<DOC>
[Cannon's Precedents -- Volume VIII]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:cannon_ccxlii.wais]
Chapter CCXLII.\1\
CONDUCT OF DEBATE IN THE HOUSE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Members limitations. Sections 2448-2453.
2. Rights as to opening and closings. Sections 2454-2459.
3. Division of time. Sections 2460-2462.
4. Interruption of another Member. Sections 2463-2467.
5. Yielding the floor to motions, etc. Sections 2468-2471.
6. Yielding the floor to another Member. Sections 2472-2478.
7. Relevancy in debate. Sections 2479-2484.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2448. The hour rule applies to debate on a question of privilege as
to debate on other questions.
A Member in addressing the House on a question of privilege is
presumed to confine his remarks to limits within the spirit of the rule
and not to use the privilege as a vehicle for discussions otherwise not
in order.
On May 7, 1910,\2\ Mr. Dorsey W. Shackleford, of Missouri, claimed
the floor to discuss a question of privilege.
The Speaker \3\ in recognizing Mr. Shackleford, said:
Under the rules of the House the gentleman from Missouri is entitled
to an hour on the question of privilege. It is exceedingly difficult
for the Chair to determine what is in order touching the question of
privilege, and the Chair will have to suggest to the gentleman from
Missouri, that, with his long experience in the House, he substantially
must be the judge of whether in good faith he is speaking to the
question of personal privilege or whether, under the guise of a
question of personal privilege, he is imposing upon the House. The
gentleman will proceed in order.
2449. A Member who has spoken once to the main question may speak
again to an amendment.
On May 8, 1912,\4\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 17756)
providing civil government in the Philippine Islands, when Mr. Marlin
E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, who had previously been recognized for an
hour on the bill, offered an amendment and proceeded to debate it.
Mr. Charles N. Fowler, of New Jersey, made the point of order that
Mr. Olmsted had exhausted the hour to which he was entitled for debate
and was not entitled to further recognition while others who had not
spoken desired the floor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Supplementary to Chapter CXII.
\2\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 5921.
\3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 6076.
Sec. 2450
The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order and said:
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, having offered his amendment, is
entitled to his hour. The House had the privilege of cutting off all
this debate and did not do it. If the gentleman were trying to speak on
the bill the Chair would rule that anybody who had not spoken should
have the right of way. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania has offered
an amendment, and he has the right to an hour on the amendment.
2450. A Member being recognized for debate may consume a portion of
the time allotted to him and reserve the remainder, but such
reservation must be made at the time the floor is yielded.
On March 16, 1910,\2\ during the consideration in the House of the
joint resolution (H. J. Res. 172) amending the Census Act by
authorizing inquiries respecting the nationality or mother tongue of
all persons born in foreign countries, Mr. Edgar D. Crumpacker, of
Indiana, was recognized for one hour.
After consuming a portion of the hour in debate, Mr. Crumpacker
yielded the floor.
Subsequently, Mr. Crumpacker addressed the Speaker and proposed to
use the remainder of the time allotted to him.
The Speaker inquired:
Did the gentleman from Indiana reserve the balance of his time?
Being answered in the negative, the Speaker said:
The time is gone if the gentleman did not reserve it.
2451. A Member was held not to have yielded the floor until he
resumed his seat.
On April 6, 1912,\3\ Mr. Choice B. Randell, of Texas, was recognized
to discuss a question of personal privilege. After proceeding for some
time in debate Mr. Randell paused and asked unanimous consent to extend
his remarks in the Record.
Consent having been given by the House, Mr. Randell entered into
colloquy with various Members, when Mr. James M. Cox, of Ohio, made the
point of order that having yielded the floor he was not entitled to
resume.
The Speaker pro tempore \4\ said:
The gentleman from Ohio made the point of order that the gentleman
had already yielded the floor. The Chair holds that the gentleman had
not yielded the floor, because he had not taken his seat.
2452. The display of exhibits in debate by way of illustration is
subject to the will of the House and any Member may object.
The rule \5\ prohibiting the reading of papers in debate was held to
apply to the exhibition of articles as evidence or in exemplification
in debate.
On February 1, 1929,\6\ the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union, had under consideration the naval
appropriation bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 3248.
\3\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 4371.
\4\ Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, Speaker pro tempore.
\5\ Rule XXX.
\6\ Second session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 2636.
Sec. 2453
During debate, Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, said:
Mr. Chairman, I have brought here something to show the anomalous
situation of which I told you at the inception of my talk. I show you
here something called a ``tonic.'' It is produced and bottled in my
town in great quantities. You can readily identify it in any drug
store. It is alleged to be a ``tonic''--maybe it is. It is good to
drink. It is made from white Tokay wine and bottled under a permit--
permit N.Y.H. 13369--authorized by the Commissioner of Prohibition.
What a farce! What a joke!
Whereupon, Mr. Cellar exhibited a filled bottle.
Mr. Robert A. Green, of Florida, raised a question of order.
The Chairman \1\ held:
The Chair refers to section 427 of Jefferson's Manual where he finds
this statement, which seems to be controlling:
``A Member has not a right even to read his own speech, committed to
writing, without leave.''
