<DOC>
[Hinds Precedents -- Volume II]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:hinds_xliv.wais]
Chapter XLIV.
THE SPEAKER.\1\
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Dignity of the office. Sections 1307-1309.
2. Duties as presiding officer. Sections 1310-1317.\2\
3. Questions not for his decision. Sections 1319-1342.\3\
4. Required to preserve order. Sections 1343-1347.\4\
5. Intervention of, in cases of extreme disorder in Committee
of Whole. Sections 1348-1351.
6. Control of galleries, corridors, etc. Sections 1352-1354.
7. Appointments by. Section 1355.\5\
8. Resignation of. Section 1356.
9. Calls another to the chair when a question relating to
himself arises. Sections 1357-1366.\6\
10. Limitations on his right to participate in debate.
Sections 1387-1376.\7\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See sections 204-230 of Volume I as to election of Speaker.
Sections 222, 231-234 as to resignation or death of.
\2\ As to taking and administering the oath, sections 130-139 of
Volume I.
Empowered by statute to administer oaths to witnesses. Section 1769
of Volume III.
As to presentation of petitions by. Section 3315 et seq. of Volume
IV.
Issues warrants of arrest only by order of House. Section 287 of
Volume I.
As to announcements to the House when he has certified cases of
contumacious witnesses. Sections 1609 of Volume II and 1672, 1686, 1691
of Volume III.
The Speaker's vote. Sections 5964-5971 of Volume V.
\3\ House and not the Speaker decides as to the prerogatives of the
House. Sections 1490, 1491 of Volume II.
The Speaker does not decide as to the constitutional effect of a
motion (sec. 3550, Vol. IV) or as to its consistency (sec. 5781, Vol.
V).
House and not the Speaker determines as to hearing a person arraigned
at the bar, section 1684 of Volume III of this work.
House and not the Speaker determines whether or not a pending
resolution reflects on the other House, section 1744 of Volume III.
House and not the Speaker decides as to an abuse of leave to print in
the Congressional Record, sections 6983-6985, 7012, 7017 of Volume V.
\4\ Orders arrest of a disturber in the gallery. Section 1605 of this
volume.
\5\ Appointment of committees by. See Chapter CIV, sections 4448-
4512, of Volume IV.
Appoints managers of impeachments in some cases. Sections 2388, 2475
of Volume III.
\6\ As when the Speaker's seat as a Member is contested (sec. 809,
Vol. I), but not when a pending resolution in effect censured his acts,
section 2621, Volume III.
\7\ Mr. Speaker Colfax left the chair to participate in debate as to
the electoral count. Section 1950 of Volume III.
Speaker debates even a question of order from the chair with
deference to rights of the House. Section 3043 of Volume IV.
Sec. 1307
1307. Dignity of the Speaker's office and principles governing its
administration.--On December 1, 1823,\1\ Mr. Speaker Clay, in taking
the chair, thus described the principles regulating the duties of the
Speaker:
They enjoin promptitude and impartiality in deciding the various
questions of order as they arise; firmness and dignity in his
deportment toward the House; patience, good temper, and courtesy toward
the individual Members, and the best arrangement and distribution of
the talent of the House, in its numerous subdivisions, for the dispatch
of the public business, and the fair exhibition of every subject
presented for consideration. They especially require of him, in those
moments of agitation from which no deliberative assembly is always
entirely exempt, to remain cool and unshaken amidst all the storms of
debate, carefully guarding the preservation of the permanent laws and
rules of the House from being sacrificed to temporary passions,
prejudices, or interests.
1308. On March 3, 1893,\2\ in presenting the usual resolution of
thanks to the Speaker, ex-Speaker Reed \3\ said of the office of
Speaker:
No factional or party malice ought ever to strive to diminish his
standing or lessen his esteem in the eyes of Members or of the world.
No disappointments or defeats ought ever to be permitted to show
themselves to the injury of that high place. Whoever at any time,
whether for purposes of censure or rebuke or from any other motive,
attempts to lower the prestige of that office, by just so much lowers
the prestige of the House itself, whose servant and exponent the
Speaker is. No attack, whether open or covert, can be made upon that
great office without leaving to the future a legacy of disorder and of
bad government. This is not because the Speaker is himself a sacred
creation; it is because he is the embodiment of the House, its power
and dignity.
1309. On taking the chair, on March 4, 1871,\4\ Mr. Speaker Blaine
said:
Chosen by the party representing the political majority in this
House, the Speaker owes a faithful allegiance to the principles and
policy of that party; but he will fall far below the honorable
requirements of his station if he fails to give to the minority their
full rights under the rules which he is called upon to administer.\5\
1310. Duties of the Speaker regarding the opening of the session and
the reading of the Journal.
Form and history of Rule I, section 1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Eighteenth Congress, Journal, p. 8.
\2\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Record, p. 2614.
\3\ Mr. Reed at this time had been Speaker in the Fifty-first
Congress and was yet to be Speaker of the Fifty-fourth and Fifty-fifth
Congresses.
\4\ First session Forty-second Congress, Globe, p. 6.
\5\ On February 2, 1905, a question arose as to the social rank of
the Speaker. The President had invited the Speaker to a state dinner to
the Supreme Court, and asked him if he would object to a seat below the
Attorney-General. The Speaker (Mr. Cannon) replied that were it a
private dinner he would be content with any place the host might assign
to him; and were he a private individual he would be equally pleased
with whatever course the host might take; but he felt that in attending
a state dinner as Speaker of the House he might not waive the position
to which he was entitled officially. At the dinner in question, the
Chief Justice, as the guest of honor, would of course sit on the right
of the host. The Vice-President, if there were one, on the left, and
the Speaker of the House in the third place. And in the failure of a
Vice-President the Speaker should have the second place. Rather than
waive this the Speaker asked to be excused from attending. (See
Benton's Thirty Years' View, Vol. I, p. 118, for Speaker Macon's
assertion of his position.)
Sec. 1311
The rules of the House, in section 1 of Rule I, prescribe:
The Speaker shall take the chair on every legislative day precisely
at the hour to which the House shall have adjourned at the last
sitting, immediately call the Members to order,\1\ and on the
appearance of a quorum, cause the Journal of the proceedings of the
last day's sitting to be read,\2\ having previously examined and
approved the same.\3\
This is the form reported by the Committee on Rules, who made the
revision in the Forty-sixth Congress.\4\ The substance was derived from
old rule No. 1, which dated from the first rules, April 7, 1789,\5\ and
which, with unimportant changes, forms all of the present rule except
the portion relating to the examination and correction of the Journal.
That was taken from old Rule No. 5, which dated from December 3,
1811,\6\ and May 26, 1824.\7\
1311. Rule as to form in which the Speaker shall put the question and
method of determining the result.
Rule for taking a vote by tellers.
Form and history of Rule I, section 5.
The forms for putting the question by the Speaker are specified in
section 5 of Rule I:
He shall rise to put a question, but may state it sitting; and shall
put questions in this form, to wit: ``As many as are in favor (as the
question may be) say Aye;'' and after the affirmative voice is
expressed, ``As many as are opposed say No;'' if he doubts, or a
division is called for, the House shall divide; those in the
affirmative of the question shall first rise from their seats, and then
those in the negative; if he still doubts, or a count is required by at
least one-fifth of a quorum, he shall name one from each side of the
question to tell the Members in the affirmative and negative; which
being reported he shall rise and state the decision.
This rule, in its present form, dates from the revision of 1880,\8\
when it was made up from the old Rules Nos. 3 and 4. The first clause,
``He shall rise to put a question, but may state it sitting,'' was Rule
3, and dated from April 7, 1789.\9\ The latter portion of the rule is
very nearly verbatim from the old Rule No. 4, which came down from the
revision of March 15, 1860.\10\ But the form of 1860 was simply the
former rule stated more clearly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On March 22, 1844 (second session Twenty-eighth Congress,
Journal, p. 635; Globe, p. 434), Mr. Garrett Davis, of Kentucky,
proposed under suspension of the rules to adopt a rule providing that
when the Speaker should have called the House to order, the roll should
be called and the names of those present be entered on the Journal. The
proposition was defeated, yeas 85, nays 86.
\2\ Rule 16 of the Continental Congress (May 26, 1778) was: ``Every
morning the minutes of the preceding day shall be read before Congress
enters on new business.''
\3\ This being the requirement of the rule the reading can be
dispensed with only by a suspension of the rules. (First session
Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 148.)
\4\ See Cong. Record, second session Forty-sixth Congress, p. 204.
This revision was very complete and thorough, and the report was the
unanimous action of the committee, who were: Samuel J. Randall
(Speaker), Alexander H. Stephens, J. C. S. Blackburn, James A.
Garfield, and William P. Frye. The present classification, order, and
numbering date from that revision.
\5\ See Journal, first session First Congress, p. 8.
\6\ See report No. 38, first session Twelfth Congress.
\7\ See Annals, first session Eighteenth Congress, p. 2764.
\8\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record p. 204.
\9\ First session First Congress, Journal, p. 9.
\10\ Cong. Globe, first session Thirty-sixth Congress, p. 1178. The
revision of 1860 was important, and the Committee on Rules making it
were: William Pennington (N. J.) (the Speaker), Israel Washburn, jr.
(Me.), Thomas S. Bocock (Va.), Galusha A. Grow (Pa.), and Warren
Winslow (N. C.).
Sec. 1312
The old rule dated from April 7, 1789, and September 15, 1837. The
rule of 1789 provided at first that in case the Speaker doubted or a
division was called for, those in the affirmative should pass to the
right of the Chair and those in the negative to the left, and if he
still doubted or a count was required, the Speaker should name two
Members, one from each side, to tell the Members in the affirmative,
and then two others, one from each side, to tell those in the negative.
After a few months of trial, this rule was modified by doing away with
the passing of Members to the right and left of the Chair, and
substituting the division by rising.\1\ In 1837 Mr. John Bell, of
Tennessee, proposed and the House adopted the provision requiring one-
fifth of a quorum to order the tellers.\2\
1312. The question, if in order, must be put.--Jefferson's Manual, in
Section III, on the general subject relating to privilege, has the
following:
It is a breach of order for the Speaker to refuse to put a question
which is in order.
1313. The Speaker decides all questions of order, subject to appeal.
A Member may not speak more than once on an appeal, except by
permission of the House.
The Speaker signs all acts, addresses, writs, warrants, and
subpoenas.
Form and history of Rule I, section 4.
In section 4 of Rule I it is provided:
He shall sign all acts, addresses, joint resolutions, writs,
warrants, and subpoenas of, or issued by order of, the House, and
decide all questions of order, subject to an appeal by any Member, on
which appeal no Member shall speak more than once, unless by permission
of the House.
This form was adopted in the revision of 1880.\3\ The first portion,
relating to the signing of acts, addresses, etc., was taken from the
old Rule No. 8, dating from November 13, 1794,\4\ and providing:
All acts, addresses, and joint resolutions shall be signed by the
Speaker; and all writs, warrants, and subpoenas issued by order of the
House shall be under his hand and seal, attested by the Clerk.\5\
The portion relating to questions of order is from the old Rule No.
2, dating from April 7, 1789,\6\ and provided that the Speaker might
``speak to points of order in preference to other Members, rising from
his seat for that purpose; and shall decide questions of order, subject
to an appeal to the House by any two Members.''
On December 23, 1811,\7\ the following words were added: ``On which
appeal no Member shall speak more than once, except by leave of the
House.''
1314. It is not the duty of the Speaker to decide any question which
is not directly presented in the course of the proceedings of the
House.--On February 28, 1885,\8\ Mr. James B. Belford, of Colorado,
claiming that a question of personal privilege was involved, referred
to the fact that on the evening before, while he was making a speech,
the gentlemen from Indiana, Mr. Thomas M. Browne, had insisted that he
should speak from his seat and not from
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Journal, first session First Congress, pp. 9 and 47.
\2\ Cong. Globe, first session Twenty-fifth Congress, p. 34.
\3\ Cong. Record, second session Forty-sixth Congress, p. 204.
\4\ Journal, Third and Fourth Congresses, p. 227 (Gales & Seaton
ed.).
\5\ The Clerk attests warrants still under section 2 of Rule III. See
section 252 of Volume I of this work.
\6\ Journal, first session First Congress, p. 9.
\7\ See Reports, first session Twelfth Congress, No. 38.
\8\ Second session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2302.
Sec. 1315
the aisle. Therefore, Mr. Belford asked the Speaker for a construction
of the rule relating to this subject.
The Speaker \1\ said:
The Chair does not see that the gentleman from Colorado presents any
matter of personal privilege. * * * The gentleman is asking the Chair
to give an opinion merely upon the construction of a rule which is not
now presented as a practical question. There is no matter now before
the House involving the construction of that rule. * * * The Chair
decides questions as to the construction of the rules when they
properly arise in the course of business. It is not the province of the
Chair to determine any question which is not directly presented in the
course of the proceedings of the House.
