<DOC>
[Hinds Precedents -- Volume V]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:hinds_cxxix.wais]
Chapter CXXIX.
THE VOTE BY YEAS AND NAYS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Provisions of the Constitution. Section 6011.\1\
2. In order before organization of the House. Sections 6012,
6013.
3. Order of yeas and nays not affected by failure of quorum.
Sections 6014, 6015.\2\
4. May be ordered by less than a quorum. Sections 6016-6027.\3\
5. Not to be demanded again after being refused. Sections 6028-
6031.\4\
6. Not in order on a vote seconding a motion. Sections 6032-
6036.
7. General decisions as to demanding. Sections 6037-6045.
8. Rule prescribing the manner of roll call. Sections 6046,
6047.
9. Roll of yeas and nays as distinguished from roll for
organization. Section 6048.
10. Recapitulation and interruptions of roll call. Sections
6049-6059.
11. Changes and corrections in vote of Member. Sections 6060-
6083.
12. Wrong announcement of result is corrected at any time.
Sections 6084-6094.
13. As to challenge of the recorded vote of a Member. Sections
6095-W99.
14. Effect of an order of yeas and nays on close of debate.
Sections 6100-6105.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
6011. The Constitution provides that the yeas, and nays shall be
entered on the Journal at the desire of one-fifth of those
present.\5\--The Constitution of the United States, in section 5 of
Article I, provides:
The yeas and nays of the Members of either House on any question
shall, at the desire of one-fifth \6\ of those present, be entered on
the Journal.
In section 7 of Article I, which provides for the return of bills
from the President of the United States with his objections and their
consideration, this requirement is made:
But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by
yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the
bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House, respectively.\7\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Demand for yeas and nays not to be held dilatory. (Sec. 5737 of
this volume.)
Not to be demanded in Committee of the Whole. (Secs. 4722-4724 of
Vol. IV.)
Votes by yeas and nays in impeachment trials. (Sec. 2094 of Vol.
III.)
\2\ Rule combining call of the House with a vote by yeas and nays.
(Sec. 3041 of Vol. IV.)
\3\ See also section 3010 of Volume IV.
\4\ As to reconsideration of vote ordering yeas and nays. (Secs.
5689-5693 of this volume.)
\5\ See section 5689 of this volume for decision as to ordering the
yeas and nays on a motion to reconsider a vote ordering the yeas and
nays.
\6\ In the Continental Congress the yeas and nays were, by rule,
ordered at the demand of a single Member. (Journal, May 26, 1778.)
\7\ The House for a time had a rule that the yeas and nays should be
taken on the passage of every general appropriation bill, but in 1886
it was repealed as useless. (First session Forty-ninth Congress,
Journal, p. 1156.)
Sec. 6012
6012. According to the latest practice the yeas and nays are taken on
questions arising before the organization of the House.--On December 6,
1839,\1\ at the organization of the House, the call of the roll by
States for the ascertainment of a quorum had been suspended at the
State of New Jersey, and a controversy had arisen as to who were
entitled to be called as the occupants of five of the seats of that
State. Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, had been chosen to
preside as chairman of the meeting of the Members-elect, and the
Members were proceeding to determine who, if any, should be allowed to
vote as the five Members from New Jersey.
A vote being about to be taken on an appeal from a decision of the
Chair, Mr. Alexander Duncan, of Ohio, inquired if the yeas and nays
could be taken on the question before the House.
The Chairman replied that, at the present state of organization of
the House, the yeas and nays could not be taken, the House being not
yet constituted.
On December 11, in the course of the effort to determine the status
of the contestants, the question was put as to each one of them,
whether or not he should be permitted to vote, and decided.
After this, the yeas and nays being demanded on a pending question,
the Chairman stated that, on a former occasion, he had decided that the
roll of the Members of the House not being complete, the yeas and nays
could not be taken; but that now, considering that many of the
obstructions existing in the organization of the House had been
partially removed by the decisions of the House of this day as to the
votes of certain Members whose right to vote had been contested, the
yeas and nays might be taken by general consent.\2\
No objection being made, the yeas and nays were taken.
6013. On December 4, 1849,\3\ before a Speaker had been elected or
rules adopted, Mr. Christopher H. Williams, of Tennessee, moved that
the House adjourn until the hour of 12 to-morrow.
Mr. Thomas H. Bayly, of Virginia, demanded the yeas and nays on the
motion to adjourn.
The Clerk \4\ decided that the demand for the yeas and nays was not
in order.
Mr. Bayly appealed, urging that the body of Members-elect was a House
before organization, and was proceeding according to the directions
laid down for the House by the Constitution. They were keeping a
journal and electing a Speaker, as required by the Constitution to do.
The mandate as to the yeas and nays applied to them.
The Clerk thereupon said that he would withdraw the decision, and
would submit the question to the House. Thereupon Mr. Bayly withdrew
his appeal, and the Clerk declared that the question was on taking the
yeas and nays.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 7, 14; Globe,
pp. 27, 40.
\2\ On December 11, the House being still unorganized, the Chairman
decided that the yeas and nays could not be called without the consent
of all present. (Globe, p. 42.)
\3\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 32, 147-156;
Globe, pp. 4, 6.
\4\ Thomas J. Campbell, Clerk.
Sec. 6014
A question then arose as to whether the vote of a majority was
required to order the yeas and nays, and pending this discussion Mr.
Williams withdrew his demand.
On December 5 and 22 the yeas and nays were taken several times, and
in each case the Journal specifically states that they were demanded by
one-fifth.
6014. When a yea-and-nay vote on a bill fails for lack of a quorum,
the order for the yeas and nays remains effective whenever the bill
again comes before the House.--On May 10, 1886,\1\ a District of
Columbia day, the House was considering the bill (H. R. 7083) to
incorporate the trustees of the Young Women's Christian Home, in
Washington, D. C., and on the passage, the yeas and nays having been
ordered, there were 145 yeas, 1 nay; no quorum.