And further, from section 891 of the rules, the Chair finds this
statement:
``The reading of papers other than the one on which the vote is about
to be taken is usually permitted without question, and the Member in
debate usually reads or has read such papers as he pleases, but this
privilege is subject to the authority of the House if another Member
objects.''
Objection has been made by the gentleman from Florida, and it seems
to the Chair that the statements from the manual and from the rules are
controlling, and therefore the Chair sustains the point of order, that
if the gentleman from Florida objects to the gentleman from New York
displaying this article the gentleman from New York must remove it, and
the gentleman from New York will proceed in order.
Subsequently, another Member having assumed the Chair, and the
question being again raised, the Chairman \2\ ruled:
Objection is made to the display of the article in question. The
gentleman from New York can not proceed until the article is removed
from the Chamber.
2453. The introduction of exhibits, demonstrations, or other unusual
adjuncts to debate are subject to the will of the House.
On January 17, 1930,\3\ during the consideration of the Treasury and
Post Office Departments appropriation bill, in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union, Mr. William I. Sirovich, of New
York, in discussing denaturants of industrial alcohol, said:
Here is a bottle containing pyridine. Mr. Chairman, may I pass this
around for Members to smell, not to drink?
The Chairman \4\ submitted the request to the Committee as a request
for unanimous consent.
2454. The proponent of a resolution is entitled to prior recognition
for motions and debate.
The Member in charge of a measure may not be deprived of the floor by
a Member proposing a preferential motion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John C. Ketcham, of Michigan, Chairman.
\2\ Robert Luce, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 1820.
\4\ Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 2455
On January 12, 1916,\1\ Mr. Frank Buchanan, of Illinois, rising in
his place, proposed a resolution impeaching H. Snowden Marshall, United
States district attorney for the southern district of New York.
At the conclusion of the reading of the resolution by the Clerk, Mr.
Buchanan moved the passage of the resolution.
Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, proposed to offer, as
preferential, a motion to refer the resolution to the Committee on the
Judiciary, and claimed the floor to debate the motion to refer.
Mr. Buchanan submitted that he had not yielded the floor and was
entitled to debate the resolution.
The Speaker \2\ held:
The Chair thinks that the gentleman from Illinois had not yielded the
floor. If he has anything to say on his resolution, the Chair will hear
it. Before the gentleman from Illinois begins, the Chair will state
that the gentleman from New York has a perfect right to make a motion
to commit--not right now, but when the time comes.
2455. A Member may not prefer a parliamentary inquiry while another
Member is in possession of the floor.
On September 12, 1918,\3\ the House was in the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the revenue
bill.
Mr. J. Thomas Heflin, of Alabama, had the floor during general
debate, when Mr. Edward E. Dension, of Illinois, sought to interrupt
him for the purpose of propounding a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman \4\ declined to recognize for the interruption and held:
The gentleman can not propound a parliamentary inquiry; he can make a
point of order.
2456. On January 30, 1923,\5\ the House was considering the
resolution (H. Res. 498) providing for an order of business.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, had been recognized and was
proceeding in debate when Mr. Rufus Hardy, of Texas, preferred a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker \6\ held:
The gentleman has no right to prefer a parliamentary inquiry without
the consent of the gentleman occupying the floor.
2457. On June 23, 1917,\7\ the bill H. R. 4961, the food conservation
bill, was being considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union.
Mr. M. Clyde Kelly, of Pennsylvania, had been recognized, and was
proceeding in debate.
Mr. Edward L. Hamilton, of Michigan, asked recognition to submit a
parliamentary inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 965.
\2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 10232.
\4\ Edward W. Saunders, of Virginia, Chairman.
\5\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2733.
\6\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\7\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4176.
Sec. 2458
The Chairman \1\ refused recognition and said:
The gentleman can not take the gentleman from Pennsylvania off his
feet by a parliamentary inquiry.
2458. On February 6, 1918,\2\ during the consideration of the bill
(H. R. 5667) for the deportation of certain aliens, Mr. Joseph Walsh,
of Massachusetts, offered an amendment which he proceeded to discuss.
Mr. Charles C. Kearns, of Ohio, interrupted with a request that he be
permitted to make a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman \3\ said:
The gentleman from Massachusetts has the floor and the gentleman can
not take him off the floor for that purpose.
2459. A Member rising to a question of personal privilege was not
permitted to take from the floor another Member who had been recognized
for debate.
On April 12, 1924.\4\ the House was in the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill H. R.
7995, the immigration bill.
Mr. Henry W. Temple, of Pennsylvania, was recognized for debate on a
pending amendment.
Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, interposed a demand for
recognition to present a question of personal privilege.
The Chairman \5\ held:
The gentleman can not rise to a question of personal privilege when
some other gentleman has the floor.
2460. In the House the Member reporting a measure is entitled to
recognition for one hour during which he may yield to others as he may
choose, and at the close of which, unless the previous question is
moved, the ranking Member in opposition may be recognized for an hour
with the same privilege, after which other Members favoring and
opposing the measure are recognized alternately, preference being given
members of the committee reporting the measure.
Form of special order for consideration of a resolution declaring
war.
On April 4, 1917,\6\ during disposition of business on the Speaker's
table, Mr. Henry D. Flood, of Virginia, asked unanimous consent that
the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 1) declaring a state of war to exist
between the Imperial German Government and the Government and the
people of the United States, be taken up for consideration under the
general rules of the House on the following day.