1315. The Speaker of his own initiative has submitted to the House
for decision a question as to procedure.--On February 28, 1840,\2\ the
Speaker \3\ submitted to the House a question as to how the House
should proceed under its rule for the order of business. He stated that
he wished a decision of the House to settle its future practice under
similar circumstances. Although Mr. Rice Garland, of Louisiana,
suggested that the Speaker ought to put his own construction on the
rules, and leave the House to pass on an appeal, the House acquiesced
in the mode proposed by the Speaker and by vote decided the question
submitted.
1316. On March 24, 1880,\4\ question not provided for by rule or
previous decision arising as to the reading of the Journal, the Speaker
\5\ said:
It is an accepted parliamentary rule, governing all legislative
bodies, and is a practice of the House, that the House shall regulate
the manner of its proceedings. The Chair therefore submits the question
whether the Journal of yesterday shall first be read.
On March 25 \6\ Mr. H. Casey Young, of Tennessee, criticised this
practice of referring matters to the House for decision.
Thereupon the Speaker cited the precedent of 1840, and also had read
sections of Cushing's Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies to
show the English practice.
1317. The Chair is constrained in his rulings to give precedent
itsproper influence--On January 10, 1842,\7\ Chairman George W.
Hopkins, ofVinginia, in the course of a ruling made in the Committee of
the Whole, said:
A chairman does not sit here to expound rules according to his own
arbitrary views. A just deference for the opinions of his fellows
should constrain him to give to precedent its proper influence; and
until the House shall reverse them, to give them all the consideration
which is due to cases heretofore settled by a solemn decision of the
House.
1318. It is not the duty of the Speaker to construe the Constitution
as affecting proposed legislation.--On April 22, 1878,\8\ Mr. John H.
Reagan, of Texas, moved that the rules be suspended to pass a bill
relating to the construction of certain public works on rivers and
harbors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\2\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Globe, p. 226.
\3\ R. M. T. Hunter, of Virginia, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1838.
\5\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
\6\ Record, p. 1877.
\7\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Globe, p. 112.
\8\ Second session Forty-fifth Congress. Journal, p. 921; Record, p.
2713.
Sec. 1319
Mr. Samuel S. Cox, of New York, made the point of order that under
the Constitution, section 8, Article I, regulating commerce between the
States, this bill was not in order.
The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order, on the ground that it
was not the duty of the Chair to construe the Constitution as affecting
or touching any proposed legislation.\2\
The rules were suspended and the bill passed, 166 yeas to 66 nays.
1319. On May 21, 1879,\3\ while the House was considering the bill
(H. R. 564) relating to coinage and coin, etc., Mr. James A. Garfield,
of Ohio, made the point of order that a certain section was in
violation of that article of the Constitution which provides that the
validity of the public debt of the United States shall not be
questioned.
The Speaker \1\ said:
The Chair rules that it is not the duty of the Chair to rule upon the
construction of a law. That belongs to the House, and the Chair
therefore overrules the point of order.
1320. On March 3, 1859,\4\ the House was considering the Senate
amendments to the sundry civil appropriation bill, and had reached an
amendment providing for reviving the power of the President to issue
Treasury notes conferred by the act of December 23, 1857.
Mr. Wilson Reilly, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that the
amendment was out of order, on the ground that it virtually provided
for raising revenue, which, under the Constitution, it was not
competent for the Senate to originate.
The Speaker \5\ said:
The Chair does not perceive how the question of order could be made
upon the amendment. It would devolve upon the Chair the necessity of
disposing, by his volition, of an amendment sent here by the Senate of
the United States. * * * The Chair decides that he has nothing to do
with the question, whether the amendment is in order or constitutional
or not. That is a question for the House to determine by their votes.
Mr. Reilly having appealed, the appeal was laid on the table, yeas
122, nays 36.
1321. The competency of the House to take a proposed course of action
is a matter for the decision of the House rather than the Speaker.--On
April 19, 1852,\6\ Mr. James L. Orr, of South Carolina, moved to
recommit a report to the Committee on Printing with instructions.
Mr. Willis A. Gorman, of Indiana, made the point of order that it was
not competent for the House alone to instruct a joint committee created
by act of Congress, and that the motion submitted by Mr. Orr was
consequently out of order.
The Speaker \7\ overruled the point of order on the ground that it
was not his place, but rather that of the House, to decide upon the
effect of their action.\8\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
\2\ See also first session Forty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 347;
Record, p. 1501.
\3\ First session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1501.
\4\ Second session Thirty-fifth Congress, Journal, pp. 603-605;
Globe, p. 1680.
\5\ James L. Orr, of South Carolina, Speaker.
\6\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, p. 611.
\7\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\8\ Again, on May 5,, 1852 (first session Thirty-second Congress)
Globe, p 1251, Mr. Speaker Boyd affirmed this position.
Sec. 1322
On appeal, the decision was sustained.
1322. It is for the House and not the Speaker to decide whether or
not a Senate amendment to a revenue bill violates the privileges of the
House.
As to time of making points of order on constitutional questions.
On February 11, 1901,\1\ the House had voted to disagree to the
Senate amendment, in the nature of a substitute, to the bill (H. R.
12394) to reduce the war revenue, and the pending question was on a
motion to ask for a conference with the Senate.
Thereupon Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, raised a question that
the Senate had no constitutional power to originate a substitute for a
revenue bill, and therefore that the House could not ask for a
conference on this substitute measure without becoming a party to the
violation of the Constitution.
In the course of the debate Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee,
made the point of order that the question was raised too late, since
the House had already considered the Senate amendment and disagreed to
it.
The Speaker \2\ said:
There are two questions before us--first, the point of order made by
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Tawney], which involves the question
of the constitutionality of the action of the Senate in its treatment
of the bill sent to that body by the House.
A second point of order has been made by the gentleman from Tennessee
that the point of order of the gentleman from Minnesota comes too late.
The Chair is of opinion, referring to the latter point of order, that
the gentleman from Minnesota can make his point at any time, and the
Chair would be slow to shut out a point of order involving a
constitutional question, especially when the action of the House on a
division of the question on which a disagreement was declared on the
amendment is in logical harmony with the course taken by the gentleman
from Minnesota. It is only left for the Chair to decide whether the
other question is one for him to decide or for the House to decide,
whether the action of the Senate has violated its constitutional right
or not. This question is no longer open in the House of
Representatives. It has been decided again and again, in many cases,
that when you reach that question it is a decision for the House to
make. The question, therefore, before the House is on the second part
of the resolution pending, namely, that the House ask for a conference.
That is debatable. The gentleman from New York has the floor.
After debate as to the right of the Senate to amend, and as to
whether or not the House would, after nonconcurring to the amendment,
sacrifice any of its prerogatives by asking for a conference, it was
decided, yeas 198, nays 38, to ask a conference.
1323. It is for the House and not the Speaker to decide on the
legislative effect of a proposition.--On March 22, 1869,\3\ while the
House was considering a resolution in regard to the disposal of
contested election cases, Mr. Fernando Wood, of New York, rising to a
parliamentary inquiry, asked if the resolution would bind the House in
its subsequent action as to payment of contestants.
The Speaker\4\ said:
That is not a parliamentary inquiry. The Chair must decline to rule
on the effect of the resolution. It is for the House to judge as to
that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 217, 218;
Record, pp. 2258-2262.
\2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\3\ First session Forty-first Congress, Globe, p. 197.
\4\ James G. Blaine, of Maine, Speaker.
Sec. 1324
1324. On July 8, 1850,\1\ the House was considering the report of the
committee appointed to consider the conduct of the Secretary of War,
the Hon. George W. Crawford, with reference to the Galphin claim, when
Mr. Winfield S. Featherston, of Mississippi, moved to amend the
resolution pending by adding thereto the following:
And that the House does not approve of the conduct of the Secretary
of War in continuing to be interested in the prosecution of it when it
was to be examined, adjusted, and paid by one of the Departments of the
Government, he himself being at the same time at the head of another of
those Departments; but the House considers that such connection and
interest of a member of the Cabinet with a claim pending and prosecuted
before another Department would be improper, dangerous as a precedent,
and ought not to be sanctioned. And, consequently, that the House also
totally dissents from the opinion which the Secretary of War has said
the President of the United States expressed to him, viz, ``that his
(the said Crawford) being at the head of the War Department and the
agent of the claimants did not take from him any rights he may have had
as such agent, or would have justified him in having the examination
and decision of the claim by the Secretary of the Treasury suspended;''
and that this House decidedly disapproves of and dissents from the
opinion given by the Attorney-General in favor of an allowance of
interest on said claim, and from the action of the Secretary of the
Treasury in payment of the same.
Mr. William Duer, of New York, objected to so much of the amendment
of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Featherston) as related to the
conduct of the President and the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Attorney-General, and submitted as a point of order that as the House
was then engaged in an inquiry into the conduct of the Secretary of
War, it was not in order to connect with that inquiry an examination of
the conduct of other officers not on trial, and who had not had an
opportunity to make a defense; and also that so much of said amendment
was out of order, as being on a subject different from that under
consideration.
The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order, and decided that the
amendment was germane to the subject under consideration, and that the
objections of the gentleman from New York were considerations for the
House in its decision on the amendment, but could not be entertained as
a point of order.
Mr. Duer having appealed, the appeal was laid on the table.
1325. The fact that the subject of a pending bill has already been
acted on in another form is a matter for the consideration of the
House, but does not justify the Speaker in ruling the bill out.--On
February 8, 1897,\3\ during consideration of business presented by the
Committee for the District of Columbia, Mr. Joseph W. Babcock, of
Wisconsin, from that committee, presented House resolution No. 212, to
suspend the operation of an act approved February 13, 1895, entitled
``An act to amend an act entitled `An act to provide for the settlement
of all outstanding claims against the District of Columbia, and
conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Claims to hear the same, and
for other purposes,' approved June 16, 1880.''
Mr. Alexander M. Dockery, of Missouri, raised the point of order that
several days before the House had passed legislation repealing that act
and prohibiting further payments of judgments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 1116, 1117;
Globe, pp. 1359, 1360.
\2\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1663; Journal,
p. 155.
Sec. 1326
The Speaker \1\ said:
The Chair would suggest * * * that the action taken by the House was
on an amendment to the appropriation bill. It might very well be that
the House might desire to amend the appropriation bill, or, failing in
that, it might desire to suspend the act. The action of the House on
last Thursday can only be made effective by the action of the Senate.
It might well be that the Senate would prefer not to have it on an
appropriation bill, either for technical reasons or because of its
modification of the appropriation bill. The action now proposed is
entirely different. The former action of the House can not become
effectual except by the action of the Senate. If the House is satisfied
with its action and thinks that that disposed of the question, the
present proposition can be met by raising the question of consideration
or by finally disposing of the bill after discussion. * * * The House
might think it was desirable to have a provision passed which had no
reference whatever to the appropriation bill, and it could not be
precluded by any action of the Speaker from taking that course. The
matter is fully in charge of the House, and if the question of
consideration is raised and consideration is refused, why, the House
expresses its opinion in that way. If, on the contrary, it considers
the bill, its expression may take another form.
1326. Under the early practice the Speakers used to rule subjects out
of order because they were already before the House in another form.
In theory, at least, in the early practice a subject laid on the
table was not regarded as disposed of adversely.
On January 31, 1826,\2\ Mr. Thomas Metcalf, of Kentucky, called up a
resolution asking information of the President concerning the proposed
Congress at Panama.
Mr. John Forsyth, of Georgia, made the point of order that the
resolution was not in order, since the same subject, although stated in
different language, was before the House in the form of a resolution
offered by Mr. James Hamilton, of South Carolina, and laid on the table
December 16.\3\
The Speaker \4\ decided that it was not in order to entertain Mr.
Metcalf's resolution, since the subject-matter thereof was already
before the House in the resolution of Mr. Hamilton.
1327. The fact that the provision of a proposed amendment is
contained in a later portion of the bill constitutes no reason why it
should be ruled out by the Speaker.--On May 19, 1902,\5\ the naval
appropriation bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union, when Mr. Ernest W. Roberts, of
Massachusetts, offered as an amendment a provision relating to the
construction of naval vessels in navy-yards.
Mr. Charles K. Wheeler, of Kentucky, called attention to the fact
that this provision was substantially the same as a paragraph in a
portion of the bill not yet reached.
The Chairman \6\ said:
If certain language is adopted by the Committee of the Whole in one
part of the bill and subsequently the same language is reached in
another part of the bill, the repetition of the language can be struck
out. The Chair thinks the amendment is in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\2\ First session Nineteenth Congress, Journal, p. 100; Debates, p.
1208.
\3\ The motion to lay on the table did not at that time have its
present significance. (See secs. 5389, 5390 of Vol. V of this work.) It
was the frequent practice of the Speakers formerly to rule out
resolutions or propositions on the ground that the subject-matter
thereof was already before the House in another form. (First session
Nineteenth Congress, Journal, p. 512, May 4, 1826.)