The House then adjourned.
On June 14, 1886, District of Columbia business being again in order,
Mr. John S. Barbour, of Virginia, called the bill up again, and a
proposition for debate was made.
The Speaker \2\ said:
The yeas and nays were ordered on the passage of the bill and they
were taken, but no quorum appeared. If the yeas and nays are dispensed
with, it must be by unanimous consent.
6015. On August 28, 1890,\3\ the Speaker stated the pending question
to be on the appeal of Mr. William E. Mason, of Illinois, from the
decision of the Chair, made on the 26th instant, that the bill of the
House (H. R. 11568) defining ``lard,'' also imposing a tax upon and
regulating the manufacture and sale, importation and exportation of
compound lard, was the pending business before the House, on which
appeal the yeas and nays had been ordered, and on which no quorum
voted.
Mr. Benjamin A. Enloe, of Tennessee, made the point of order that
this day having been assigned to the Committee on Labor the bill named
should go over as unfinished business until to-morrow or Monday, or
such subsequent time as unfinished business might be properly
considered.
The Speaker \4\ declined to entertain the point of order on the
ground that the question raised was the one pending and to be now voted
on.
The question being again put, Shall the decision of the Chair stand
as the judgment of the House? it was decided in the affirmative, yeas
130, nays 46.
6016. In the earlier practice of the House it was held that less than
a quorum might not order the yeas and nays, but for many years the
decisions have been uniformly the other way.--On April 30, 1852,\5\ the
House having under consideration a bill for the relief of Osborn Cross,
the question was taken on the engrossment and third reading.
Mr. Orlando B. Ficklin, of Illinois, having demanded the yeas and
nays, there were, ayes 22, noes 58, no quorum voting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Journal, pp. 1566, 1885;
Record, pp. 4342, 5679, 5680.
\2\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\3\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 998; Record, p.
9277.
\4\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\5\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, p. 1220; Journal,
pp. 651, 652.
Sec. 6017
Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, submitted that it did not require
that there should be a quorum present to call the yeas and nays, and
quoted the provision of the Constitution that ``the yeas and nays of
the Members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of
one-fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal.'' \1\
The Speaker \2\ said:
That is the constitutional provision, but the construction which the
Chair puts upon the provision in reference to this subject is this:
That it is competent for the House to adjourn with less than a quorum
from day to day, but it is not competent for less than a quorum to pass
a bill. There is another provision of the Constitution, the gentleman
will remember, which requires a quorum to be present to do business,
and, therefore, for the purpose of doing business, less than one-fifth
of a quorum, in the judgment of the Chair, can not call the yeas and
nays. * * * We can not pass a bill with less than a quorum, and the
yeas and nays would be idle, therefore, less than a quorum being
present.
On appeal this decision was sustained.
6017. On December 28, 1852,\3\ the House was voting on a resolution
relating to the reports of committees, when the Speaker announced that
no quorum voted on the pending motion.
Mr. Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, demanded the yeas and nays.
The Speaker \2\ decided, in conformity with his decision of the last
session and which was sustained by the House, that less than a quorum
could not act upon a demand for the nays and nays any more than upon
any other business; and consequently that the demand for the yeas and
nays was not now in order. He thought that, taking the clause of the
Constitution authorizing ``one-fifth of the Members present to cause
the yeas and nays to be entered on the Journal,'' in connection with
that requiring ``a majority of the Members to constitute a quorum to do
business,'' it was clearly intended that the ``Members present,'' one-
fifth of whom may order the yeas and nays, should amount to a quorum.
It would be different if the pending motion was to adjourn or for a
call of the House, as less than a quorum was competent to act on either
of those motions.
Mr. Alexander H. Stephens having appealed, on the next day the
decision of the Chair was sustained by the withdrawal of the appeal by
Mr. Stephens.
Again, on January 18, 1853,\4\ Mr. Stephens raised the same point of
order, and the Speaker affirmed his previous decision. Mr. Stephens
appealed, and, after debate on the meaning of the constitutional
provision, the appeal was laid on the table, ayes 96, noes 23.
6018. On January 28, 1863,\5\ during prolonged dilatory proceedings
over a bill relating to negro soldiers, a motion was made to fix the
day to which the House should adjourn, and the previous question was
moved. On this latter motion the yeas and nays were demanded. On a vote
by tellers there were 23 ayes and 3 noes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not long after this, on May 24, 1852 (first session Thirty-second
Congress, Journal, p. 727; Globe, pp. 1458, 1459), Mr. Jones, who made
the point of order, was in the chair as Speaker pro tempore when the
same question arose again. Those voting on ordering the yeas and nays
not being a quorum, he decided that a quorum was not necessary, thus
overruling the decision of Mr. Speaker Boyd. On appeal Mr. Jones's
ruling was sustained.
\2\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, p. 87; Globe, pp.
163, 164.
\4\ Journal, p. 145; Globe, pp. 334, 335.
\5\ Third session Thirty-seventh Congress, Globe, p. 573.
Mr. William S. Holman, of Indiana, made the point that there was no
quorum present, as disclosed by the vote.
The Speaker \1\ ruled that a quorum was not required to order the
yeas and nays.
An appeal from this decision was laid on the table, 96 yeas to 2
nays; so the Chair was sustained.
6019. On December 1, 1877,\2\ Mr. Roger Q. Mills, of Texas, moved to
suspend the rules and adopt the following resolution:
Resolved, That the Committee on Ways and Means be instructed to so
revise the tariff as to make it purely and solely a tariff for revenue
and not for protecting one class of citizens by plundering another.
On this motion the yeas and nays were ordered, yeas 27, nays 57.
Mr. John H. Baker, of Indiana, made the point of order that a quorum
had not voted on the demand.
The Speaker \3\ overruled the point of order on the ground that a
quorum was not necessary to order the yeas and nays.