Mr. Frank Clark, of Florida, submitting a parliamentary inquiry,
asked who would control the time for debate under the general rules of
the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Courtney W. Hamilton, of Missouri, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 1788.
\3\ Joseph J. Russell, of Missouri, Chairman.
\4\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 6254.
\5\ Everett Sanders, of Indiana, Chairman.
\6\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 264.
Sec. 2461
The Speaker \1\ said:
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Flood, asks unanimous consent that
when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10 o'clock tomorrow
morning, and that after the reading of the Journal and the disposition
of business on the Speaker's table, the so-called war resolution shall
be taken up for debate under the general rules of the House. Under the
general rules of the House the gentleman from Virginia would have the
first hour. He can move the previous question at any time within that
hour. If he lets his hour run out, then the Chair would feel that he
ought to recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Cooper, the
ranking Republican member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. After
the hour of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired, if there is no
particular agreement or rule about it, the next ranking Democratic
member should have an hour, and then the next Republican. That is on
the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The members of the committee have
priority of recognition. Of course it depends on whether they are for
or against the resolution. The whole time may be occupied by the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Flood, if at any time within his hour he
moves the previous question and the House shall vote the previous
question; but the House has a right to vote down the previous question
if it wants to do so. If the House goes into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union, the Chairman, whoever he is, would
construe the rules of the House already established.
2461. Where a special order for the consideration of a bill limited
general debate to one hour without providing for control of the time it
was held that the Member in charge should be recognized to control the
time in favor of the bill; the ranking minority Member to control the
time in opposition; and if none of the minority opposed the bill the
minority leader should control the time in opposition.
On December 3, 1918 \2\, Mr. Frank Clark, of Florida, moved that the
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 12917) to
establish a sanatorium for discharged soldiers and sailors, under a
special order limiting general debate to one hour without providing for
control of the time.
Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, inquired who would control the
time for debate in opposition to the bill.
The Speaker \3\ replied:
The practice has been that the ranking minority Member, if he is
opposed, takes charge, and if he is not it goes down the line, and if
nobody on that committee is here, if the Chair were going to preside
over the committee, he would recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Mann.
2462. The time of a debate having been divided and assigned to the
control of the two sides, it must be allotted to Members in accordance
with the rules, no Member being allowed more than one hour.
On November 24, 1922,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was engaged in general debate on the bill (H. R.
12817) to supplement the merchant marine act, it having been agreed, by
unanimous consent, that the time should be equally divided and should
be controlled by Mr. William S. Greene, of Massachusetts, and Mr.
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\2\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 51.
\3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\4\ Third session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 143.
Sec. 2463
Mr. Ewin L. Davis, of Tennessee, having consumed one hour yielded by
Mr. Bankhead, the Chairman \1\ announced:
The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has expired.
Mr. William B. Bankhead inquired if it would not be in order to yield
further time to Mr. Davis.
The Chairman ruled:
Under the rules of the House and the unbroken precedents, so far as
the present occupant of the chair has been able to ascertain, the Chair
holds that the gentleman can proceed only by the unanimous consent of
the committee.
The Chairman then read sections 5004 and 5005 from Hinds' Precedents
and continued:
The rulings in the precedents have been made largely under special
rules and unanimous-consent agreements. If the gentleman wishes to have
the decisions cited, the Chair will be very glad to do so.
By permission of the committee the Chair submits a number of
precedents in line with the ruling just indicated.
2463. It is entirely within the discretion of the Member occupying
the floor in debate to determine when and by whom he shall be
interrupted.
It is a breach of order for Members from their seats to interject
remarks into the speech of a Member having the floor.
On June 22, 1916,\2\ the Speaker,\3\ speaking extemporaneously,
referred to a tendency upon the part of some to interject remarks into
the speeches of those occupying the floor in debate and called
attention to the rule requiring Members to rise and address the Chair
for permission to interrupt the Member having the floor.
2464. On May 13, 1916,\4\ while the bill S. 2986, the rural credits
bill, was being considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, Mr. Carter Glass, of Virginia, the Member in charge
of the bill, interrupted Mr. Caleb Powers, of Kentucky, who had the
floor, with a request for unanimous consent to close debate.
Mr. Simeon D. Fess, of Ohio, submitted that the request was not in
order as Mr. Powers had not yielded for the interruption.
The Chairman \5\ ruled that it was not in order to interrupt a Member
having the floor for debate without his permission.
2465. A Member desiring to interrupt another in debate should address
the Chair for permission of the Member speaking, but the latter may
exercise his own discretion as to yielding.
If a Member having the floor yields for interruption the remarks of
the Member yielded to must appear in the Record, but if the Member
having the floor declines to yield he may strike from copy for the
Record remarks so interjected.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
\2\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 9790.
\3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\4\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 7909.
\5\ John N. Garner, of Texas, Chairman.
Sec. 2465
If a Member transgress the rules of the House in speaking the Chair
may call him to order, but in the later practice the Speaker does not
pass upon the question as to whether words requested to be taken down
in debate are within the rule.