\4\ John W. Taylor, of New York, Speaker.
\5\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 5643, 5644.
\6\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 1328
1328. The fact that a proposed amendment is inconsistent with the
text or embodies a proposition already voted on, constitutes a
condition to be passed upon by the House and not by the Speaker.--On
May 19, 1882,\1\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 4167) to
enable national banking associations to extend their corporate
existence.
Mr. William W. Crapo, of Massachusetts, had offered an amendment as a
new section, which was pending.
Mr. Thomas M. Bayne, of Pennsylvania, offered as an amendment to the
pending amendment the following:
Provided, however, That said banks may withhold said bonds in whole
or in part for one year upon notifying the Secretary of the Treasury of
their intention so to do, in which event said bonds shall not be
redeemable until the expiration of the year.
Mr. Roger Q. Mills, of Texas, made the point of order that
substantially this same proposition had already been voted on.
Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
the House by an affirmative vote had determined that the bonds when
called should be surrendered by the banks within thirty days.
The Speaker \2\ said:
There has been no affirmative vote upon inserting the proposed new
section. The vote has been taken merely upon striking out certain words
in that provision. While the amendment of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Bayne) is essentially different from that already
pending, and may be inconsistent with it, the Chair thinks it is for
the House to determine whether this proposition shall be adopted or
not. The point of order is overruled.
1329. On April 12, 1828,\3\ the tariff bill being under
consideration, Mr. Andrew Stewart, of Pennsylvania, proposed an
amendment.
Mr. George McDuffie, of South Carolina, made the point of order that
the amendment could not be received, being inconsistent with one
already adopted by the House.
The Speaker \4\ decided that it was not the province of the Chair to
decide what the effect of the amendment would be.
Mr. McDuffie appealed, but after examination withdrew the appeal.
1330. On December 14, 1900,\5\ the bill (H. R. 12394) to amend an act
entitled ``An act to provide ways and means to meet war expenditures
and for other purposes,'' was under consideration in Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union, and the section relating to beer
was before the committee.
Mr. John K. Stewart, of New York, offered this amendment:
Provided further, That the beer shall be pure beer, made exclusively
from malt and hops, so pronounced by inspectors to be appointed by the
Government for that purpose, the inspectors to be appointed by the
Treasury Department and paid at the rate of $3,000 per year: Provided
further, That violation of the above provision shall be a misdemeanor,
punishable upon conviction by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or
imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the discretion of
the court; and if such beer is found on such inspection to be impure,
then a tax of $2 shall be imposed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 4121-4123;
Journal, p. 1285.
\2\ J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, Speaker.
\3\ First session Twentieth Congress, Debates, p. 2311.
\4\ Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, Speaker.
\5\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 319, 320.
Sec. 1331
Mr. George W. Steele, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane.
After debate the Chairman \1\ said:
As the Chair understands, there an two classes of beer contemplated
by this amendment, and it provides a different tax for each. It
provides the instrumentalities by which beer shall be classified for
purposes of taxation. In that portion of the bill referring to cigars
there is not only a clause fixing the amount of taxation, but there are
provided instrumentalities for carrying out the operations of the law,
and also an appropriation to aid in that purpose. It seems to the
Chair----
At this point Mr. Sereno E. Paine, of New York, called attention to
the fact that the committee had already adopted a proposition fixing
one tax on all kinds of beer, and therefore that the amendment could
not be in order.
The Chairman concluded:
The Chair thinks the gentleman's position is not tenable, and has no
doubt as to the germaneness of this proposition.
1331. On February 7, 1901,\2\ during the consideration of the Post-
Office appropriation bill in the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, an amendment was offered relating to the discretion
of the Postmaster General in using the appropriation for special
facilities on trunk lines of railroad.
Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, made the point of order that the
proposed amendment was in conflict with the provisions of an amendment
just voted on.
After debate the chairman \3\ held:
The point of order is made upon this amendment that it would
accomplish substantially, if adopted, what has already been provided
for in the text of the bill which has just been voted upon.
Now, it is not, certainly, for the Chair to decide as to the effect
of this amendment, although the reading of the text of the bill, which
has been adopted and the amendment, will commend themselves, so far as
that question is concerned, to the committee. The Chair desires to have
read from Jefferson's Manual the following:
``If an amendment be proposed inconsistent with one already agreed
to, it is a fit ground for its rejection by the House, but not within
the competence of the Speaker to suppress as if it were against order;
for were he permitted to draw questions of consistence within the
vortex of order, he might usurp a negative or important modification,
and suppress, instead of subserving, the legislative will.''
The Chair concurs in the extract just read from the Manual, and
therefore overrules the point of order. The question is on the
amendment.
1332. On April 3, 1902,\4\ while the bill (S. 1025) to promote the
efficiency of the Revenue-Cutter Service was under consideration in
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, the following
amendment was offered by John F. Lacey, of Iowa:
Add, at the end of section 3, the following: ``Provided, That the
same reduction of pay shall be made for shore duty as in corresponding
grades in the Navy.''
Mr. James S. Sherman, of New York, raised the question of order
``that precisely the same amendment, only in different phraseology,''
had just been voted down.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 2098, 2099.
\3\ Henry S. Boutell, of Illinois, chairman.
\4\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 3634.
Sec. 1333
The chairman \1\ held:
The motion just voted down was the motion of the gentleman from
Colorado to strike out the word ``Army,'' and insert in lieu thereof
the word ``Navy.'' The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa is
to add at the end of the section the following words:
``Provided, That the same reduction of pay shall be made for shore
duty as in corresponding grades of the Navy.''
The language of the pending amendment is certainly very different
from that of the amendment already rejected. The Chair can not say,
from anything appearing in the bill or anything that has been
submitted, that it is the same amendment. In terms it is a very
different amendment. What the effect may be of adopting the amendment
is for the committee to consider and not for the Chair to decide. The
point of order is therefore overruled.
1333. On March 10, 1902,\2\ while the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 11728) relating
to the rural free delivery service, Mr. John F. Lacey, of Iowa, offered
on amendment providing a system of payment by contract.
Mr. Claude A. Swanson, of Virginia, made the point of order that the
amendment was not in order, the committee having already by amendment
provided that the service should be carried on by salaried carriers and
not by contract.
The Chairman \3\ said:
The Chair is of the opinion that although the committee may have
expressed its intentions in the former paragraph as to the general
principle, yet that would not be inconsistent with a wish to
experimentally try the contract system as is proposed in this
amendment. It is not for the Chair to determine that the committee
would hold the two inconsistent. That is for the committee.
1334. On February 26, 1904,\4\ the naval appropriation bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when Mr. Gilbert M. Hitchcock, of Nebraska, proposed as a new
section, but at a place in the bill wherein were included other
sections relating to the same subject, the following:
That no money appropriated in this bill for armor shall be used to
purchase armor not yet contracted for from any manufacturer or
manufacturers who constitute in whole or in part a trust or trade
conspiracy to control the price of steel products in violation of the
laws of the United States.
Mr. Alston G. Dayton, of West Virginia, made a point of order, and
Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, elaborated it by pointing out that
the amendment would modify conditions prescribed in an amendment
already agreed to.
The Chairman \5\ said:
It is not within the discretion of the Chair to pass upon the
consistency of amendments. This proposed amendment does not limit,
relate, nor apply to the $12,000,000 appropriation contained in the
paragraph already passed. It seems to the Chair to be merely a
limitation upon the appropriation to purchase additional armor not
covered by that paragraph, and is therefore in order. The Chair
overrules the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania.
\2\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2590.
\3\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
\4\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2447.
\5\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania.
Sec. 1335
1335. On January 11, 1871, while the Senate was considering
amendments of the House to the Senate joint resolution (S. Res. 262)
authorizing the appointment of Commissioners in relation to the
Republic of Dominica, a proposition was made in the form of an
amendment to name certain persons as Commissioners. The point of order
was made that the text to which both Houses had agreed provided that
the Commissioners should be named by the President, and therefore that
the proposed amendment was out of order.
The Vice-President \1\ said it was correct that the text of the joint
resolution had been removed from the consideration of both Houses, both
Houses having agreed to it, with the single exception of the amendment
now pending between the two Houses.\2\
The amendment proposed now would be inconsistent with a part of the
joint resolution which had been agreed to by both Houses, but in
Jefferson's Manual the doctrine was laid down which had always been
held as parliamentary law:
If an amendment be proposed inconsistent with one already agreed to
it is fit ground for its rejection by the House, but not within the
competence of the Speaker to suppress, as if it were against order.
As the text in this case proposed one thing, and the amendment
proposed another and inconsistent thing, there might be ground for the
Senate to reject it, but not for the Chair to rule it out of order.\3\
1336. On April 20, 1906,\4\ the District of Columbia appropriation
bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, when this paragraph was read:
Court-house, District of Columbia: For the following force necessary
for the care and protection of the court-house in the District of
Columbia, under the direction of the United States marshal of the
District of Columbia: Engineer, $1,200; three watchmen, at $720 each;
three firemen, at $720 each; five laborers, at $480 each, and three
assistant messengers, at $720 each; in all, $10,080, to be expended
under the direction of the Attorney-General.
The words ``three assistant messengers, at $720 each'' were stricken
out on a point of order, and then an amendment was offered as follows:
Insert ``three messengers, at $720 each.
An amendment to this amendment to strike out ``three'' and insert
``seven'' was disagreed to, and then the amendment was agreed to.
On April 21,\5\ the same paragraph being under consideration, Mr.
Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, proposed this amendment:
Insert after the words ``five laborers, at $480 each'' the words
``four messengers, $720 each,'' so that the paragraph in this portion
would read ``four messengers, $720 each; three messengers, $720 each.''
Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, made the point of order that
this amendment proposed in effect to insert a proposition which on the
day before the House had disagreed to, when the amendment to strike out
``three'' and insert ``seven'' was disagreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ex-Speaker Colfax.
\2\ This amendment did not relate to the subject of Commissioners.
\3\ Third session Forty-first Congress, Globe, p. 430.
\4\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 5631-5635.
\5\ Record, p. 5664.
Sec. 1337
After debate the Chairman \1\ said:
The Chair thinks the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana
is an independent amendment. Whether it makes consistent text or
grammatical text or anything else is not a question of order that the
Chair can determine, but is a question of good sense, to be determined
by the committee itself. The Chair therefore overrules the point of
order.
1337. The Speaker does not rule out a pending legislative
proposition, even though the lapse of time may have rendered it
futile.--On August 8, 1846,\2\ the House was considering a resolution
to terminate debate upon the message from the President of the United
States, recommending an appropriation of $2,000,000 to aid in settling
difficulties with Mexico.
Mr. Garrett Davis, of Kentucky, raised the question of order that the
resolution proposed to fix the hour of ``2 o'clock this day'' as the
time at which debate should terminate. That hour having passed the
resolution was in itself a nullity, and ought not to be further
entertained by the Chair.
The Speaker pro tempore \3\ decided that the resolution being in
order when offered could not, by mere lapse of time, be rendered out of
order, and that while the fact that the hour fixed had passed might be
a good reason for voting against it, it was no reason why the Chair
should interfere in its regular progress. He therefore overruled the
point of order made by Mr. Davis.
Mr. Robert Toombs, of Georgia, having appealed, Mr. James J. McKay,
of North Carolina, moved that the whole subject be laid on the table.
There were on this motion, yeas 123, nays 26. So the appeal and the
resolution were laid on the table.
1338. A question as to whether or not a committee in its report has
violated its instructions is passed on by the, House and not the
Speaker.--On May 26, 1836,\4\ the House was considering the report of a
select committee in relation to the disposition of petitions relating
to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, when Mr.
Stephen C. Phillips, of Massachusetts, submitted, in writing, the
following point of order:
Can a committee, specially instructed to report two resolutions, the
form of which was given by the House, report another resolution
changing the rules and orders of the House in regard to the management
of its business and depriving citizens of the privilege of obtaining
the usual consideration for petitions upon subjects other than that
referred to the committee?
The Speaker \5\ stated that it was not within the competency of the
Chair to draw within the vortex of order the question raised by the
gentleman from Massachusetts. Questions relating to the jurisdiction of
the committees of the House or whether they had or had not exceeded
that jurisdiction or transcended the authority conferred upon them by
the House were for the House and not the Speaker to determine. If
gentlemen were of opinion that committees in their reports had exceeded
the authority given them by the House, there were other modes of
correcting what they had done; as, for example, the report might be
recommitted with instructions,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
\2\ First session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 1277; Globe, p.
1212.
\3\ John W. Tibbatts, of Kentucky, Speaker pro tempore.
\4\ First session Twenty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 882; Debates,
p. 4053.
\5\ James K. Polk, of Tennessee, Speaker.
Sec. 1339
or the House, on that, as well as other grounds, might refuse to concur
in their report.