6020. On March 3, 1881, \4\ the House was considering the Senate bill
for the relief of Hardie Hogan Helper, and on the question of ordering
the bill to be read a third time there were 109 ayes, 2 noes.
Mr. James W. Singleton, of Illinois, made the point of no quorum.
Mr. Alexander H. Coffroth, of Pennsylvania, demanded the yeas and
nays.
Mr. Charles E. Hooker, of Mississippi, made the point of order that
he had moved a call of the House before the yeas and nays were ordered,
and that a motion for a call or to adjourn was the only motion in
order.
The Speaker \3\ said:
The Chair overrules the point of order. The House has the right by a
further proceeding to find out whether there be a quorum present. * * *
The tellers' count did not show a quorum; but the House may desire a
yea-and-nay vote, and the yeas and nays have been demanded to ascertain
if there is a quorum. When a count by tellers does not show a quorum,
it is in order for the House further to test the fact by a yea-and nay
vote. The question is on ordering the yeas and nays.
6021. On January 11, 1889,\5\ the House was dividing on the question
of adopting a conference report, and Mr. Stephen V. White, of New York,
demanded the yeas and nays.
Mr. J. B. Weaver, of Iowa, raised the point that a quorum must be
present to order the yeas and nays.
The Speaker \6\ ruled as follows:
The Chair is somewhat familiar with the question which was raised by
the gentleman from Iowa to-day, and is aware of the fact that there
have been two or three decisions in the House to the effect that under
the Constitution it requires the-presence of a quorum to order the yeas
and nays. That was upon the ground that the ordering of the yeas and
nays was the transaction of business; and in one case at least the
decision, as stated by the gentleman from Iowa, was appealed from and
was sustained by the House. But for more than thirty-five years the
decisions have been all the other way, and the uniform practice of the
House has been constantly the reverse of that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Galusha A. Grow, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
\2\ First session Forty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 290; Record, pp.
811, 812.
\3\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
\4\ Third session Forty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 596; Record, p.
2446.
\5\ Second session Fiftieth Congress, Record, pp. 679, 681.
\6\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
If the ordering of the yeas and nays is the transaction of business,
of course the ordering of tellers is the transaction of business. In
each case the proceeding relates merely to the manner of taking the
vote of the House, the method by which the sense of the House shall be
ascertained on a matter of business. * * * Under the rules of the House
one-fifth of a quorum may order tellers, but it is easy to be seen that
one-fifth of a quorum, which is 33 Members, may be all the Members
present, and much less than a quorum; and if the point of the gentleman
is well taken, that the yeas and nays can not be ordered without the
presence of a quorum, manifestly neither of these methods of taking a
vote of the House could be resorted to, nor could any other method of
taking a vote upon any question, because they are all proceedings of
the same character. The Chair is unable to see how the House could even
divide on a question, because it is as much the transaction of business
as taking a vote by tellers or the call of the roll on the vote by yeas
and nays. The Chair thinks, therefore, that the later practice is the
better practice, and that the three decisions alluded to, which seem to
stand alone, are not now the law of the House.
The Chair overrules the point of order.\1\
6022. On July 29, 1890 \2\, Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, moved
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for the further consideration of the amendments
of the Senate to the bill of the House (H. R. 10884) making
appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1891, and for other purposes, and the
question being put, there appeared on division, yeas 57, nays 40.
Mr. William D. Bynum, of Indiana, made the point of order that no
quorum was present.
The Speaker thereupon proceeded to count the House, when Mr. Daniel
Kerr, of Iowa, demanded the yeas and nays.
Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, made the point of order that
the demand was not in order, for the reason that the last vote
disclosed the fact that a quorum was not present.
The Speaker \3\ overruled the point of order on the ground that a
quorum was not required to order the yeas and nays, and also on the
ground that the demand for the yeas and nays was a constitutional
right, and that the ordering of the yeas and nays as stated in the
ruling of Speaker Carlisle in the last Congress was ``a proceeding
relating merely to the method by which the sense of the House is
ascertained on a matter of business.'' The yeas and nays is the final
vote of the House on a pending question.
6023. On August 23, 1890,\4\ Mr. William E. Mason, of Illinois,
having appealed from a decision of the Speaker pro tempore, and the
question having been put to the House, ``Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?'' it was decided (on
division) in the affirmative.
Mr. Mason demanded the yeas and nays, which were refused, one-fifth
of the Members present not voting in favor thereof.
Mr. Mason made the point of order that no quorum had voted on
ordering the yeas and nays.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mr. Weaver on this occasion cited the precedent in the first
session of the Thirty-second Congress, also a similar one in the second
session of the same Congress, where Mr. Speaker Boyd reaffirmed his
position.
\2\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 903; Record, p.
7861.
\3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\4\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 984.
Sec. 6024
The Speaker pro tempore \1\ overruled the point of order on the
ground that a quorum was not required to order the yeas and nays.
6024. On November 3, 1893,\2\ Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee,
introduced a joint resolution (H. Res. 86) to pay session and other
employees, and per diem employees, and that they be retained during the
coming recess.
The question being put, Shall the joint resolution be engrossed and
read a third time?
Mr. Joseph C. Hutcheson, of Texas, demanded that the yeas and nays of
those voting be entered on the Journal.
Eleven Members concurred in the demand and 128 Members refused to
concur. So the demand for the yeas and nays was refused.
Mr. Hutcheson thereupon made the point that, inasmuch as no quorum
had voted on the demand for the yeas and nays, there was no quorum
present to transact business.
The Speaker \3\ held as follows:
The Constitution of the United States provides that one-fifth of the
Members present may have a yea-and-nay or record vote. Even if there
were not more than 20 or 25 Members present, one-fifth of them could
order the yeas and nays upon any question, and there must always be a
quorum voting for the transaction of business, The adoption of that
resolution is business, and if the gentleman makes the point that no
quorum votes upon the resolution, the Chair thinks the point is well
taken. The ruling which the Chair has just made was upon the question
of ordering the yeas and nays and not upon the question of agreeing to
the joint resolution.
