effect, it is the striking out of one person
or one entity and inserting in place of it another.
The subject matter of the bill being to dispose of certain property
and to authorize the Secretary of War to accept a certain kind of
character of security for the property, the amendment would strike out
the port of New York as the recipient and insert the city of Hoboken.
The subject under consideration remains the same, and even the manner
of its disposition remains substantially the same, except as to the one
to whom the disposition is made. It seems to the Chair that this alone
is not sufficient to bring the amendment under the prohibition of the
rule. The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.
3063. To a proposition to authorize the construction of naval vessels
an amendment providing that they be constructed in Government plants
was held to be germane.--On March 16, 1928 \3\ the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R.
11526) to authorize the construction of certain naval vessels, when Mr.
Frederick W. Dallinger, of Massachusetts, offered the following
proviso:
And provided, That the first and each successive alternate cruiser
upon which work is undertaken, together with the main engine, armor,
and armament for such eight cruisers, the construc--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3969.
\2\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
\3\ First session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 4911.
Sec. 3064
tion and manufacture of which is authorized by this act, shall be
constructed or manufactured in the Government navy yards, naval gun
factories, naval ordnance plants, or arsenals of the United States.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, having raised a question of order as
to germaneness, the Chairman\1\ said:
The Chair thinks that this amendment is clearly germane. The bill
provides for the authorization of certain cruisers and vessels for the
Navy, and the Chair thinks it is germane that certain details of their
construction shall be provided. The Chair overrules the point of order.
3064. To a bill creating two boards with separate duties an amendment
creating one board authorized to discharge the duties devolving upon
both boards was held to be germane.--On May 28, 1930,\2\ the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union had under consideration
the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 49) to provide for the national
defense by the creation of a corporation for the operation of the
Government properties at and near Muscle Shoals, in the State of
Alabama, providing for the creation of two boards, one charged with the
duty of leasing the properties and the other with the duties of
supervision and administration of the lease.
Mr. John J. McSwain, of South Carolina, offered an amendment
authorizing the creation of a single board to discharge the functions
of both boards.
Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that
the amendment was not germane.
The Chairman\2\ overruled the point of order and said:
The amendment of the gentleman from south Carolina provides for one
board which is directed to lease the property, and after it is leased
to supervise the work of the lessee. The committee bill creates two
boards for this purpose--the leasing board to lease the property, and
after it is leased, it provides for the administrative board,
consisting of the three Secretaries, to supervise and administer the
lease and the work under it. Both bills set forth in detail the general
principles which are to guide the different boards in negotiating the
leases and in supervising the work afterwards. While the two
propositions are not identical, it seems to the Chair that they are
closely related and that one is germane to the other. The chair
therefore overrules the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Robert L. Bacon, of New York, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 9743.
\3\ Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, Chairman.