The point now raised could not therefore be considered as a point of
order to be decided by the Chair. It was in some respects analogous to
the case of inconsistent amendments proposed, in which case it was well
settled that ``if an amendment be proposed inconsistent with one
already agreed to it is a fit ground for its rejection by the House,
but not within the competence of the Speaker to suppress as if it were
against order; for were he permitted to draw questions of consistence
within the vortex of order he might usurp a negative on important
modifications and suppress instead of subserving the legislative
will.''
So in this case, if the House should be satisfied that the committee
were not clothed with authority, by the order of the House under which
they were appointed, to report this resolution, ``it may be a fit
ground for its rejection by the House, but not within the competence of
the Speaker to suppress as if it were against order.''
1339. It is for the House and not the Speaker to decide as to the
efficiency of a report made in writing by a committee.--On January 12,
1888,\1\ the bill (H. R. 1733) to provide for the issue of circulating
notes to national banking associations was called up for consideration.
Mr. J. B. Weaver, of Iowa, made the point of order that the report
accompanying the bill, containing nothing further than a recommendation
of its passage, was not a sufficient compliance with the rule.
After debate, the Speaker \2\ said:
The Chair can only say what has been frequently said before upon
similar points--that it is not within the province of the Chair to
decide upon the sufficiency of a report made by a committee of the
House. All that the rule requires is that a report shall be submitted
in writing, without specifying the nature of the report, and if that
provision of the rule is complied with the Chair must entertain the
report.
The argument of the gentleman from Iowa may be a very proper one to
address to the House itself upon a motion to recommit the bill for a
report containing further and more specific information; but the
gentleman will see at once that if the Chair should undertake to decide
such questions the reception of all reports would depend upon the
judgment of the Chair as to whether they were full or sufficiently
explanatory of the measure to which they referred. So that point of
order must be overruled.
1340. Discussion and ruling in the Senate as to decisions of
questions of order by the presiding officer.
Reference to discussions of the powers of the Vice-President as
presiding officer of the Senate and as to calling to order.
On February 25, 1907,\3\ in the Senate, a question of order was
raised as to an amendment proposed to the pending agricultural
appropriation bill, and Mr. Albert J. Beveridge, of Indiana, suggested
that the Vice-President might submit the decision to the Senate instead
of making a ruling, which would be subject to appeal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 375, 376;
Record, p. 425.
\2\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 3876-3882.
Sec. 1340
In the course of the debate which followed, Mr. Jacob H. Gallinger,
of New Hampshire, submitted precedents made by former presiding
officers of the Senate:
As far back as the Thirty-first Congress, Mr. Howe made a point of
order against an amendment proposed by Mr. Conkling, and the point of
order, beyond a question, was good, but it was submitted to the Senate.
A little later on, in the Forty-sixth Congress, the Senate having under
consideration the bill (H. R. 1343) to provide for certain expenses of
the present session of Congress, Mr. Plumb offered to amend it by
adding ``for mileage of Senators at the extra session.'' Mr. Wallace
raised the point of order that the amendment, not having been moved by
direction of a standing or select committee of the Senate or in
pursuance of an estimate from the head of a Department, was not in
order. The question was submitted to the Senate.
In the Forty-third Congress Mr. Allen offered to amend the
agricultural appropriation bill by inserting:
``For the purpose of purchasing and distributing seeds and seed
grains among the drought-stricken inhabitants of the United States by
the Secretary of Agriculture, and in his discretion and under such
rules as he may prescribe, the sum of $300,000, or so much thereof as
may be necessary, the same to be made immediately available.''
Mr. Vilas raised the point of order that the amendment was not moved
by direction of a standing or select committee of the Senate or
proposed in pursuance of an estimate of the head of some one of the
Departments, and was therefore not in order under the first clause of
Rule XVI. The then Vice-President, Mr. Stevenson, submitted the
question to the Senate.
In the Fifty-third Congress the telegraph cable company matter came
up, when Mr. Blackburn raised the question of order, and it was
submitted to the Senate by the Vice-President, Mr. Stevenson.
In the Thirty-second Congress a bill to supply deficiencies in
appropriations for the year ending June 30, 1852, was pending, and an
amendment was proposed to that which it was argued was not a proper
amendment. Mr. William R. King, who was a very distinguished Senator
and who occupied the chair at that time, submitted the question to the
Senate.
In the Fifty-first Congress an amendment to the Indian appropriation
bill was offered, and Vice President Stevenson submitted it to the
Senate, the same point being made that is made today. In the Fifty-
fourth Congress an amendment was offered to the Indian appropriation
bill, and Mr. Faulkner, who was a most excellent presiding officer,
submitted the question to the Senate.
The pension appropriation bill being under consideration in the
Fiftieth Congress, an important amendment was offered to it, and a
point of order was raised that it proposed general legislation to a
general appropriation bill. The question was submitted to the Senate.
After further debate, the Vice-President\1\ ruled:
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Warren] makes several points of order
against the amendment proposed by the Senator from Indiana [Mr.
Beveridge]. The Chair will consider but one, and that is that the
amendment proposes general legislation. The rules of the Senate with
respect to amendments proposed to appropriation bills are comprehensive
and specific. Subdivision 3 of Rule XVI provides that--
``No amendment which proposes general legislation shall be received
to any general appropriation bill.''
The question arises whether the amendment offered proposes general
legislation. The Chair doubts whether there is a Senator within the
Chamber who, upon the most casual reading of the amendment proposed,
would not hold that it did distinctly and clearly propose general
legislation. If it does propose general legislation and is in
contravention of the rule, the Chair believes that it is his duty and
in the interest of orderly procedure to hold that the point of order is
well taken and that the amendment is out of order.
The precedents to which the attention of the Chair has been directed
with respect to the submission of questions of order to the Senate have
no application to the pending question. The presiding officers have in
past years occasionally submitted questions of order to the Senate. It
has been done under the authority conferred by Rule XX, in the
discretion of the Chair and not from suggestions from the floor. During
the present session the Chair has frequently been invited by Senators
to submit to the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Charles W. Fairbanks, of Indiana, Vice-President.
Sec. 1341
Senate points of order on amendments which were not in order, and in
every case of such invitation the Chair has felt obliged to decline to
do so. To assent to such suggestions is to break down the rules which
the Senate has deliberately adopted for the conduct of public
legislation.
The Chair feels that it is not for him lightly to break the rules and
safeguards which the Senate has adopted for his and its guidance. The
Chair, of course, has nothing to do with the merits of the amendment
which is proposed. Whether the amendment is one of general public
interest or otherwise is a matter with which the Chair can not concern
himself. The Senators interested in the amendment are not remediless.
The Chair, in holding that under the rule an amendment is not in order,
does not kill the amendment. The Senate has provided against such a
contingency by the rules which were long since adopted. If a majority
of the Senate are of opinion that the ruling of the Chair is not in
consonance with the spirit of the rules of the Senate, they may hold
that the amendment is in order; or, if the Senate should be of opinion
that in the large public interest an amendment should be received
regardless of the rule, it is competent for the Senate so to decide,
and a majority of the Senate may determine it.\1\
This amendment, which was offered by the Senator from Indiana on the
14th of February, was embodied in a bill introduced by him on the 6th
of last December. The Chair is of opinion that if the measure is of
such large consequence in the opinion of the Senate, as is now claimed,
the Senate could have expressed itself upon that subject long prior to
the closing hours of the present session and in an orderly and
appropriate way.
For these considerations the point of order is sustained. The Chair
would say further that under the rules of the Senate an appeal lies
from this decision, and the Chair would invite such an appeal if he is
in error in the view he entertains of the force and effect of the rule.
1341. The Speaker held it his duty to proceed in accordance with the
mandatory provision of a law in the enactment of which the then
existing House had concurred.--On March 1, 1877,\2\ the House resumed
consideration of the objections to the counting of the vote of Henry N.
Solace as a Presidential elector from the State of Vermont, and a
resolution relating thereto having been adopted, Mr. Wm. J. O'Brien, of
Maryland, claimed the floor to submit a resolution notifying the Senate
of the action of the House.
The Speaker \3\ stated that he had allowed a vote to be taken on
every legislative motion. He had allowed the motion to reconsider to be
voted upon whenever it had been made, so that the House might have an
opportunity to correct any error it might have committed. The House had
had an opportunity to vote on the motion to lay on the table the
propositions themselves, and on the motions to reconsider the vote upon
those propositions. Now, when the House had advanced to a declaration
of its judgment on the objection to counting the vote from the State of
Vermont, it was brought to the following paragraph of the [electoral]
law (which had been passed in the then existing Congress with the
concurrence of the then existing House) \4\ as its guide and its
mandatory instructions:
When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet,
and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the
question submitted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For an interesting discussion of the powers of the Vice-President
as presiding officer of the Senate see first session Twentieth
Congress, Debates, pp. 278-341. And for a Vice-President's rulings as
to calling to order see first session Nineteenth Congress, index to
Debates, under ``Order.'' See also first session, Thirty-first
Congress, Globe pp. 631, 632, for remarks of Vice-President Fillmore as
to the power to call to order.
\2\ Second session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 604; Record, p.
2054.
\3\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
\4\ 19 Stat. L., p. 227.
Sec. 1342
The Senate has notified the House of its action upon the objection to
counting the vote from Vermont. The House has now reached its judgment
upon the objection, and, as far as the Chair is concerned, it is his
duty, by the terms of the act, mandatory and ministrial, to notify the
Senate to that effect, and he would therefore direct the Clerk
accordingly, and that the House is now ready to meet the Senate to
proceed with the counting of the electoral votes for President and Vice
President.
1342. By request of the House, the Speaker has named himself as one
of the members of a commission authorized by law.--On March 2, 1895,\1\
a Speaker pro tempore being in the chair, Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of
Texas, offered a resolution providing that the Speaker (Mr. Crisp) be
requested to appoint himself as one of the delegates to the
international monetary conference provided for by the sundry civil
appropriation bill for the year ending June 30, 1896. This resolution
was agreed to, and on the same day, when the Speaker announced the
three delegates to be appointed on the part of the House, he announced
himself as the third. This delegation consisted of two from the
majority and one from the minority side of the House.
1343. The Speaker preserves order on the floor and in the galleries
and lobby.
Form and history of Rule I, section 2.
The rules of the House, Rule I, section 2, among the duties of the
Speaker, provide:
He shall preserve order and decorum, and, in case of disturbance or
disorderly conduct in the galleries, or in the lobby, may cause the
same to be cleared.
This is the form established by the revision of the Forty-sixth
Congress.\2\ The clause ``He shall preserve order and decorum'' was
taken from the old rule No. 2, which dated from April 7, 1789.\3\ The
latter portion, relating to the galleries and lobby, was old rule No.
9, and dated from March 14, 1794,\4\ when a resolution was offered from
the floor and adopted, that the Speaker or chairman of the Committee of
the Whole should have power to cause the galleries or lobby cleared in
case of disorder therein.
1344. The Speaker may name any Member persisting in disorderly
conduct.
The parliamentary law provides that the House shall deal with a
Member named by the Speaker.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Fifty-third Congress, Record, pp. 3223, 3251.
\2\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Cong. Record, p. 204.
\3\ See Journal first session First Congress, p. 9. This was the date
of the adoption of the first system of rules. The committee who
reported them were Nicholas Gilman (N. H.), Elbridge Gerry (Mass.),
Jeremiah Wadsworth (Conn.), Elias Boudinot (N. J.), Thornas Hartley
(Pa.), William Smith (Md.), Richard Bland Lee (Va.), Thomas Tudor
Tucker (S. C.), James Madison (Va.), Roger Sherman (Conn.), Benj.
Goodhue (Maw.). All of these, excepting Messrs. Hartley, Lee, and
Goodhue, had served in the Continental Congress.
\4\ Third and Fourth Congresses, Journal, p. 92 (Gales & Seaton ed.).
Sec. 1345
Jefferson's Manual, in Section XVII, provides:
If repeated calls do not produce order,\1\ the Speaker may call by
his name any Member obstinately persisting in irregularity; whereupon
the House may require the Member to withdraw. He is then to be heard in
exculpation and withdraw. Then the Speaker states the offense
committed, and the House considers the degree of punishment they will
inflict.\2\
``Sir, I well remember the august and solemn appearance of this body
some twenty years ago, when the fathers sat here. Then it was a
majestic body indeed. There was something awful in its appearance. The
solemn stillness, the gravity of Senators, the propriety of conduct,
the silent auditory--all impressed the spectator with a solemn awe when
he entered this Chamber or came into its galleries or lobbies. The
House of Representatives, too, was silent. If there a voice was heard
in the galleries, instantly the eye of the Speaker rested upon the
Sergeant-at-Arms, and a messenger or the Sergeant in person immediately
repaired to the individual in the gallery and touched him, and there
was silence. If a Member sat in an indecorous position, or laid his
foot upon his desk, the Speaker sent his page with this message: ``The
compliments of the Speaker to Mr. ------, and he will please take down
his foot;'' and he never put it up a second time. There was grandeur
about legislation then.''