6025. On May 9, 1898,\4\ the House was considering the conference
report on the bill (S. 1316) to provide for organizing a naval
battalion in the District of Columbia. The question being on agreeing
to the conference report, there were, on a division, 71 ayes and 45
noes.
Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, made the point of no quorum, and the
Speaker pro tempore proceeded to count the House.
Before the count was completed Mr. William H. Moody, of
Massachusetts, demanded the yeas and nays.
Mr. Bailey made the point of order that while the point of no quorum
was pending it was not in order to demand the yeas and nays.
After debate, the Speaker pro tempore\5\ held:
The Chair is ready to rule upon the question. When the suggestion is
made that no quorum is prezent, the rule provides that the Chair shall
count the House to ascertain whether a quorum is present or not; but,
in addition to that, the Constitution provides that at any time one-
fifth of those present may order the yeas and nays upon any subject.
Now, the House has not yet ascertained that no quorum is present in
this case. No quorum voted on the last vote, but it does not appear
that no quorum is present. The House, under the constitutional right,
may override the rule of simply counting to ascertain if a quorum is
present and order the yeas and nays. On that vote it will appear
whether a quorum votes upon that question. If it does not, of course
then the point of order is still good that no quorum is present. Now,
this matter has been ruled upon before.\6\ The Chair overrules the
point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lewis E. Payson, of Illinois, Speaker pro tempore.
\2\ First session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 172; Record, pp.
3120, 3121.
\3\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4744.
\5\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
\6\ Here the Speaker pro tempore cited the decision of the Fifty-
first Congress.
Sec. 6026
6026. On March 2, 1903 \1\ (the legislative day of February 26), the
House met after a recess. Previous to the recess the previous question
had been ordered on the question of agreeing to the conference report
on the bill (H. R. 12098) ``extending the homestead laws and providing
for a right of way for railroads in the district of Alaska.''
When the House met after the recess Mr. James D. Richardson, of
Tennessee, at once made the point of order that no quorum was present.
Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, demanded the yeas and nays; on the
pending question.
Mr. Richardson insisted that a quorum should be present.
The Speaker \2\ said:
The gentleman must bear in mind that the thing that the gentleman
from New York asks does not need a quorum. The Chair must overrule the
point of order. * * * Speaker Randall and Speaker Carlisle both held
that a quorum was not needed to order the yeas and nays. * * * And the
present occupant of the Chair so holds, and overrules the point of
order. The question is on ordering the yeas and nays.
6027. On March 3 \3\ (still the legislative day of February 26) the
House again met after recess, the pending question being on agreeing to
the conference report on the immigration bill (H. R. 12199), on which
the previous question had been ordered previous to the recess.
Mr. Richardson again made the point of order that no quorum was
present.
Mr. Payne demanded the yeas and nays on the pending question.
Mr. Richardson objected that the first thing in order was to
ascertain whether or not a quorum was present.
The Speaker said:
The gentleman overlooks the fact that you can order the yeas and nays
with or without a quorum. The yeas and nays have been demanded. If
there turns out to be a quorum, that will be sufficient. If there are
not sufficient here to make a quorum, we will have to get them in. That
is all. The Chair overrules the point of order.
6028. On January 23, 1833,\4\ Mr. Jesse Speight, of North Carolina,
demanded the yeas and nays on a motion to adjourn.
Tellers were called for to ascertain whether one-fifth of the House
demanded the yeas and nays. The ayes being 23, the noes 78, it appeared
that no quorum had voted.
The Speaker \5\ decided that the yeas and nays should be called.
Mr. Charles F. Mercer, of Virginia, appealed from this decision, but
subsequently withdrew the appeal.
6029. The yeas and nays having been once refused may not be again
demanded on the same question.
A motion to reconsider the vote ordering the yeas and nays is in
order.
On February 28, 1849,\6\ at an evening session, the House was
considering a bill of the Senate (No. 343) entitled ``An act to provide
for carrying into effect the fifth
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2912.
\2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\3\ Record, pp. 3010-3011.
\4\ Second session Twenty-second Congress, Debates, p. 1225.
\5\ Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, Speaker.
\6\ Second session Thirtieth Congress, Globe, p. 623.
Sec. 6030
article of the treaty between the United States and the Mexican
Republic for establishing the boundary line between them.'' Mr. Robert
C. Schenck, of Ohio, had offered an amendment, and after debate, when
the question was put on its adoption, the yeas and nays were called
for. Less than one-fifth voting in favor thereof, the yeas and nays
were refused.
The question was then being taken by a division, when Mr. George
Ashmun, of Massachusetts, asked the yeas and nays.
The Speaker \1\ I stated that they had been refused and could not
again be called for.
Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, asked as a constitutional right
that the vote be again taken on ordering the yeas and nays.
The Speaker said the Chair was of opinion that the yeas and nays
could be demanded but once upon the same question; otherwise the call
might be renewed every day during the session upon the same question. A
motion might be made, however, to reconsider the vote by which the
House refused to order the yeas and nays.
On motion of Mr. Jones, the vote was reconsidered, and the question
recurring on ordering the yeas and nays, they were ordered.
6030. It is not in order during the various processes of a division
to repeat a demand for the yeas and nays which has once been refused by
the House.--On February 3, 1846 \2\ Mr. Jacob Collamer, of Vermont,
presented a resolution requesting the President to communicate to the
House correspondence between the Governments of the United States and
Great Britain in relation to the country west of the Rocky Mountains,
and moved a suspension of the rules to enable the resolution to be
offered. Mr. George Ashmun, of Massachusetts, called for the yeas and
nays, which the House refused to order.\3\
Tellers were then asked for and appointed on the motion to suspend
the rules, and the affirmative side having been taken and declared, Mr.