If the point of order is made against words spoken in debate without
the demand that they be taken down, the Chair ordinarily admonishes the
offender and, if he continues to transgress the rules, stops him.
The vote of the House tabling a motion to strike from the record
words taken down in debate was held to carry to the table the entire
proposition.
The motion to lay on the table is not debatable.
In the House a motion may be withdrawn before action thereon, but in
Committee of the Whole withdrawal of motions or amendments is by
unanimous consent only.
An inquiry as to whether a Member defended the owners of bonds in a
``rotten, osbolete canal'' proposed to be sold to the Government was
held by the House not to be unparliamentary.
On June 11, 1917,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, having under consideration the river and harbor bill, rose
and the Chairman reported to the House that during debate in the
committee Mr. J. Hampton Moore, of Pennsylvania, had objected to
certain words spoken by Mr. Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, and had
demanded that they be taken down, and the words objected to were
reported to the House as follows:
Mr. Maden. Provision is made in the bill for the condemnation of this
rotten, obsolete canal to be owned by the Government of the United
States.
Mr. Moore of Pennsylvania. I ask that the gentleman's words be taken
down.
Mr. Madden. Why does the gentleman want to defend the owners of these
stocks and bonds?
Mr. Moore of Pennsylvania. I ask that the gentleman's words be taken
down.
Mr. Madden. That is all right. I am not reflecting on the gentleman.
Mr. Moore of Pennsylvania. He is reflecting on the truth. I withdraw
my request.
Mr. Madden. I insist on their being taken down.
Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, inquired if discretion was not lodged
in the Speaker to refuse to have the words taken down on demand when it
clearly appeared that they were parliamentary, and asked for an
interpretation of the following passage from Jefferson's Manual:
Then the person objecting to them and desiring them to be taken down
by the Clerk at the table must repeat them. The Speaker then may direct
the Clerk to take them down in his minutes; but if he thinks them not
disorderly, he delays the direction.
The Speaker \2\ said:
Long since that proposition has become obsolete by the practice of
the House. If the Chair observes that a Member is speaking out of
order, that, of course, is in his judgment and he can call him to order
himself. The Chair has seen that done several times and has done it
once or twice himself. The practice of the House has been--how long the
Chair does not know, but ever since the Chair has been here--that
whenever a Member says things that another Member objects to
sufficiently to ask that the words be taken down, that immediately the
House takes charge of the matter and proceeds to straighten it out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 3459.
\2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 2465
Mr. Moore asked to withdraw his request that the words be taken down.
The Speaker said:
In the Committee of the Whole you can not withdraw a motion without
the consent of the committee, but in the House, if a motion is made,
the gentleman has a right to withdraw it up to the time the vote is
taken on it. This occurred in the committee. His request to take the
words down is tantamount to a motion. In the committee he had to have
unanimous consent to do it but in the House a Member can withdraw a
motion or any other proposition or amendment up to the time it is voted
on without asking consent.
Mr. Jacob E. Meeker, of Missouri, moved that the words of both Mr.
Moore and Mr. Madden be stricken from the Record.
Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, moved to lay that motion on
the table.
Mr. Madden and Mr. Moore rose to address the House.
The Speaker said:
This motion to table is not debatable.
Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, submitted that it was within the
province of the Speaker to decide whether the language taken down under
the rule was parliamentary.
The Speaker held:
Ordinarily in debate if A complains that the remarks of B are out of
order, the Chair admonishes B to keep within the limits, and if he does
not do so the Chair stops him. That is before the motion to take down
the words is made. The Chair undoubtedly has a good deal of discretion
about that. I remember very well one day, a long time ago, when Speaker
Reed was in the Chair and Mr. Allen of Mississippi was making a speech.
In the course of his remarks he attacked the Senate, and the Speaker
tapped his desk with the gavel and suggested to him that he was out of
order. Now, Mr. Allen was a seasoned Member. He seemed puzzled. He did
not know what he was out of order about. He started in again with the
very same line of talk, and Speaker Reed went through the same
performance again, rapping with his gavel, and told him he was out of
order, but did not tell him why. Mr. Allen started in the third time,
and speaker Reed stopped him and explained to him that be was out of
order because he was lashing the Senate.
Time and again a Member objects to remarks that some other Member
makes, and the Chair in that case passes on whether the words are in
order or out of order and admonishes the Member to proceed in order.
But when this motion to take the words down is made, an entirely
different situation arises; and, it being in the Committee of the
Whole, they could not deal with it in this case, so they referred it
back to the House. The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Meeker, made a very
proper motion to strike out these words about which this controversy
has arisen and the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Stafford, made a
motion to lay that motion on the table. That motion is not debatable,
and the question is on the motion to lay on the table.
The question being taken, it was decided in the affirmative and the
entire question was laid on the table.
Mr. Edward W. Sanders, of Virginia, as a parliamentary inquiry,
inquired what disposition that vote made of the question.
The Speaker said:
That is absolutely settled by the adoption of the motion to table.
That means that the words are not stricken out. In the opinion of the
House the gentleman was not out of order when he made those remarks.
Mr. Madden inquired if remarks made by Mr. Moore could be inserted in
his speech without his consent.