1345. The Speaker represses a Member who is out of order, but except
naming him may not otherwise censure or punish him.--On March 15,
1882,\3\ while Mr. Frank Hiscock, of New York, had the floor in debate,
and was refusing to yield, Mr. Hernando De S. Money, of Mississippi,
insisted on speaking, and did proceed to utter sentences, although Mr.
Hiscock still refused to Yield. Thereupon the Speaker \4\ said:
The Chair wishes to state if gentlemen think they can impose on the
House and the Chair by undertaking to make speeches in violation of the
rules, the Chair will take pains to reprimand them, at least.
At once Mr. Money, while not objecting to being called to order,
raised a question as to the right of the Speaker to reprimand.
The subject was debated on this day, and on the next day Mr. Robert
M. McLane, of Maryland, proposed a resolution condemning any attempted
exercise of such power. This resolution was withdrawn after the Speaker
had made the following statement:
After all that has been said, there should be no misunderstanding the
position taken by the Chair. It never has proposed to assume the powers
of the House in punishing a Member for any past disorderly conduct; it
has only asserted its right as a presiding officer to preserve order
and do all that may be necessary within parliamentary usage to secure
that end. The duty of the Chair in this respect is one settled not only
by long parliamentary usage, but by the imperative terms of the rules
of the House. The Chair used the word ``reprimamd'' in its ordinary and
proper sense, not in its technical sense. The meaning of the term
``reprimand'' is well defined and well understood. To ``reprimand'' is
to check and repress a Member when out of order. Beyond this a
presiding officer should not go in administering a reprimand; less than
this the Chair can not do and discharge its duty to the House. The
Chair never assumed to reprimand a Member for what he had done; that is
for the House. The Chair should check, repress, or reprimand a Member
while persisting in being out of order. The Chair desires to repeat
that in all that took place yesterday; in all that was said, it never
undertook to reprimand a Member for any past act;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This procedure has rarely, if ever, occurred in the House.
Members who offend are usually called to order by some other Member or
by the Speaker, and when called to order the House in case of flagrant
offense takes the matter under consideration.
\2\ On February 11, 1857 (Third session Thirty-fourth Congress,
Globe, p. 649), Mr. Sam Houston, of Texas, while speaking in the
Senate, asked for order, saying:
\3\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 1941, 1967-
1969.
\4\ J. Warren Keffer, of Ohio, Speaker.
Sec. 1346
but if to call a Member to order and remind him that he is not in order
is to reprimand him, then the Chair simply did what the rules require
him to do.
The highest parliamentary reprimand known to the Parliament of
England is to mention a member's name, which puts him then in
parliamentary disgrace. Our manual of practice allows that to be done
here. That was not done on yesterday; nor was any person reprimanded
beyond the mere calling him to order and insisting upon the
preservation of order. The Chair has the right in extreme cases to
order the Sergeant-at-Arms to forcibly preserve order; even to the
extent of arresting a Member if he persists in violating order, and may
it not first use less violent means?\1\
1346. The mace is the symbol of the office of Sergeant-at-Arms, and
is borne by that officer while enforcing order on the floor.
Present form and history of section 2 of Rule IV.
Section 2 of Rule IV provides:
The symbol of his office shall be the mace, which shall be borne by
him while enforcing order on the floor.
This rule dates from 1789.\2\ It was originally proposed, following
the parliamentary usage, that the mace should be placed on the Clerk's
table during the sitting of the House and under it when the House
should be in committee, but the House recommitted the proposition, and
it was not carried.\3\ The mace during the sessions of the House is
kept in an upright position on a marble pedestal at the right of the
Speaker's chair. It is not taken down during a recess, but is taken
down, however, when the House resolves into Committee of the Whole and
is replaced in position when the Speaker resumes the chair. It is taken
from its pedestal and borne by the Sergeant-at-Arms while enforcing
order on the floor under direction of the Speaker or chairman of the
Committee of the Whole.
The first mace, a representation of the Roman fasces, was made of
ebony rods bound transversely with a silver band, and each tipped with
a silver spearhead. From the center of the bundle of rods a silver stem
supported a globe of silver, upon which was an eagle of massive silver.
The height was about 3 feet. This mace was destroyed at the burning of
the Capitol on August 24, 1814. For twenty five years a hastily
constructed mace of common pine wood, painted, did service; but in 1842
the mace now in use was procured. It is of about the size and nearly
the design of the old mace.
1347. The Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms having attempted, without the mace,
to enforce an order of the Speaker on a Member, a question of privilege
arose therefrom.--On February 7, 1885,\4\ Mr. John D. White, of
Kentucky, while addressing the House, was called to order, and the
Speaker pro tempore directed him to resume his seat.
Mr. White disregarding this order, the Speaker pro tempore directed
the Sergeant-at-Arms to see that the order was obeyed by Mr. White.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On April 3, 1850, Vice-President Millard Fillmore addressed the
Senate at length concerning the power of the Vice President to call to
order. His conclusion was that he shared this power with the Members of
the Senate, and that the duty was even more incumbent on him than on
them. (First session Thirty-first Congress, Globe, pp. 631, 632.)
For consideration of this subject by other Vice-Presidents, see
Debates, first session Twentieth Congress, pp.278341. Also ``Order,''
in index to debates, first session Nineteenth Congress.
\2\ When the first rules were adopted.
\3\ See Journal and Annals for first session First Congress, April
13, 1789.
\4\ Second session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 499-5W;
Record, pp. 1419, 1420.
Sec. 1348
The Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms thereupon proceeded up the aisle without
the mace and took hold of Mr. White, who refused to take his seat. The
deputy Sergeant-at-Arms thereupon procured the mace and returned up the
aisle to Mr. White, who took his seat.
Mr. White then, as a question of personal privilege, stated that the
Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms, without authority or semblance of
authority, had undertaken to arrest him.
The Speaker pro tempore \1\ stated that Mr. White, being called to
order by Members and directed by the Chair to take his seat, had
disregarded said order, whereupon the Chair had directed the Sergeant-
at-Arms to enforce the said order, which was then executed by the said
officer.
Later, after the yeas and nays had been taken on a pending
proposition, Mr. White claimed the floor on a question of privilege,
and stated that a citizen, without any semblance of authority or power,
had approached him on the floor of the House and laid violent hands on
him and in an offensive manner demanded that he take his seat.
Mr. Nathaniel J. Hammond, of Georgia, made the point of order that
the identical matter presented by Mr. White had been passed upon by the
Chair; and no appeal from said decision being made, further discussion
was out of order.
The Speaker pro tempore sustained the said point of order, and held
the question presented by Mr. White not now in order as a question of
privilege.
1348. Extreme disorder arising in the Committee of the Whole, the
Speaker may take the chair ``without order to bring the House into
order.''
Disorderly words spoken in Committee of the Whole are to be taken
down as in the House, but are to be reported to the House, which alone
may punish.
Jefferson's Manual has these provisions in relation to disorder in
the Committee of the Whole:
In Section XII:
In a Committee of the Whole, the tellers on a division differing as
to numbers, great heats and confusion arose, and danger of a decision
by the sword. The Speaker took the chair, the mace was forcibly laid on
the table; whereupon, the Members retiring to their places, the Speaker
told the House ``he had taken the chair without an order, to bring the
House into order.'' Some excepted against it; but it was generally
approved as the only expedient to suppress the disorder. And every
Member was required, standing up in his place, to engage that he would
proceed no further in consequence of what had happened in the grand
committee, which was done. (3 Grey, 128.)
A Committee of the Whole being broken up in disorder and the chair
resumed by the Speaker without an order, the House was adjourned. The
next day the committee was considered as thereby dissolved, and the
subject again before the House; and it was decided in the House,
without returning into committee. (3 Grey, 130.)
In Section XVII:
Disorderly words spoken in a committee must be written down as in the
House; but the committee can only report them to the House for
animadversion. (6 Grey, 46.)
In Section XXX:
A committee can not punish a breach of order in the House or in the
gallery.\2\ (9 Grey, 113.) It can only rise and report it to the House,
who may proceed to punish.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph S. C. Blackburn, of Kentucky, Speaker pro tempore.
\2\ A rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to have
the gallery cleared. (See section 4704 of Vol. IV, of this work.)
Sec. 1349
1349. In 1880 the Speaker took the chair to quell disorder in
Committee of the Whole, but that being accomplished, yielded the chair
to the Chairman, that the committee might rise in due form before the
House should adjourn.
On December 31, 1880,\1\ the House was in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union considering the bill (H. R. 4592) to
facilitate the refunding of the public debt, Mr. James W. Covert, of
New York, being Chairman.
During the proceedings a controversy arose between Messrs. William A.
J. Sparks, of Illinois, and J. B. Weaver, of Iowa, and on account of
menacing words and actions of the two Members, the members of the
committee generally rose to their feet, and many came to the front,
some interposing between the two.
At this point the Speaker took the chair and called the House to
order, saying:
The Speaker has taken the chair for the purpose of restoring order,
believing that parliamentary propriety and practice justify him in so
doing.
The Sergeant-at Arms (by direction of the Speaker), with his mace of
office, moved about the floor of the House, and order was restored.
The Speaker then said:
The Speaker will now yield the chair to the Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole, order being restored.
Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, moved that the House adjourn.
The Speaker \2\ said:
The Chair would prefer to have the Committee of the Whole rise in due
form.
Mr. Covert, as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, then took the
chair, the committee immediately voted to rise, and, after it had risen
and reported, the House adjourned.
1350. A Member having defied the authority of the Chairman in
Committee of the Whole, the latter directed the committee to rise, and,
after the Speaker had taken the chair, reported the occurrence to the
House.
The Committee of the Whole having risen informally because of
disorder created by a Member, the Speaker directed the committee to
resume its sitting after the Member had explained and when no further
action in relation thereto was proposed.
On March 29, 1897,\3\ the House was in Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union considering the tariff bill (H. R. 379). Mr.
Henry U. Johnson, of Indiana, who had risen to a point of order, was,
after brief debate, directed by the Chairman \4\ to take his seat. The
gentleman from Indiana not taking his seat, but persisting in his
remarks, the Chairman said:
The committee will rise informally until the House can enforce order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 311; Journal, p.
114.
\2\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
\3\ First session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 433, 434;
Journal, p. 52.
\4\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 1351
The Committee of the Whole rose, the Speaker took the chair, and the
Chairman reported:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union having under consideration House bill No. 379, the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Johnson] declined to recognize the ruling of the Chair and
be governed by the rules of the House; and the committee rose for the
purpose of enforcing the rules.
Thereupon Mr. Benton McMillin, of Tennessee, made a point of order
that the report made by the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole
could not be taken cognizance of by proceedings in the House. The
committee itself was the proper forum to enforce its orders and direct
its business. The Speaker of the House had no control in such matters
as had progressed no further than this did.
The Speaker \1\ said:
The Chair thinks that when the Committee of the Whole makes report
that there has been disorder in the committee the House is competent to
attend to administering whatever justice it deems necessary.
Thereupon Mr. Johnson, there being no objection, was allowed to make
an explanation.
Then the Speaker said:
The Chair thinks it is proper to say to the House--and the Chair is
quite sure that the House will agree--that one of the first duties of a
Member is to obey the directions of a presiding officer until they have
been reversed by proper authority, because the presiding officer,
however humble an individual he may be, does not act of his own
volition or of his own motion, but he acts as the representative of the
House of which he is Speaker, or of the Committee of the Whole, of
which he is Chairman; and certainly the very foundation and basis of
order in the House is the recognition of the authority of the one who
is appointed to be in authority; and whatever objections any Member may
have to the unfortunate methods of procedure, still he will, if he
thinks a moment, recognize the necessity of prompt obedience to
whomsoever presides over the body.
Now, it is true that our debates--I do not speak of these debates,
because I have not heard much of them, but, judging that they are like
debates in the past to which I have listened for nearly twenty years,
they are somewhat irrelevant. They seem to be a waste of time, and
probably a more strict rule than has been the custom of the House with
regard to relevancy would be a much better thing. Nevertheless, it
would be a long time before the House would accustom itself to that new
departure, and it would require very cordial action on the part of all
Members to prevent the waste of time. Time is undoubtedly wasted in all
these debates, and if there were a month accorded to the House, we
should simply have a month more of just the same kind of debate. I
speak as a matter of experience, being sorry that it is experience.
That being the case, nothing can be done except in the regular way, and
if the result of it is that we do not reach some parts of the bill, it
is, perhaps, owing to our unfortunate constitution and habits. But what
we ought to do is, perhaps, not to strive for an ideal condition of
things, but to do about the best we can. That being the case, the Chair
really hopes that the gentlemanfrom Indiana will recognize the
suitableness of what has been said. * * * If there be no objection, the
Committee will resume its sitting.
The Committee of the Whole resumed its sitting.
1351. The Committee of the Whole having risen and reported that its
proceedings had been disturbed by disorder, the Speaker restored order
and the committee resumed its sitting.--On April 5, 1860,\2\ the House
resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union; and after some time spent therein the Speaker resumed the
chair, when Mr. Israel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\2\ First session Thirty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 666.