Collamer called for the yeas and nays.
The Speaker \4\ said the demand was not in order, as the yeas and
nays had already been refused.
The completion of the vote by tellers then occurred.
6031. On May 26, 1854,\5\ the House resumed the consideration of the
amendments of the Senate to the bill of the House (H. R. 271) to supply
deficiencies in the appropriations for the service of the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1854. The yeas and nays having been once refused on the
question of agreeing to the forty-ninth amendment.
Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, claimed as a constitutional
privilege that it should again be submitted to the Members present to
ascertain whether one-fifth desired the yeas and nays to be entered on
the Journal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Robert C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\2\ First session Twenty-ninth Congress, Globe, p. 304.
\3\ The Constitution specifies how the yeas and nays may be ordered.
\4\ John W. Davis, of Indiana, Speaker.
\5\ First session Thirty-third Congress, Journal, p. 939; Globe, p.
1323.
Sec. 6023
The Speaker \1\ decided that less than one-fifth of the Members
present having demanded the yeas and nays, it was not in order to
repeat the demand upon the same question.
From this decision of the Chair Mr. Jones appealed. And the question
being put, ``Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of
the House?'' it was decided in the affirmative.
6032. The constitutional right to demand the yeas and nays does not
exist as to the vote to second a motion when such second is required by
the rules.--On June 20, 1898,\3\ Mr. Thaddeus M. Mahon, of
Pennsylvania, moved that the rules be suspended and that the amendments
of the Senate to the ``omnibus claims bill ``(H. R. 4936) be
nonconcurred in and a committee of conference be asked.
Mr. Eugene F. Loud, of California, demanded a second.
The House divided and the tellers reported ayes 90, noes 2.
Mr. Loud made the point of no quorum.
Mr. Mahon demanded the yeas and nays.
The Speaker \4\ said:
This can not be taken by yeas and nays. It is taken by tellers only.
This is not a motion. It is the seconding of a motion, and the
constitutional right to demand the yeas and nays does not exist as to a
second.
6033. On May 21,1906,\5\ Mr. De Alva S. Alexander, of New York, moved
to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 5533) to appoint an
additional judge for the southern district of New York.
A second being demanded, on a vote by tellers there appeared ayes
129, noes 0.
Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, made the point of order that no
quorum was present.
The Speaker, after counting, announced the presence of a quorum.
Mr. Williams then demanded the yeas and nays.
The Speaker \6\ said:
The yeas and nays can not under the rule be had on ordering a second.
That is expressly provided in the rules.
6034. On February 6, 1827,\7\ Mr. John Woods, of Ohio, called for the
previous question on a motion relating to the bill ``for the alteration
of acts imposing duties on imports.''
When the Speaker put the question to ascertain whether the call was
seconded by a majority of the House,\8\ Mr. Forsyth, of Georgia,
demanded that the question be taken by ayes and noes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\2\ See, however, sections 3053-3055 of Vol. IV of this work.
\3\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 6172.
\4\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\5\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 7186.
\6\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\7\ Second session Nineteenth Congress, Journal, p. 493.
\8\ The second is no longer required for the demand for the previous
question.
Sec. 6035
The Speaker \1\ decided that the motion of Mr. Forsyth was not in
order.
Mr. Forsyth appealed, but subsequently withdrew his appeal, and the
decision of the Chair was acquiesced in by the House.
6035. On July 16, 1840 \2\ when the rule provided that the previous
question should only be admitted when demanded by a majority of the
Members present, Mr. Speaker Hunter decided that, as the yeas and nays
could not be taken in ascertaining whether the previous question were
demanded by a majority of the Members present or not, the yeas and nays
could not be taken on a motion to reconsider that demand.
6036. On May 27, 1856,\3\ during consideration of the bill (H. R.
172) making a grant of public lands to the State of Michigan, the
previous question was moved, and the motion was seconded on a vote by
tellers, in accordance with the requirement of the rule as it was at
that time.
Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, moved to reconsider the vote
whereby the second was ordered.
Thereupon Mr. Jones proposed to demand the yeas and nays on the
motion to reconsider.
The Speaker \4\ said:
The Chair decides that, inasmuch as it is the practice of the House
to decide that question by tellers, the House should follow the same
mode on a motion to reconsider the vote by which the previous question
was seconded.
6037. During proceedings to secure a quorum it was held that the yeas
and nays might not be demanded on a motion to lay on the table a motion
to reconsider the vote whereby the yeas and nays were ordered.\5\
The House having reconsidered the vote whereby the yeas and nays were
ordered, and having again ordered them, a second motion to reconsider
was held out of order.
On May 15, 1896,\6\ at a Friday evening session, a quorum not being
present, Mr. John A. Pickler, of South Dakota, moved to reconsider the
vote by which the yeas and nays were ordered.
Messrs. Roswell P. Bishop, of Michigan, and William L. Terry, of
Arkansas, made the point of order that the order of the yeas and nays
might not be reconsidered.
The Speaker pro tempore \7\ held that the motion to reconsider was in
order.
Mr. Alfred Milnes, of Michigan, moved to lay on the table the motion
to reconsider the order of the yeas and nays.
On Mr. Milnes's motion Mr. H. Henry Powers, of Vermont, demanded the
yeas and nays.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John W. Taylor, of New York, Speaker.
\2\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 1288.
\3\ First session Thirty-fourth Congress, Globe, p. 1314.
\4\ Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\5\ See, however, section 5689 of this volume.
\6\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress. Record, p. 5318.
\7\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Speaker pro tempore.
Sec. 6038
The Speaker pro tempore said:
The Chair will suggest to the gentleman from Vermont that this is a
mere question of the method of taking a vote in the House in which
there is no quorum, and the Chair is of the opinion that the yeas and
nays are not properly demanded.
Mr. Powers thereupon withdrew the demand.
The question then being taken on the motion to reconsider the vote
whereby the yeas and nays were ordered, it was decided in the
affirmative-ayes 62, noes 48.