Sec. 2466
The Speaker ruled:
The Chair will state the case to the gentleman from Illinois out of
his own experience. At one time I was making a speech that I had
carefully prepared, I think with reference to the value of wooden and
iron ships. I wound up that speech with a long and rhetorical sentence
which I thought was a fine finish. [Laughter.] Right in the middle of
the sentence Governor Steele, of Indiana, without asking my permission,
injected a remark of his own into the middle of the sentence, spoiling
the sentence. After I had answered him I began the sentence over again,
and it went through without interruption. So when I received the notes
of my speech I struck out Governor Steele's question and my answer. He
rose the next morning to a question of privilege and wanted to know why
I did it. Speaker Reed harnessed me up and interrogated me, and I told
him that there was no sense in the question, that it ruined the last
sentence of my speech, and I did not propose to stand for it.
[Laughter.] Then Mr. Speaker Reed kindly told me what the rule was, and
I have never forgotten it, and it will answer the gentleman's question.
When a Member has the floor and somebody wants to interrupt him he has
the right to do one of two things: He can decline to yield, and then if
the other Member insists upon injecting remarks into his speech he can
cut out those remarks without asking anybody's consent. But if he
yields to the interruption he has to put it in as it occurs.
2466. A Member having the floor for debate may be interrupted for the
presentation of a proper point of order.
On February 4, 1914, \1\ during debate in the Committee of the whole
House on the state of the Union, on the bill H. R. 6060, the
immigration bill, Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, proposed to
interrupt Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, who had the floor for
debate, for the purpose of submitting a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman \2\ having declined to recognize for that purpose, Mr.
Mondell submitted a point of order.
The Chairman said:
The gentleman can interrupt another with a point of order. The
gentleman will state his point of order.
2467. On December 15, 1919, \3\ Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming,
asked unanimous consent that the business in order on that day be in
order on the following day. Mr. Mondell was proceeding in debate when
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, rose to a question of order.
Mr. Mondell declined to yield and submitted that he was entitled to
the floor and could not be interrupted by a point of order.
The Speaker said:
Any Member of the House has a right to make a point of order.
2468. In the House a Member may not yield even temporarily for other
business without losing the floor.
On August 3, 1917, \5\ Mr. Asbury F. Lever, of South Carolina, called
up the conference report on the bill (H. R. 4188), the food survey
bill.
During debate Mr. Lever, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked if it
would be in order to yield the floor temporarily to permit Mr. William
C. Adamson, of Georgia, to present a conference report for printing
under the rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 2903.
\2\ James Hay, of Virginia, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 598.
\4\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\5\ First session Sixth-fifth Congress, Record, p. 5771.
Sec. 2469
The Speaker \1\ held that to yield even temporarily for the
consideration of other business, however formal, would forfeit the
floor.
2469. The Member in charge of a bill in the House does not lose the
floor by offering an amendment.
On February 22, 1923,\2\ Mr. Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, from the
Committee on Rules, reported the resolution (H. Res. 514) providing for
the consideration of a bill to amend the trading with the enemy act.
After brief debate Mr. Campbell offered an amendment to the
resolution.
Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, made the point of order that in
offering the amendment Mr. Campbell had yielded the floor and asked
recognition.
The Speaker \3\ said:
If he yields the floor to another to offer an amendment he loses the
floor, but not if he offers the amendment himself.
2470. Unless otherwise provided a Member recognized for general
debate in Committee of the Whole is recognized for one hour and may
yield all or any portion of that time even though the Member to whom he
yields has just occupied an hour in his own right and objection is made
to his continuing.
Time yielded to another may in turn be yielded to a third Member with
the consent of the Member first yielding.
A Member may yield time for amendment in the House, but a Member
yielding relinquishes the floor.
On January 31, 1921,\4\ the House was in the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the diplomatic
and consular appropriation bill.
During general debate Mr. John H. Small, of North Carolina, who had
been recognized for debate, yielded time to Mr. Clarence F. Lea, of
California, who in turn yielded time to Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas.
Mr. William J. Sears, of Florida, submitted a parliamentary inquiry
as to whether a Member recognized in general debate in the Committee of
the Whole was recognized for a full hour and if he might yield such
time.
The Chairman \5\ said:
The gentleman is informed that that has been, in the opinion of the
Chair, the practice of the House.
Mr. James W. McClintic, of Oklahoma, made the further point of order
that one to whom time was yielded by another Member might not yield to
a third.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, in debating the point of order said:
Mr. Chairman, I have been in the House now for nearly 24 years. This
has been the practice of the House ever since I have been a Member of
it. In general debate the man who gets time in his own right can yield
it as he pleases for debate. He can yield it for amendment if he
chooses when we are in the House, but if he yields for amendment, he
loses the floor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\2\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4277.
\3\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\4\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2340.
\5\ Mr. James W. Husted, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 2471
That has been the practice always in the House. I have just as much
right when I am recognized for an hour to yield it as I please as any
other Member, and I have frequently seen the case where a Member's time
was exhausted when he was on the floor, and on more than one occasion
have myself been recognized and have yielded to that gentleman the hour
that I have obtained, against protest of Members who objected to his
continuing.
The Chairman affirmed:
The Chair thinks that the gentleman from Illinois has stated the
practice of the House correctly and the Chair overrules the point of
order. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes.
2471. A Member receiving time in debate from another may not yield
such time to a third Member without the consent of the original
possessor.