Sec. 1352
Washburn, jr., reported that the proceedings of the committee were
interrupted by disorder prevailing therein.
The Speaker \1\ having restored order, the House again resolved
itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
1352. Rigid enforcement of the rule relating to disturbance in the
galleries.--In the early history of the House the rule relating to
order in the galleries was very rigidly enforced. In 1801 \2\ a
spectator who applauded by clapping his hands was, by direction of the
Speaker, taken from the gallery and kept in confinement by the
Sergeant-at-Arms for two hours. The confinement of the offender was the
subject of some criticism on the floor. On February 11, 1836, during a
session of the Committee of the Whole, a spectator in the gallery
applauded. The committee having risen, the Chairman communicated this
fact to the Speaker, who gave orders to the Sergeant-at-Arms to clear
the gallery. It was also proposed by an old Member \3\ that a warrant
be issued for the arrest of the offender; but this proposition was not
carried into execution. In the later history of the House applause in
the galleries has been repressed, but not with such extreme
strictness.\4\
1353. The Speaker having declined to order the galleries to be
cleared, a motion to effect that purpose was offered from the floor and
entertained.--On March 1, 1877,\5\ during proceedings of the count of
the electoral vote, Mr. William J. O'Brien, of Maryland, asked that the
galleries be cleared of spectators.
The Speaker not granting the request, although reenforced by the
demand of other Members, Mr. Bernard G. Caulfield, of Illinois, moved
that the galleries be cleared.
The Speaker \6\ entertained the motion, which was put to the House
and decided in the negative.\7\
1354. The Speaker has general control of the Hall, corridors, and
unappropriated rooms in the House wing of the Capitol.
Form and history of Rule I, section 3.
The rule relating to the control by the Speaker of the Hall and its
surroundings is section 3 of Rule I:
He shall have general control, except as provided by rule or law, of
the Hall of the House and of the corridors and passages and of the
unappropriated rooms in that part of the Capitol assigned to the use of
the House until further order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ William Pennington, of New Jersey, Speaker.
\2\ See Annals of Congress, second session Sixth Congress, pp. 851,
887.
\3\ Charles F. Mercer, of Virginia, who served in the House from 1817
to 1839.
\4\ On February 9, 1825, at the time of the election of President
John Quincy Adams, there were applause and hisses from the gallery and
the House suspended its business until the gallery was cleared. Second
session Eighteenth Congress, Debates, p. 527)
\5\ Second session Forty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 2056.
\6\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
\7\ The rule in relation to clearing the galleries was substantially
the same then as now. As printed in the Record on the above date (p.
2056), it might be inferred that the rule specifically provided that
the House could order the galleries cleared. The rule did not, however,
provide this in terms. (Journal p. 702.) But of course if the people in
the galleries disturbed the proceedings the House might order them out
as a matter of privilege.
Sec. 1355
The origin of this rule was on December 23, 1811,\1\ when a rule was
adopted containing this sentence relating to the Speaker's duties: ``He
shall have general direction of the Hall.'' On May 26, 1824,\2\ Mr.
John W. Taylor, of New York, from a committee appointed to apportion
the rooms among the officers of the House and the standing committees,
reported also a resolution that ``the unappropriated rooms shall be
subject to the order and disposition of the Speaker until the further
order of the House.'' \3\ This rule was in existence in 1880 \4\ when
the general revision occurred, and its substance was incorporated in
the present form of the rule. In the Forty-ninth Congress \5\ the
corridors and passages were added to the charge of the Speaker, with
the idea, says the report of the Committee on Rules, of restoring to
the Speaker an authority which he exercised prior to the revision of
1880.
1355. The statutes require the Speaker to appoint certain visitors
and trustees of public institutions.--Certain duties \6\ are prescribed
for the Speaker by the Statutes. Before the termination of the last
session of each Congress he shall appoint a temporary Committee on
Accounts, of three Members, to exercise the duties of such committee
until after the meeting and organization of the next House of
Representatives.\7\ At the session of Congress next preceding the
annual examinations of the Military Academy he shall appoint three
Members of the House as visitors to that institution,\8\ and also at
the session next preceding the annual examinations at the Naval
Academy, three Members of the House as visitors \9\ to that institution
also. He shall also appoint a Member of the House as consulting trustee
for two years of the Reform School of the District of Columbia,\10\ two
Members of the House as directors for the term of a single Congress,
with eligibility for reappointment, of the Columbia Hospital for
Women,\11\ two Members for a like term with like eligibility for
reappointment as directors of the Columbia Institu-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Reports, first session Twelfth Congress, No. 38. The revision
of 1811 was quite extensive, and the Committee on Rules who reported it
were Messrs. Burwell Bassett (Va.), Timothy Pitkin (Conn.), Nathaniel
Macon (N. C.), Hugh Nelson (Va.), William W. Bibb (Ga.), Josiah Quincy
(Mass.), and William Findley (Pa.).
\2\ See Annals of Congress, first session Eighteenth Congress, p.
2764.
\3\ On January 14, 1876, Speaker Kerr was, by unanimous consent,
relieved of ``the duty required of him by the rules to regulate the
assignment of the committee rooms,'' and the duty was transferred to
the Committee on Accounts for the remainder of the Congress. (First
session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 188.) On January 20, 1817,
rooms were allotted to committees by a joint committee of both Houses.
(Second session Fourteenth Congress, Annals, pp. 611, 639, Journal, p.
238.) Again, on May 21, 1824, a select committee of the House was
appointed to assign rooms. (First session Eighteenth Congress, Journal,
pp. 558, 559.)
\4\ Cong. Record, second session Forty-sixth Congress, p. 204.
\5\ Cong. Record, first session Forty-ninth Congress, pp. 169, 293.
\6\ In early years of the House various duties were at times
prescribed for the Speaker. Thus in 1820 he made the expenditures for
refurnishing the Hall of the House. (First session Sixteenth Congress,
Journal, p. 530.) In later times such duties have devolved on other
officers.
\7\ Supplement Revised Statutes, vol. 2, pp. 413, 414; 28 Statutes at
Large, p. 768.
\8\ Revised Statutes, section 1327.
\9\ Supplement Revised Statutes, Vol. I, p. 217.
\10\ Supplement Revised Statutes, Vol. I, p. 104.
\11\ Statutes at Large, vol. 17, p. 360.
Sec. 1356
tion for the Instruction of the Deaf and Dumb.\1\ On every alternate
fourth Wednesday of December he shall appoint three Members of the
House as Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.\2\ Annually he
appoints two citizens of the District of Columbia as members of the
Memorial Association of the District of Columbia.\3\
1356. Mr. Speaker Clay announced to the House his resignation of the
Speakership, but his resignation as a Member appears only from the
credentials of his successor.--On March 26, 1814,\4\ the Speaker laid
before the House a letter addressed to him, inclosing the certificate
of the election of Joseph H. Hawkins, to serve in this House, as one of
the Members of the State of Kentucky, in the place of Henry Clay,
resigned.
On January 19, 1814,\5\ Mr. Clay, who was Speaker, resigned that
office, ``the distinguished station of this House, with which I have
been honored by your kindness,'' as he described it. But he did not at
the same time, in terms at least, resign his seat. Nor does an
inspection of the Journal show that at any time a notice of his
resignation was laid before the House until the presentation of the
credentials of his successor, on March 26.
1357. Resolutions censuring the conduct of the Speaker being
presented unexpectedly, he was excused from deciding a point of order
in relation thereto.--On May 31, 1882,\6\ Mr. Robert M. McLane, of
Maryland, presented a preamble and resolution reciting the proceedings
of the House on the prior day, and the refusal of the Speaker to
entertain certain motions and appeals, and concluding with this
resolution:
Resolved, That the said decisions and rulings of the Speaker and his
refusal to allow appeals therefrom were arbitrary, and are hereby
condemned and censured by the House.
Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, moved that the preamble and resolutions
be laid on the table.
A point of order being made that the resolutions did not present a
question of privilege, the Speaker \7\ said in reference to them:
The Chair desires to state that the gentleman from Maryland advised
the Chair that he had certain resolutions which he wished to offer; * *
* but had the present occupant of the chair had any information that
they had a personal application to himself, he would have taken
occasion to leave the chair. In this situation, and having made the
rulings to which reference is made in these resolutions, the Chair
would rather now not rule upon the point of order, but allow the motion
of the gentleman from Maine to be submitted to the House.
The preamble and resolutions were then laid on the table, yeas 143,
nays 88.\8\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Revised Statutes, section 4863.
\2\ Revised Statutes, section 5581.
\3\ 27 Statutes at Large, p. 396.
\4\ Second session Thirteenth Congress, Journal, p. 366 (Gales &
Seaton ed.).
\5\ Journal, p. 240.
\6\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 1384; Record,
p. 4398.
\7\ J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, Speaker.
\8\ On January 18, 1882 (first session Forty-seventh Congress,
Record, p. 491), Mr. Speaker Keifer, because the point of order arose
over a proposition to take the appointment of committees from the
Speaker, submitted it to the House, and the House decided it.
Sec. 1358
1358. The Speaker, having remained in the chair while a question
relating to himself was pending, was excused from deciding a question
of order.--On February 20, 1801,\1\ a motion was made and seconded that
the House do come to the following resolution:
Resolved, That the Speaker of this House in directing the Sergeant-
at-Arms to order and expel from the gallery of this House Samuel
Harrison Smith, a citizen of the United States, has assumed a power not
given him by the rules of this House, and deprived the said Samuel
Harrison Smith of a right which can only be forfeited by disorderly
behavior.
It was resolved unanimously that the Speaker \2\ be excused from
deciding whether the said motion was in order or not.
The question being taken, ``Is this motion in order?'' it passed in
the negative, yeas, 49, nays 54.
1359. The Speaker leaves the chair during the transaction of any
business concerning himself, even the reference of a paper.--On
December 13, 1843,\3\ the Speaker \4\ having left the chair and
substituted Mr. Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, as Speaker pro tempore, it was,
on motion of Mr. Lucius Q. C. Elmer, of New Jersey,
Ordered, That all the documents in the possession of the Clerk of
this House relating to the case of John M. Botts, who contests the
right of John W. Jones to a seat as a Member of this House; and to the
case of William L. Goggin, who contests the right of Thomas W. Gilmer
to a seat as a Member of this House, be referred to the Committee of
Elections.
1360. The Speaker's seat being contested, he requested that the House
relieve him of the appointment of the Committee on Elections; and the
request was granted.
The Speaker, by unanimous consent, addressed the House on a subject
relating to his election.
A matter concerning himself being before the House, the Speaker
called a Member to the chair.
A Member called to the chair by the Speaker was permitted to appoint
a committee by vote of the House.
On December 7, 1843,\5\ the Speaker \6\ by general consent, stated
that a memorial having this day been presented by John M. Botts, of the
State of Virginia, contesting the right of the Speaker to a seat in the
House, it appeared to him proper that he should ask the House that, in
any order which might hereafter be taken for the appointment of the
standing committees, he might be relieved from that portion of the
duty, which might otherwise devolve upon him, of appointing a committee
of elections, which would have to pass on his own case. He was impelled
to this course both from a sense of justice to his opponent and because
of the delicacy of the position in which he was himself placed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 194-199 (old ed.),
810 (Gales & Seaton ed.); Annals, p. 1042.
\2\ Theodore Sedgwick, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 50; Globe, p.
33.
\4\ John W. Jones, of Virginia, Speaker; the same whose seat was
contested.
\5\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 40; Globe, p.
18.
\6\ John W. Jones, of Virginia, Speaker.
Sec. 1361
The Speaker then left the chair and substituted Mr. Samuel Beardsley,
of New York, as Speaker pro tempore.
On motion of Mr. William Parmenter, of Massachusetts, it was then
Resolved, That the Speaker be authorized to appoint the standing
committees named in the seventy-sixth rule of the House of the Twenty-
seventh Congress, except the Committee of Elections.
Mr. George W. Hopkins, of Virginia, then moved that the House proceed
viva voce to elect a committee of elections to consist of nine members.
On motion of Mr. Charles H. Carroll, of New York, this motion was
amended to provide that the committee be appointed by the Speaker pro
tempore, and as amended, the motion was agreed to.
Mr. Beardsley thereupon appointed the committee.\1\
1361. The seat of the Speaker being contested, the Committee on
Elections were appointed by resolution of the House.--On December 12,
1887,\2\ the Speaker \3\ called Mr. Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, to
the chair, and from the floor requested that he be relieved of the duty
of appointing the Committee on Elections, in view of the pending
contest for his seat in the House.
Thereupon Mr. William S. Holman, of Indiana, offered the following
resolution:
Resolved, That at 1 o'clock p. m. to-morrow the House will proceed to
elect, by resolution or otherwise, fifteen Members who shall constitute
the Committee on Elections for the present Congress.