The question recurring on the demand for the yeas and nays, they were
ordered by one-fifth of those present.
Thereupon Mr. Pickler moved to reconsider the vote whereby the yeas
and nays were ordered.
The Speaker pro tempore said:
The Chair holds that motion to be out of order.
6038. The yeas and nays may be demanded while a vote by tellers is
being taken.--On January 10, 1845,\1\ the Speaker \2\ announced that
the first business in order was the resolution offered on a previous
occasion by Mr. Jacob Thompson, of Mississippi, to change the hour of
meeting to 11 o'clock; to which Mr. David L. Seymour, of New York, had
submitted an amendment as a substitute providing for an evening
session.
Mr. Richard Brodhead, of Pennsylvania, moved the previous question,
and on the question, ``Shall the main question be now put?'' the vote
was ordered to be taken by tellers. Messrs. John P. Hale, of New
Hampshire, and Robert C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, were appointed
tellers, and they reported 61 in the affirmative.
Mr. George W. Hopkins, of Virginia, rose while the negative votes,
which were evidently a minority, were being counted and demanded the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered,\3\ and being taken resulted, yeas 90,
nays 86. So the main question was ordered to be now put.
6039. The yeas and nays may be demanded while the Speaker is
announcing the result of a division.--On February 24, 1846 \4\ Mr. John
W. Tibbatts, of Kentucky, moved that the House resolve itself into
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, his intention
being to get consideration of the bill making appropriations for
harbors and rivers.
The Speaker \5\ put the question and there was clearly a majority
voting against the motion, and the Speaker was so announcing, when Mr.
Tibbatts demanded the yeas and nays, which were ordered.\6\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Twenty-eighth Congress, Globe, p. 121.
\2\ John W. Jones, of Virginia, Speaker.
\3\ This is a proceeding and not a ruling, the Journal making no
mention of it, but it was referred to for many years in the Digest and
Manual, and is in accordance with the fixed practice of the House.
\4\ First session Twenty-ninth Congress, Globe, p. 420.
\5\ John W. Davis, of Indiana, Speaker.
\6\ This is a proceeding and not a ruling, but it was referred to in
the Digest and Manual for many years, and the practice of the House has
conformed to it.
Sec. 6040
6040. The yeas and nays may be demanded even after the announcement
of a vote if the House has not passed to other business.--On February
4, 1850,\1\ Mr. Joshua R. Giddings, of Ohio, offered these resolutions:
Resolved, That we hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men
are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with the
inalienable rights of life and liberty, and that all governments are
instituted to maintain these rights.
Resolved, That in constituting government in any Territory of the
United States it is the duty of Congress to secure to all people
thereof, of whatsoever complexion, the enjoyment of the rights
aforesaid.
Mr. Samuel W. Inge, of Alabama, moved that the resolutions be laid
upon the table.
The question was taken, and was declared by the Speaker to have been
rejected, when Mr. Joseph M. Root, of Ohio, demanded the yeas and nays.
Mr. Thomas L. Clingman, of North Carolina, submitted that after the
House had acted on the motion to lay on the table, had rejected it, and
after that decision had been announced by the Chair, it was not in
order for a gentleman to insist upon a second vote being taken by a
demand for the yeas and nays. Each Member had a constitutional right to
call for the yeas and nays, but he must do so before the question had
been determined. The House could not be compelled in this matter to
vote a second time.
The Speaker \2\ said that the practice adopted by his immediate
predecessor, and in the propriety of which he concurred, drew a
distinction between a demand for the yeas and nays and other cases.
When a demand for the yeas and nays was made the question was
entertained at any time before the House had passed to other business.
The Chair entertained the motion.
On February 28, 1849,\3\ Mr. Robert C. Schenck, of Ohio, moved a
suspension of the rules to consider a bill for the relief of the
captors of the frigate Philadelphia.
Two-thirds not voting in the affirmative, the rules were not
suspended, and the Speaker announced that the bill would be committed
to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, in
accordance with the requirements of the rules.
Mr. Schenck at this point demanded the yeas and nays on his motion to
suspend the rules.
Mr. Frederick P. Stanton, of Tennessee, made the point of order that,
the decision having been announced, it was too late for the gentleman
from Ohio to call for the yeas and nays.
The Speaker \4\ said that it was the constitutional privilege of
every Member, upon the vote of one-fifth of the Members, to have the
yeas and nays. Nothing had intervened. If anything had intervened, the
Chair would not entertain the motion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Globe, p. 277.
\2\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Thirtieth Congress, Globe, p. 615.
\4\ Robert C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 6041
6041. On February 15, 1901,\1\ a motion was before the House to
reconsider the vote whereby the bill (S. 2245) ``directing the issue of
a duplicate lost check drawn by William H. Comegys,'' etc., had been
passed, and Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, moved to lay the
motion on the table.
On a vote by tellers there were ayes 113, noes 117, and the Speaker
announced the result.
Mr. William H. Moody, of Massachusetts, had then arisen and addressed
these words to the Chair:
Mr. Speaker, I understand that debate is now in order,
when Mr. Richardson arose and demanded the yeas and nays on his motion
to lay on the table.
The Speaker \2\ said:
The Chair, while not clear upon the matter, think that the demand for
recognition by the gentleman from Massachusetts to debate this question
would probably cut off the demand for yeas and nays as coming too late;
but on a question involving a great constitutional privilege like the
yeas and nays, the Chair is very loth to make a ruling of that kind
where the two demands come very close together. The Chair will
therefore take the sense of the House on ordering the yeas and nays.
6042. After the Speaker has announced the result of a division on a
motion, and is in the act of putting the question on another motion, it
is too late to demand the yeas and nays on the first motion.--On
January 23, 1852,\3\ Mr. George S. Houston, of Alabama, moved that the
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union.