A Member desiring time in general debate in opposition to a bill may
accept time from one favoring the measure or he may decline to accept
such time, and if the latter does not yield to another or consume the
time himself, may demand recognition in his own right.
A Member yielding to another to offer an amendment thereby
relinquishes control of the time allotted to him.
A Member securing time from another in which to offer an amendment is
recognized in his own right.
On January 13, 1910,\1\ Mr. James A. Hughes, of West Virginia, from
the Committee on Accounts, reported the resolution (H. Res. 228)
authorizing messengers for committees, and after brief debate yielded
to Mr. Ernest W. Roberts, of Massachusetts, to offer an amendment.
Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, having raised a question of
order, the Speaker \2\ held that Mr. Hughes in yielding for an
amendment had relinquished the floor, and recognized Mr. Roberts in his
own right.
After ten minutes debate, Mr. Roberts yielded the remainder of the
hour allotted to him to Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Bartlett raised a point of order.
The Speaker held:
If the gentleman, having an hour, yielded back the remainder of his
time, or yielded the remainder of his time to any Member, that Member
would be entitled to it; but if he did not, then some other Member
would be recognized.
Mr. Bartlett then demanded the floor in his own right.
Mr. Hughes offered to yield him time from the remainder of the hour
yielded by Mr. Roberts.
Mr. Bartlett declined to accept time thus yielded and insisted on
being recognized for an hour.
The Speaker said:
The gentleman yielded the floor when he yielded to the gentleman from
Massachusetts to offer an amendment. Then the gentleman from
Massachusetts had one hour. The gentleman from Massachusetts states
that he yielded the remainder of that hour to the gentleman from West
Virginia, so that the gentleman would have fifty minutes on the
amendment; but if there is to be a fresh recognition, and the gentleman
from Georgia is opposed to the amendment, and the gen-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 608.
\2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 2472
tleman from West Virginia is not, the Chair would recognize the
gentleman from Georgia. The gentleman from West Virginia, however, is
entitled to fifty minutes if he desires to use that time.
Mr. Swagar Sherley, of Kentucky, made the point of order that Mr.
Hughes having received the time from another could not in turn yield to
a third member.
The speaker overruled the point of order and said:
The chair was under the impression, growing out of the usual
practice, that the gentleman from West Virginia could yield time that
had been yielded to him, but that practice may be one that prevails by
sufferance of the House. The Chair will have the precedents examined to
see. The Chair finds the following decision:
``A Member who receives time in debate from another may yield to a
third only with the consent of the original possessor.''
2472. A Member recognized for an hour may yield time to others at
will until the entire hour is consumed, although another demands
recognition in his own right.
On August 9, 1921,\1\ during the general debate in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union on the bill (S. 1358) for
maintaining the Corps of Cadets at West Point at maximum strength, Mr.
Daniel E. Garrett, of Texas, was recognized for an hour. After
consuming a portion of the time Mr. Garrett yielded five minutes to Mr.
James T. Begg, of Ohio.
Mr. Frank L. Greene, of Vermont, addressed the Chair and was
recognized, when Mr. Garrett submitted that he was entitled to use or
to yield the entire hour without interruption.
The Chairman \2\ said:
The Chair is of opinion that if the gentleman from Texas demands the
use of his time, he is entitled to the hour. Then the gentleman will be
recognized in lieu of the gentleman from Vermont. The gentleman from
Texas is recognized.
2473. On May 22, 1922,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was engaged in general debate on the bill (S. 2919)
for the extension of the District of Columbia rent act.
Mr. Ralph Gilbert, of Kentucky, who had been recognized for an hour,
having concluded his remarks on the bill, yielded the remainder of his
time to Mr. J. Charles Linthicum, of Maryland.
Mr. Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, protected:
Mr. Chairman, the time can not be taken by any one man to control
absolutely. The gentleman from Kentucky has yielded the floor. He can
not shut off another man from getting the floor.
The Chairman \4\ said:
The gentleman from Kentucky can use his hour in any way he sees fit.
He still has 22 minutes. The Chair has recognized the gentleman from
Kentucky for one hour.
2474. A Member may not offer an amendment in time secured for debate
only.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4797.
\2\ Cassius C. Dowell, of Iowa, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 7415.
\4\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Chairman.
Sec. 2475
On March 27, 1920,\1\ while the District of Columbia appropriation
bill was being considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, Mr. William W. Rucker, of Missouri, was recognized
to debate an amendment offered by Mr. Charles R. Davis, of Minnesota.
After proceeding in debate, Mr. Rucker offered an amendment to the
pending amendment.
The Chairman \2\ declined to recognize for the amendment, and said:
The gentleman can not get the floor for that purpose. The gentleman,
under the rule of the House, is not entitled to recognition for that
purpose after making a speech on another subject. The gentleman should
have offered his amendment before he made his speech if he desired to
get the floor for that purpose.
The Chair understands that the gentleman can not take the floor to
make a speech and then get recognition for the purpose of offering an
amendment under the rules of the House. The gentleman from Missouri can
get recognition later on.
2475. On April 3, 1918,\3\ during consideration of the bill (H. R.
10691) relating to loans secured by Liberty bonds, in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union, Mr. Henry I. Emerson, of
Ohio, having control of the time, yielded to Mr. William H. Stafford,
of Wisconsin, for debate.