Mr. Henry G. Turner, of Georgia, proposed the following substitute:
That at I o'clock p. m. to-morrow there shall be selected by the
House of Representatives a select committee of fifteen Members, to whom
shall be referred the election contest of Thoebe v. Carlisle.
After debate the substitute was disagreed to, and the original
resolution was agreed to.
On the succeeding day, at the appointed time, Mr. Joseph G. Cannon,
of Illinois, a member of the minority, offered a resolution providing
that certain Members therein should constitute the Committee on
Elections. Mr. Cannon stated that the majority had named the first nine
and the last six were named by the minority.
The resolution was agreed to.
From January 17 to 23 the Speaker was away from the House, detained
by illness, and during that time the report in the contest was made,
and acted on, the House deciding that Mr. Carlisle was entitled to the
seat.
1362. Charges being made by a Member against the official conduct of
Mr. Speaker Clay, he appealed to the House for an investigation, which
was granted.
In asking an investigation of his conduct Mr. Speaker Clay addressed
the House from the chair, but immediately left it when the House was to
act.
The Speaker having appealed to the House for an investigation, the
House ordered his address to be entered on the Journal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mr. Beardsley appears to have belonged to the same political
party with the Speaker, that of the majority of the House. (See Globe,
p. 1.)
\2\ First session Fiftieth Congress, Journal, pp. 44, 49, 438, 442,
504; Record, pp. 42, 51, 519, 629.
\3\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
Sec. 1362
In 1825 the House ordered that the select committee to investigate
the conduct of the Speaker should be chosen by ballot.
A Member making charges which result in an investigation, the
committee usually call upon him first to present the facts within his
knowledge.
On February 3, 1825,\1\ the Speaker,\2\ rising in his place, made a
statement concerning insinuations\3\ against himself, implicating his
conduct with regard to the approaching election of a President by the
House. These charges were made in the public prints under the authority
of a Member of the House, and were therefore entitled to grave
attention. It might be worthy of consideration whether the character
and dignity of the House itself did not require a full investigation
and an impartial decision. For if he were base enough to betray the
solemn trust which the Constitution had confided to him and by yielding
to personal views and considerations compromise the highest interests
of his country, the House would be scandalized by his continuance to
occupy the chair, and he merited instantaneous expulsion. Without,
however, presuming to indicate what the House might conceive it ought
to do, on account of its own purity and honor, he hoped that he should
be allowed respectfully to solicit in behalf of himself an inquiry into
the truth of the charges to which he referred. Standing in the
relations to the House, which both the Member from Pennsylvania and
himself did, it appeared to him that here was the proper place to
institute the inquiry, in order that, if guilty, here the proper
punishment might be applied, and if innocent, here his character and
conduct might be vindicated. If the House should think proper to raise
a committee he trusted that some other than the ordinary mode pursued
by the practice and rules of the House would be adopted to appoint the
committee.
The Speaker then called Mr. John W. Taylor, of New York, to the
chair.\4\
Thereupon Mr. John Forsyth, of Georgia, proposed the following:
Ordered, That the Speaker's communication be entered on the Journal.
Considerable debate arose as to the manner of the presentation. Mr.
Charles F. Mercer, of Virginia, thought the better way to have brought
the subject before the House would have been for the Speaker to have
addressed a letter to the Speaker pro tempore, and that letter might be
referred. There seemed to be difficulty about entering an oral address
of the Speaker in the Journal. But Mr. Forsyth thought there was no
difficulty, and that this address, like the addresses of the Speaker
when entering and leaving the speakership,\5\ both of which were oral,
and both of which
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Eighteenth Congress, Journal, p. 198; Debates, pp.
440-461.
\2\ Henry Clay, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\3\ Insinuations of a corrupt bargain to support Mr. Adams as
President in return for an appointment as Secretary of State.
\4\ The Journal has no mention of this, but the Debates record it;
and it would seem to be the course demanded by propriety.
\5\ These addresses are entered on the Journals as a matter of
course, without vote of the House. The remarks of the first Speaker,
Mr. Muhlenburg, on taking the chair in 1789, are referred to but not
given in full in the Journal; but his farewell remarks at the end of
the Congress, in response to the vote of thanks, appear. The address of
the second Speaker, Mr. Trumbull, on taking the chair, appears in full,
and such is yet the general, though not invariable custom.
Sec. 1363
were always entered on the Journals, might by the Clerk and Speaker be
entered on the Journal without trouble.
The House finally agreed to the order, and the appeal of the Speaker
was spread in full on the Journal.
Mr. Forsyth then moved to refer the Speaker's communication to a
select committee, and on February 4,\1\ after debate, this motion was
agreed to, yeas 125, nays 167.
The objection to the reference to a committee was made principally on
the alleged ground that no act of the House could result from it; but
in reply it was urged that the penalty of expulsion could be visited
for a breach of privilege.
It was then--
Ordered, That the committee consist of seven Members, and that it be
appointed by ballot.
On February 6,\2\ the committee were chosen by ballot, a second
ballot being necessary to complete the number. The members were Messrs.
Philip P. Barbour, of Virginia; Daniel Webster, of Massachusetts; Louis
McLane, of Delaware; John W. Taylor, of New York; John Forsyth, of
Georgia; Romulus M. Saunders, of North Carolina, and Christopher
Rankin, of Mississippi.
On February 9,\3\ the committee reported that they had informed Hon.
George Kremer that they would be ready at a particular time to receive
evidence touching the charges made by him. In reply Mr. Kremer sent to
them a communication, in which he declined to appear before the
committee alleging that he could not do so without appearing either as
an accuser or a witness, both of which he protested against. In this
posture of affairs, the committee could take no further steps. It was
of course competent for the House to invest them with the power to send
for persons and papers, and by that means enable them to make an
investigation. But not knowing any reasons for such an investigation,
of their own knowledge, they felt it only their duty to lay before the
House the letter of Mr. Kremer, which they added to their report.
1363. A charge by a Member that the Journal of the House had been
mutilated by the Speaker was made a question of privilege.
Charges being made against the Speaker, he called a member of the
minority party to the chair during their consideration.
Instance wherein a bill was originated in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union.
In a rare instance the House committed a bill directly to the
Committee of the Whole before sending it to a standing or select
committee (footnote).
On March 26, 1850 \4\ Mr. Preston King, of New York, rose to a
question of privilege, which he reduced to writing, as follows, viz:
I charge that the Journal of the House has been mutilated by erasing
a motion that I did make, and substituting, by interlineation, one that
I did not make, in the Journal of the 13th instant. My motion was to
close debate on the California bill; these words are changed, and
``message'' substituted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Journal, pp. 201-206; Debates, pp. 463-486.
\2\ Journal, p. 208.
\3\ Debates, p. 522.
\4\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 713.
Sec. 1364
The said charge having been submitted to the consideration of the
House, the Speaker\1\ called Mr. Robert C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts,
to perform the duties of the Chair.\2\
After debate,\3\ and after two propositions had been submitted and
considered, Mr. Isaac E. Holmes, of South Carolina, moved that a
committee of nine be appointed by the gentleman now presiding over the
House, to investigate the charges made against the honorable Speaker by
the Hon. Preston King, a Member of this House.
The Speaker (Mr. Cobb), after unanimous consent of the House had been
given, made from the floor an explanation of the occurrence. The
California message had been committed to the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union, but the California bill, to which Mr.
King referred, had never appeared in the House, but had originated in
the Committee of the Whole during the consideration of the message and
was still in the committee. The Speaker explained that Mr. King offered
the resolution to close debate on the bill as well as on the message;
but when the Speaker came to read the journal before its admission to
the House for approval he found that such a resolution to close debate
was not privileged, except as it referred to a matter committed to the
Committee of the Whole by the House. The bill had not been so
committed,\4\ and the House had no parliamentary knowledge of it. The
Journal as corrected was read to the House. The alteration of the
Journal was, he contended, proper, since the resolution had been
entertained as a privileged proposition and the alteration had only
been made to make it conform to the privileged form.
This motion having been agreed to, the Speaker pro tempore appointed
the committee, Mr. Holmes being made chairman.
The special committee, on March 29, 1850\5\ made a report exonerating
the Speaker. The House unanimously approved the report.
1364. A newspaper having made certain charges against the official
character of the Speaker, he called a Member to the chair and moved an
investigation, which was voted.
A select committee being authorized to investigate the conduct of the
Speaker, they were appointed by the Member called to the chair as
Speaker pro tempore.
The report of a select committee on the conduct of the Speaker was
voted on by the House, although it contained no order or resolution;
and was spread on the Journal without direction of the House.
On February 27, 1879,\6\ the Speaker\7\ called Mr. John G. Carlisle,
of Kentucky, a member of the majority, to the chair, and as a question
of privilege presented to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
\2\ Mr. Winthrop was a member of the minority party (Whig) in the
House; the Speaker a member of the majority party (Democratic).
\3\ Globe, p. 595.
\4\ In rare instances the House has committed a bill directly to the
Committee of the Whole before sending it to a standing committee. (See
the bill H. R. 243 in index of Journal for first session Forty-second
Congress.)
\5\ Journal, pp. 738-739.
\6\ Third session Forty-fifth Congress, Journal, pp. 541, 672;
Record, pp. 1986, 2396.
\7\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
Sec. 1365
the House an extract from a newspaper, purporting to make, on the
authority of a certain special agent of the Treasury Department, whose
name was given, a charge that the Speaker had used his influence to the
advantage of a paper mill in which he was a stockholder by continuing a
profitable contract with the Government. The Speaker denied the charge,
and offered a resolution providing that a select committee of five be
appointed to investigate the matter.
This resolution was agreed to unanimously, and Mr. Carlisle, as
Speaker pro tempore, appointed the committee, the chairman and two
others from the majority side of the House, and two from the minority
side.
On March 3 the committee made an unanimous report, exonerating the
Speaker. This report, apparently without order of the House, was
inserted in full in the Journal. The report was also voted on by the
House and agreed to by the House, although it was a simple statement,
without any proposition attached, such as a resolution.
1365. The Speaker of the House being the Vice-President-elect, called
a Member to the chair during discussion of a question relating to the
electoral count.
A Member called to the chair to preside temporarily was given special
authority by the House to appoint a committee.
On February 10, 1869, the counting of the electoral votes showed
Ulysses S. Grant, of Illinois, chosen President of the United States,
and Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Vice-President. It had been ordered
that a committee should be appointed on the part of the House to join a
similar committee of the Senate, to notify the President-elect and Vice
President-elect of their election. There had also arisen a question of
privilege relating to the electoral count, and the Speaker (who was
also the Vice-President-elect) had left the chair to participate in the
debate. On the succeeding day, February 11,\1\ the Speaker announced
his intention to designate Mr. Henry L. Dawes, of Massachusetts, as
Speaker pro tempore\2\ during the consideration of the question of
privilege, which had come over as unfinished business from the day
before.
Before leaving the chair he asked the House to grant authority to the
Speaker pro tempore to appoint the committee of notification.
This authority was granted without objection, and Mr. Dawes, having
assumed the chair, made the appointment.
1366. During consideration of a resolution to censure a Member for
disrespect for the Speaker, the Member likewise assailed the Speaker
pro tempore, whereupon the Speaker resumed the chair, while the House
acted on the latest breach of privilege.
Pending consideration of a resolution to censure a Member, the
Speaker informed the Member that he should retire.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third Session Fortieth Congress, Journal, p. 324; Globe, p. 1094.
\2\ The Journal says that the Speaker, ``by unanimous consent, named
Mr. Dawes to perform the duties of the Chair.'' This must mean the
appointment of the committee, since the rule already gave the power of
designation.
Sec. 1367
On July 11, 1832,\1\ the House was considering an appeal from a
decision of the Chair in relation to a resolution censuring Mr. William
Stanbery, of Ohio, for words spoken in debate.
Mr. Stanbery, having the floor in the debate on the appeal, said:
I will make one motion that is in order: I make a motion that you
[the Speaker pro tempore] leave the chair.
On demand of Mr. Augustin S. Clayton, of Georgia, the words were
taken down and read.
Thereupon Mr. James K. Polk, of Tennessee, offered this resolution:
Resolved, That the words spoken in this House this morning by William
Stanbery, a Member from Ohio, and which words have been taken down by
the Clerk of the House, and his conduct in the face of the House, were
disorderly, and deserve the censure of the House.
The speaker pro tempore,\2\ leaving the chair from motives of
delicacy, the Speaker\3\ took the chair, and decided that the words of
Mr. Stanbery were disorderly.
After further debate, participated in by Mr. Stanbery, who insisted
that what he had said was parliamentary, the Speaker said that the
words having been taken down and admitted, and a resolution of censure
having been moved, it was the duty of the Member from Ohio to Withdraw.
After further debate, request was made of Mr. Polk that he withdraw
his resolution in order that the House might bring to a conclusion the
pending appeal, and the original resolution censuring Mr. Stanbery.