Pending this, Mr. John R. Daniel, of North Carolina, moved that the
House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House for the
consideration of private bills, And the question being first put on the
latter motion (this being private bill day), it was decided in the
negative.
The Speaker had announced the result of the last vote, and was in the
act of putting the question on the motion submitted by Mr. Houston,
when Mr. Edward C. Cabell, of Florida, demanded the yeas and nays on
the motion submitted by Mr. Daniel, claiming as a constitutional right
that he have the opportunity to record his vote.
The Speaker \4\ decided that the demand came too late, as the motion
had passed from before the House, saying in response to Mr. Cabell's
claim:
Would it be in order to call the yeas and nays on a question passed
on yesterday? If not, they can not be called upon a question that has
passed from before the House to-day.
Mr. Cabell having appealed, the decision of the Chair was sustained.
6043. In passing on a demand for the yeas and nays the Speaker need
determine only whether one-fifth of those present sustain the demand.--
On May 23, 1906,\6\ Mr. Robert Adams, Jr., of Pennsylvania, moved that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for the further consideration of the diplomatic and
consular appropriation bill. The question being taken, on division the
Speaker announced, ayes 192, noes 3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2479.
\2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\3\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, p. 254; Globe, p.
371.
\4\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\5\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 7301.
Sec. 6044
Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, having immediately demanded the
yeas and nays, 35 Members voted to sustain the demand, and the Speaker
announced that this was not a sufficient number.
Mr. Williams demanded that those opposed to ordering the yeas and
nays should be required to stand and be counted, claiming that this
course was prescribed by the rules.
The Speaker \1\ held:
It requires one-fifth of those present to order the yeas and nays,
and the House has just divided and been counted.
* * * All the Speaker has to find out, in the preservation of this
constitutional right, is whether one-fifth of those present have
demanded the yeas and nays. One-fifth have not demanded the yeas and
nays.
* * * The Chair begs the gentleman's pardon. The rule is silent. The
Constitution alone speaks, and it requires one-fifth of those present.
6044. The right to demand the yeas and nays is not waived by the fact
that the Member demanding them has just made the point of no quorum and
caused the Chair to count the House.--On January 26, 1906,\2\ the House
was considering a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, when
a division was had on a motion for the previous question, and the
Speaker announced the vote.
Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, made the point that no quorum
was present.
The Speaker ascertained and announced the presence of a quorum.
Thereupon Mr. Williams called for the yeas and nays.
The Speaker \1\ at first intimated that the demand came too late, but
presently said:
The Chair finds on consulting the precedents that the demand is in
time.
6045. After the House, on a vote by tellers, has refused to order the
yeas and nays, it is too late to demand the count of the negative on an
original rising vote.--On July 25, 1868,\3\ the House was considering
the bill (H. R. 1460) regulating the duties on copper, and a vote was
taken viva voce on a motion to lay the bill on the table.
The Speaker stated that the noes had it, when the yeas and nays were
demanded.
The Speaker announced that 20 Members had voted for the yeas and
nays, and that not being one-fifth of the vote last taken, the yeas and
nays were not ordered.
Mr. Charles A. Eldridge, of Wisconsin, then demanded, and the House
refused to order tellers on the yeas and nays.
Mr. Nathaniel P. Banks, jr., of Massachusetts, then demanded a count
of the negative on the original demand for the yeas and nays.
The Speaker \4\ decided that, inasmuch as he had decided, on the
original demand, that the yeas and nays were refused, and as the House
had refused to revise by tellers the said count, it was not now in
order to demand a count of the vote in the negative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\2\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 1603, 1604.
\3\ Second session Fortieth Congress, Journal, p. 1208; Globe, p.
4496.
\4\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
Sec. 6046
Mr. Banks having appealed, the decision of the Chair was sustained,
yeas 121, nays, 1.
6046. On a roll call for a vote or a call of the House the names of
the Members are called alphabetically by surname.
After the roll has been called through once the names of those not
responding are called again.
After the roll call is completed the Speaker is forbidden to
entertain a request to record a vote unless in a case wherein a
Member's presence has been noted in ascertaining a quorum.
The Speaker is forbidden to entertain a request for the announcement
of a pair at a time other than that in which such announcements are in
order.
By practice founded on a former rule the names of those not voting on
a roll call are recorded in the Record.
Present form and history of section I of Rule XV.
Section 1 of Rule XV provides:
Upon every roll call \1\ the names of the Members shall be called
alphabetically by surname,\2\ except when two or more have the same
surname, in which case the name of the State shall be added; and if
there be two such Members from the same State, the whole name shall be
called; and after the roll has been once called, the clerk shall call
in their alphabetical order the names of those not voting; and
thereafter the Speaker shall not entertain a request to record a vote
\3\ or announce a pair \4\ unless the Member's name has been noted
under clause 3 of this rule.\5\
This rule is in substantially the form adopted in the revision of
1880.\6\ Since that date provision has been made for calling the whole
name when Members from the same State have the same surname, and for
designating other Members of the same name by their States. In 1890
also was added the provision which enables a Member's name to be
recorded after the second roll call is finished, in case it has been
noted among the names of those present and not voting.
The original form of the rule, as adopted on April 7, 1789 \7\ was:
Upon calls of the House, or in taking the yeas and nays on any
question, the names of the Members shall be called alphabetically.
In 1880 the second call for those not answering on the first call was
instituted.
On June 8, 1864,\8\ on motion of Mr. Henry Winter Davis, of Maryland,
a rule was adopted that on any call of the yeas and nays the names of
the Members not voting should be recorded in the Journal and Globe
immediately after the names of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The roll call at the organization of the House and at the
beginning of subsequent sessions to ascertain the presence of a quorum
is by States, and not alphabetically.
\2\ On June 20, 1848 (first session Thirtieth Congress, Journal, p.
927; Globe, p. 856), the House considered, but laid on the table, a
proposition to have the yeas and nays taken by machinery.