Mr. Stafford inquired as to the offering of amendments to the bill.
The Speaker pro tempore \4\ said:
When a measure is being considered in the House any gentleman who has
the floor in his own right has the right to offer amendments; but the
gentleman from Wisconsin is well aware that under the rules of the
House, when time is yielded for the purpose of debate, it is not in
order for the person having the floor for debate to offer an amendment.
2476. A Member having control of the time may not yield for an
amendment without losing the floor, and is not entitled to a second
hour if another demands recognition.
On January 11, 1910,\5\ the bill (H. R. 16223) extending time to
homesteaders in which to establish residence was being considered in
the House.
Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, in charge of the bill, yielded for
an amendment, and subsequently addressed the Chair asking recognition.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, rose to a parliamentary inquiry and
asked if Mr. Mondell was entitled to a second recognition and, if so,
whether he was recognized for an hour.
The Speaker \6\ replied:
Undoubtedly the gentleman is entitled to an hour on a second
recognition. But if the gentleman yields for an amendment he loses the
floor, and he can not be recognized again if another Member addresses
the Chair.
2477. A Member may yield to permit an amendment to be read for
information, or to be voted upon at the close of general debate,
without losing control of his time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4932.
\2\ Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4540.
\4\ Charles R. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker pro tempore.
\5\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 514.
\6\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 2478
On May 4, 1921,\1\ while the Committee of the Whole House was engaged
in the consideration of the bill (H. R. 2373) to authorize association
of producers of agricultural products, Mr. Joseph Walsh, of
Massachusetts, was recognized.
Mr. Fred H. Dominick, of South Carolina, asked recognition to offer
an amendment.
The Speaker \2\ ruled:
The gentleman can do so if the gentleman from Massachusetts yields
for that purpose; but, of course, if he yields, the gentleman from
Massachusetts loses the floor.
Mr. Walsh said:
I have no objection to the gentleman offering his amendment now, to
be voted on at the close of general debate.
After the amendment had been read Mr. Walsh resumed, when Mr. Otis
Wingo, of Arkansas, made the point of order that Mr. Walsh having
yielded for an amendment to be offered had relinquished the floor.
The Speaker said:
The gentleman from Massachusetts yielded to have it read for
information. He had no objection to that, but he did not yield the
floor. Is not that correct?
2478. A Member who, having the floor in debate, yields to another to
offer an amendment loses his right to resume, and the Member to whom
the floor is yielded is recognized for one hour.
On January 24, 1929,\3\ the House was considering the bill (H. R.
16352) providing that no lands owned by an religious organization
within any national park can be purchased by condemnation or otherwise
by the Government.
Mr. Don B. Colton, of Utah, who had been recognized for one hour,
yielded to Mr. Scott Leavitt, of Montana, for the purpose of offering
an amendment.
The amendment being disposed of, Mr. Colton proposed to resume
control of the time, when Mr. Cassius C. Dowell, of Iowa, made the
point of order that having yielded for an amendment he had yielded the
floor.
The Speaker pro tempore \4\ ruled:
As the Chair understands it, the gentleman from Utah yielded to the
gentleman from Montana for the purpose of offering an amendment. The
Chair will rule that when the Member in charge of the bill yields to
another Member for the purpose of offering an amendment, he also yields
the floor. The member who offers the amendment is then entitled to an
hour to debate his amendment. The Chair will say that this ruling
follows the decisions that are found in Hind's Precedents, Volume V,
sections 5029, 5030, and 5031.
2479. While the Member must confine himself to the question under
debate, a certain latitude is permitted in the refutation of charges
reflected upon him in his representative capacity.
In discussing a question of personal privilege based upon newspaper
charges personal letters refuting such charges were admitted as
relevant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 1037.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 2212.
\4\ Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
Sec. 2480
Reference in a newspaper article to a Member as a ``congressional
slacker'' was held to present a question of personal privilege.
On February 22, 1926,\1\ Mr. Martin L. Davey, of Ohio, rising to a
question of privilege, sent to the desk to be read by the Clerk an
article from a newspaper referring to him as a ``congressional
slacker'' and otherwise reflecting upon him in his Representative
capacity.
Mr. Davey was addressing the House on the question of privilege and
proposed to have read by the Clerk certain telegrams in refutation of
charges contained in the newspaper article when Mr. R. Walton Moore, of
Virginia, made the point of order that the article read from the desk
did not give rise to a question of privilege, and it was not in order
to read the telegrams offered.
The Speaker \2\ said:
The Chair thought the margin was rather narrow, but he did think that
one or two of the expressions alluding to the gentleman as a
congressional slacker did impugn him in his capacity as a Member, and
therefore the Chair without question permitted him to proceed. The
Chair thinks, however, that the reading of these telegrams, which are
merely written in advocacy of a certain bill introduced by the
gentleman, comes very near the line as to whether he is proceeding to
address himself to a question of personal privilege. The Chair thinks
the gentleman is in order.