Mr. Polk accordingly withdrew his resolution, and the original
resolution of censure was agreed to. The original resolution of censure
was for words spoken disrespectfully of the Speaker.
1367. The Speaker may of right speak from the chair on questions of
order and be first heard.
Except on questions of order the Speaker may speak from the chair
only by leave of the House and on questions of fact.
On occasions comparatively rare, Speakers have called Members to the
chair and participated in debate, usually without asking consent or the
House.
According to a former custom,, now fallen into disuse, the Speakers
participated freely in debate in Committee of the Whole.
The Speaker sits while rendering decisions on points of order or when
participating in debate thereon.
Section XVII of Jefferson's Manual has this provision:
But if the Speaker rise to speak, the Member standing up ought to sit
down, that he may be first heard. (Town., col. 205; Hale Parl., 133;
Mem. in Hakew., 30, 31.) 'Nevertheless, though the Speaker may of right
speak to matters of order,\4\ and be first heard, he is restrained from
speaking on any other
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Twenty-second Congress, Journal, p. 1134; Debates,
pp. 3897-3901.
\2\ Clement C. Clay, of Alabama, Speaker pro tempore.
\3\ Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, Speaker.
\4\ The Speaker, according to the practice of the House for a long
time, sits while rendering decisions or while speaking on points of
order.
Sec. 1368
subject, except where the House have occasion for facts within his
knowledge; then he may, with their leave, state the matter of fact.\1\
1368. The seat of the Speaker as a Member being contested, consent of
the House was obtained to permit him to speak on the report, although
he had called a Member to the chair.
A contestant for a seat being heard on the floor in his own behalf is
subject to all the rules of debate applying to the Member.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This rule was formerly construed to prevent the Speaker from
speaking from a place on the floor when a Speaker pro tempore was
presiding. It did not apply to Committee of the whole. In later years,
in the rare instances when Speakers have left the chair and debated,
they have done so without obtainingleave of the House, in explicit
terms at least. On April 9, 1864, (first session Thirty-eighth
Congress). Journal, p. 505; Globe, p. 1503) Mr. Speaker Colfax left the
chair to move the expulsion of Mr. Alexander Long, of Ohio; again, on
February 10, 1869 (third session Fortieth Congress, Journal, p. 322;
Globe, p. 1066), Mr. Colfax left the chair. On March 16, 1871 (first
session Forty-second Congress, Globe, p. 124), Mr. Speaker Blaine left
the chair to reply to Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts (the Journal in this
case makes no reference to the action, the Globe indicates that no
request for the consent of the House was made, while Mr. Blaine--Globe,
p. 125--apologized for the proceeding which he justified by the early
precedents); on February 4, 1872 (third session Forty-second Congress,
Globe, pp. 1092,1115), Mr. Speaker Blaine left the chair without
consent to propose and advocate a private bill granting a pension to a
daughter of President Taylor, widow of an army officer; and on December
2, 1872, the same Speaker (third session Forty-second Congress,
Journal, p. 8; Globe, p. 11) left the chair to move the Credit Mobilier
investigation, the Journal indicating that the consent of the House may
have been obtained; and on February 4, 1875 (second session Forty-third
Congress, Record, p. 899), he debated a proposed amendment to the
rules. Of the more recent Speakers, Mr. Crisp, on March 29, 1894
(second session Fifty-third Congress, Record, p. 3335), took the floor
without express leave of the House.
On April 19, 1878 (second session Forty-fifth Congress, Record, p.
2665), Mr. Speaker Randall called Mr. Robert B. Vance, of North
Carolina, to the chair as Speaker pro tempore, and then from the floor
made a personal explanation; on April 9, 1879 (first session Forty-
sixth Congress, Record, p. 336), Mr. Speaker Randall participated in
debate in the House on a report from the Committee on Rules, and on May
1 (Journal, p. 224; Record, p. 1018) the same Speaker left the chair
without consent of the House to present a report from the Committee on
Rules. Again, on February 4, 1880 (second session Forty-sixth Congress,
Record, p. 1079), Mr. Speaker Randall, without asking consent, left the
chair to debate in a case of personal explanation into which his name
had been brought by a Member. On June 14, 1906 (first session Fifty-
ninth Congress, Record, pp. 8528, 8529), Mr. Speaker Cannon, without
asking consent of the House, left the chair to reply to remarks
reflecting on his conduct made by a Delegate in debate.
On January 5, 1826, on the subject of a proposed rule relating to the
duties of the Speaker in the presentation of memorials, Mr. Speaker
Taylor, from the chair, spoke at some length on his understanding of
the duty of the Chair (first session Nineteenth Congress, Debates, pp.
880-883).
On January 10, 1896, Mr. Speaker Reed participated briefly from the
chair in debate on the theory of the quorum present as related to the
rules (first session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 579).
In the modern practice of the House the Speakers quite frequently
vote in Committee of the Whole, but rarely participate in the debate.
On March 27, 1906 (first session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p.
4355), Mr. Speaker Cannon interposed briefly in reply to a criticism of
his conduct by a Member in the debate; but for a quarter of a century
such participation in debate had been rare. Mr. Speaker Randall,
however, was a frequent participant in debates in Committee of the
Whole. (Congressional Record, second session Forty-sixth Congress, p.
1705; third session Forty-sixth Congress, pp. 303, 1525.) In the
earlier history of Congress a Speaker (Mr. Dayton) participated in
debate in Committee of the Whole to the extent of being called to order
by the chairman for improper utterances. (Annals of Congress, first
session Fifth Congress, p. 1004.) In fact, the early Speakers
frequently debated in Committee of the Whole. Thus Mr. Clay spoke on
nine measures in one session. (First session Twelfth Congress. See
Annals.)
Also, on February 14, 1826, in Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker
Taylor spoke on an appeal from the decision of the Chairman, and
expressed the opinion that the decision was wrong. (First session
Nineteenth Congress, Debates, p. 1358.)
Sec. 1369
On June 6, 1844,\1\ the Speaker \2\ having left the chair and
substituted Mr. John B. Weller, of Ohio, as Speaker pro tempore, the
House proceeded to the consideration of the report of the Committee of
Elections upon the memorial of John M. Botts, who contested the right
of John W. Jones to a seat as a Member of this House (the consideration
of the report having been, on the 31st of May ultimo, postponed until
this day), the question being on agreeing to the resolution
accompanying the report, which was read, as follows:
Resolved, That John W. Jones is entitled to his seat in this House as
a Representative from the Sixth Congressional district in Virginia.
On motion of Mr. George W. Hopkins, of Virginia (by unanimous
consent)--
Ordered, That the Speaker of this House, whose right to a seat as a
Member of this House is contested, have leave to speak upon this
resolution, notwithstanding that clause of the Manual which restrains
the Speaker from addressing the House except upon questions of order.
Mr. Garrett Davis, of Kentucky, submitted the inquiry whether Mr.
Botts, in debating the resolution, would be subject to the provisions
of the rule which declares that ``no Member shall occupy more than one
hour in debate on any question in the House or in committee.''
The Speaker pro tempore decided that, although the word ``Member'' is
used in this rule, it is also in many other rules relative to order and
debate, and that any person not a Member of this House who is permitted
to appear at the bar and address the House must necessarily be governed
by all the rules of debate which are applicable to Members, subject to
the rule limiting a speech to one hour.
From this decision Mr. Davis appealed. This appeal was laid on the
table by a vote of 102 to 76.
1369. A Member having criticized the past conduct of the Speaker, the
House consented that the latter should explain from the chair.--On
January 22, 1836,\3\ Mr. Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, having the floor
in debate, criticized the conduct of the chairman of the Committee of
Ways and Means in the preceding Congress, and called upon him to make
an explanation.
The former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee being at this
time the Speaker of the House,\4\ and occupying the chair at the time
Mr. Wise made the demand, said that, while considering the proceeding
out of order, he had not arrested it, as he was personally referred to.
He would make a statement if the House would permit.
The. consent of the House being given, the Speaker, evidently without
leaving the chair, made an explanation.
1370. The Speaker has spoken briefly from the chair on a question of
privilege relating to himself.--On March 15, 1902,\5\ Mr. E. S. Minor,
of Wisconsin, rising to a question of privilege, denied the truth of a
newspaper report that
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 1012; Globe, p.
648.
\2\ John W. Jones, of Virginia, Speaker.
\3\ First session Twenty-fourth Congress, Debates, pp. 2293, 2294.
\4\ James K. Polk, of Tennessee, Speaker.
\5\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 2876, 2877.
Sec. 1371
he had, in his duty as a Representative, been threatened with coercion
by the Speaker.
At the conclusion of Mr. Minor's remarks, the Speaker \1\ said:
The Chair thinks proper to say, in view of the fact that he is
referred to in the article read, that so far as the article is
concerned and its statements, the averments of the gentleman from
Wisconsin are absolutely true. There is not one word or shadow of truth
in any statement made in that article.
1371. Instance wherein the Speaker left the chair to reply to a
speech reflecting on his conduct.--On June 14, 1906,\2\ the House was
considering the conference report on the bill (H. R. 12707) to enable
the people of Oklahoma and Indian Territory to form a constitution and
State government and be admitted into the Union on an equal footing
with the original States; and to enable the people of New Mexico and
Arizona to form a constitution and State government and be admitted
into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, when Mr.
Marcus A. Smith, of Arizona, in the course of debate said:
The less said about the way this original bill has been pressed the
better for the history of this Congress, and I refrain from going into
that part of it. There is a law in Arizona that if one legislator
trades with another on the legislation before that body he is guilty of
a very high misdemeanor, and if the governor shall attempt in that
benighted land to influence legislation by promises of veto or the
withholding of veto to secure other legislation he goes to the
penitentiary under the laws of that land.
At the close of Mr. Smith's remarks the Speaker \3\ called Mr. John
Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, to the chair, and going upon the floor and
addressing the House, in the course of his remarks said:
That remark could not have had but one motive and one meaning, and
that meaning is that some one in the House has sought to affect
legislation in the House as a matter of traffic in order to secure
action upon this matter in the Senate or in the House. That imputation
implied, so far as it reflects upon the Speaker of this House and, so
far as I know or believe, upon any other Member of this House, is
unworthy of the gentleman that uttered it and without foundation in
fact. If it were necessary to furnish proof of this statement, I look
about me here on my own side of the House on Members with whom I
disagreed touching the progress of this bill from time to time, and
upon that side of the House, and I pause and invite any Member present
who has the least intimation, knowledge, or even belief that the
statement implied in the insinuation of the gentleman is true to so
state.
1372. By leave of the House the Speaker was permitted to make a
statement from the chair as to proceedings in the recent joint meeting
to count the electoral vote.--On February 10, 1869,\4\ after the
completion of the electoral count and after the Senate had retired, Mr.
Benjamin F. Butler, of Massachusetts, rising to a question of
privilege, introduced a resolution relating to certain proceedings in
the joint convention.
The resolution having been held to be in order for consideration, the
Speaker \5\ asked leave of the House to make a statement in relation to
what occurred in joint convention.
There being no objection, the Speaker, from his place, made a
statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\2\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 8528, 8529.
\3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\4\ Third session Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 1064.
\5\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
Sec. 1373
1373. The Speaker sometimes makes a brief explanation from the chair
without asking the assent of the House.--On December 18, 1873,\1\ Mr.
Speaker Blaine, from the chair, explained in debate a proposed rule
justifying himself in this action by the fact that he was a member of
the Committee on Rules reporting the rule.
1374. On December 10, 1880,\2\ Mr. Speaker Randall, from the chair,
intervened in a case where a member was making a personal explanation
to explain the position of the Chair in the matter.
1375. In very rare cases the Speaker takes the floor to make a
motion.--On April 9, 1864,\3\ Mr. Speaker Colfax came down from the
chair to move a resolution to expel T. Alexander Long, of Ohio; and
during the debate which followed there was some criticism of this
action of the presiding officer. Mr. Colfax justified his course by
citing the fact that during the Congress of 1812 and 1813 Mr. Speaker
Clay came down from the chair fifteen times to make speeches on the
floor.\4\
1376. On March 16, 1854,\5\ Mr. Speaker Boyd, by unanimous consent,
gave notice of his intention, at the proper time, to submit an
amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill of the House (H.
R. 1) to encourage agriculture, commerce, manufactures, and a other
branches of industry, by granting to every man who is the head of a
family, and a citizen of the United States, a homestead of 160 acres of
land out of the public domain, upon condition of occupancy and
cultivation of the same for the period herein specified, and to
graduate and reduce the price of the public lands; which was ordered to
be printed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Forty-second Congress, Record, p. 312.
\2\ Third session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 80.
\2\ First session Thirty-eighth Congress, Globe, pp. 1505, 1626,
1627.
\4\ Mr. Speaker Clay spoke frequently in Committee of the Whole, and
it seems evident that Mr. Speaker Colfax confused this with
participation in debate during sessions of the House itself.
\5\ First session, Thirty-third Congress, Journal, p. 518; Globe, p.
646.