After further discussion of the question of privilege by Mr. Davey,
Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, raised a question of order and
said:
Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the gentleman from Ohio
is trying to maintain his position in regard to certain legislation
that he has introduced in the House rather than to refute charges made
against him by the newspaper article read at the desk. I think on the
question of privilege he must discuss the charges made in that article
and not his position on certain legislation that he has introduced
before certain committees of the House. I think he has gone far afield,
and the Speaker should hold him down to a discussion of the only
question he is allowed to speak upon at this time.
The Speaker held:
The gentleman has been attacked by a newspaper article which reflects
on his reputation and capacity, saying things which are likely to
injure him in his representative capacity, and they are based on a bill
which the gentleman has introduced and which he is discussing. The
Chair thinks that some little latitude at least ought to be allowed to
the gentleman in discussing a matter of this sort under a question of
privilege.
2480. Debate in the House on proposed articles of impeachment is not
confined to evidence of record but may refer to any germane fact
pertinent to the subject.
On March 20, 1926,\3\ the report \4\ of the Committee on the
Judiciary on the proposed impeachment of George W. English, United
States district judge for the eastern district of Illinois, was under
debate in the House.
Mr. William P. Holaday, of Illinois, in the course of debate, in
referring to certain facts connected with the subject, said:
Now, what are the facts? There was in the United States district
court at St. Louis one Gardner, identified here as ``Dressed-up Johnny
Gardner''--and this is outside of the record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 4345.
\2\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
\3\ First session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 6603.
\4\ Report No. 653.
Sec. 2481
Mr. George S. Graham, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
debate on the proposition must be confined to evidence of record.
The Speaker \1\ held:
This is not a proceeding, as the Chair views it, where men are bound
by the record alone. The Chair regards the presentation of facts,
whether in the record or not, that are perfectly germane to the subject
to be in order.
2481. The Member shall confine himself to the question under debate,
avoiding personality.
In presenting a case of personal privilege arising out of charges
made against him, the Member must confine himself to the charges and
may not take advantage of the privilege to prefer charges against
others.
If the Member digress or otherwise transgress the rules in the
discussion of a question of privilege, it is the duty of the Speaker to
call him to order.
On September 24, 1917,\2\ Mr. Patrick D. Norton, of North Dakota,
presented, as involving a question of the privileges of the House, a
printed version of an interview by Mr. J. Thomas Heflin, of Alabama,
appearing in a Washington newspaper and reading in part as follows:
I believe some of this money has reached some Members of Congress I
know. I could name 13 or 14 Members of the House and the Senate who
have acted in a very suspicious fashion, and I feel that this matter
should be very fully investigated.
The Speaker \3\ recognized Mr. Norton to speak to the question of
privilege.
Upon the conclusion of Mr. Norton's remarks, Mr. Heflin claimed the
floor for a question of privilege on the ground that he had been
misquoted in the press, and said:
Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, it is not a pleasant thing
to me to have to criticize the men with whom I serve. It is very
unpleasant. I regret that things have happened to cause me to have the
views that I have expressed on one or two former occasions about the
conduct of certain men who sit with me in this body. But, gentlemen,
the soldiers are going off to flight; they are going to do unpleasant
things.
Mr. Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, submitted that the statement was
not in order.
The Speaker sustained the point of order.
Mr. Heflin proceeded and at various times the Speaker without
suggestion from the floor called him to order for irrelevant remarks.
Subsequently, in response to a question of order raised by Mr.
Campbell, the Speaker said:
The Chair has listened very closely and whenever the gentleman from
Alabama has strayed from the question of privilege the Chair has been
trying to get him back to it. If the gentleman from Alabama grossly
offends the rules about privilege the Chair will stop him.
2482. In addressing himself to a question of personal privilege the
Member may not under guise of defending himself against accusations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
\2\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 7362.
\3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 2483
introduce matter attacking another even though relevant to the matter
under discussion.
On March 3, 1919,\1\ Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of Pennsylvania, was
addressing the House on a question of personal privilege predicated
upon an official statement issued by the Comptroller of the Currency.
As a part of his remarks Mr. McFadden proposed to incorporate
resolutions passed by a convention of bankers in Pennsylvania
criticizing the Comptroller.
Mr. Otis Wingo, of Arkansas, made the point of order that while the
Member might defend himself against charges by the Comptroller he might
not bring in resolutions attacking the Comptroller.
The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order.
2483. On August 8, 1919,\3\ Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, in
addressing the House on a question of personal privilege, said:
The President of the United States is the greatest man living to-day,
in my judgment, and yet he is human. We are now experiencing the fruits
of our Nation's truckling in the passage of the Adamson law, the most
colossal blunder of Woodrow Wilson's whole life.
Mr. Edward J. King, of Illinois, made the point of order that in
attacking the President the Member was exceeding his privilege and
should confine himself to the question under debate.
The Speaker \4\ sustained the point of order.
2484. Personal explanations are allowed only by unanimous consent.
On February 10, 1930,\5\ in the Senate, Mr. Wesley L. Jones, of
Washington, proposed to have read at the desk, in order that it might
appear in the Congressional Record, by way of personal explanation, an
open letter addressed to a Member of the House relative to a statement
made by the latter in an interview given to the public press.
The Vice President submitted the proposal as a request for unanimous
consent, and there being no objection, the letter was read by the
Clerk.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4911.
\2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\3\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3723.
\4\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\5\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 3334.