\3\ When a member states that he was present and listening when his
name should have been called and failed to hear it, the Speaker
entertains his request that his vote be recorded, the supposition being
that his name was not called.
\4\ Pairs are announced at the conclusion of the roll call and before
the announcement of the result.
\5\ See section 2905 of Volume IV of this work.
\6\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 206.
\7\ First session First Congress, Journal, p. 10.
\8\ First session Thirty-eighth Congress, Globe, p. 2809.
Sec. 6047
those voting in the affirmative and negative. This rule disappeared in
the revision of 1880, but the practice of recording in the Record those
not voting has continued.\1\
In early years in the House a practice existed \2\ whereby Members
absent on a roll call might still have their votes recorded. On August
28, 1852,\3\ Mr. Speaker Boyd, in a decision sustained by the House,
held that a Member might not, as a matter of right, have his name
recorded on a roll call taken during his absence on a committee of
conference. On May 27, 1870,\4\ the House adopted a rule that the
Speaker should not entertain the request of a Member to record his vote
after the announcement of the result, nor should a Member be allowed to
record his vote on a question if he was not present when the vote was
taken. In the revision of 1880 this rule was merged in the portion of
the present rule, which forbids the Speaker to entertain a request of a
Member to record his vote after the second call of the roll.
6047. Since 1879 the Clerk, in calling the roll, has called Members
by the surnames, with the prefix ``Mr.,'' instead of calling the full
names.--On May 1, 1879,\5\ the House, on report from the Committee on
Rules, adopted a rule that on all roll calls the Clerk should call only
the surname of Members, with the prefix of ``Mr.'' Before this the
Clerk had called the full name. The change was urged on the score of
economy of time, while it was opposed on the ground that it would take
from the minority a privilege of obstruction.
6048. The names of Members who have not been sworn are not entered on
the roll from which the yeas and nays are called for entry on the
Journal.--On April 18, 1906,\6\ after the reading of the Journal, the
Speaker \7\ said:
The Chair desires to state to the House, pending the approval of the
Journal, that on Monday's session, which was extended into the calendar
day of Tuesday, the Chair held that 191 Members constituted a quorum of
the House. Mr. Williamson, of Oregon, and Mr. Patterson, of Tennessee,
Members-elect, under the certificates of the governors of their
respective States, have not qualified, and the Chair held that they
should not be counted to make a quorum. The Chair, in the preparation
of the Journal, instructed the Journal clerk to leave their names from
the roll that is called. Members understand that, under the statute,
from necessity, until organization and qualification under oath, the
House organizes itself from the Clerk's roll, but from Jefferson's
Manual, as well as sound parliamentary precedents, in the judgment of
the Chair, the name of the Member-elect, after the organization and
until he has taken the oath, should not be upon the roll from which the
yeas and nays are called. Therefore the Chair directed the correction
of the roll as it appears in the Journal; and hereafter, in case this
Journal shall be approved with the correction just described by the
Chair, in calling the roll the names of Messrs. Patterson and
Williamson will not be called until they shall have taken the oath,
respectively.
* * * There is in the organization of the House what is known as the
``Clerk's roll,'' and upon that roll the House organizes itself. No
doubt it would have the power to organize itself even in the absence of
statutory provision, but the whole proceeding is controlled by
statutory provision. Now, the House being organized, the yeas and nays
are called by virtue of the Constitution. The Chair holds that, the
House being organized, the roll should contain the names only of those
who have taken the oath.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As to recording in the Journal the names of those not voting, see
sec. 2739 of Vol. IV.
\2\ See section 6076-6079 of this chapter.
\3\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, p. 1110; Globe, p.
2412.
\4\ Second session Forty-first Congress, Journal, p. 866; Globe, p.
3870.
\5\ First session Forty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 191, 223;
Record, pp. 741, 1017.
\6\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 5485.
\7\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 6049
The Journal \1\ was thereupon approved.
6049. A Member may not, as a matter of right, demand a recapitulation
of a yea-and-nay vote; but if the vote be close the Speaker usually
orders it.--On January 26, 1891,\2\ the question being on the approval
of the Journal, Mr. William McKinley, jr., of Ohio, demanded the
previous question. The yeas and nays, being ordered, were taken on this
motion, and were, yeas 142, nays 108.
Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, having asked for a recapitulation
of the vote by which the previous question was ordered, the Speaker \3\
declined to order the recapitulation.
6050. On May 13, 1896,\4\ during the consideration of the contested-
election case of Rinaker v. Downing, from Illinois, the yeas and nays
were taken on a motion to adjourn, and there were yeas 60, nays 162.
Mr. Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, demanded, as a matter of right,
that the vote be recapitulated.
The Speaker \3\ denied the right to demand it, and did not order it.
The question being next taken on a motion to recommit the case, there
were on the roll call 139 yeas, 35 nays, answering ``present'' 2, a
total of 176, 3 less than the quorum voting. In addition there were
noted as present and not answering several gentlemen, who were recorded
with those voting as the quorum present.
Mr. Hopkins having requested a recapitulation, the Speaker directed
it to be made, as the vote was very close from the standpoint of the
quorum.
6051. After the call of the yeas and nays has begun it may not be
interrupted even for a question of personal privilege.
The Speaker has declined, during a call of the yeas and nays, to
entertain an appeal from his decision that the roll call might not be
interrupted.
On August 8, 1890,\5\ Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, presented
from the Committee on Rules a resolution relating to the consideration
of the Senate amendments to the Indian appropriation bill.
The previous question was ordered, and the question being on agreeing
to the resolution, the yeas and nays were ordered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ At the first session of the Fifty-sixth Congress (first session
Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1673, 1905; Journal, pp. 247, 269)
the name of Mr. Joseph Wheeler, of Alabama, was on the Clerk's roll at
the organization of the House. It was also carried for some time on the
roll of Members called when the yeas and nays were ordered. Mr.
Wheeler, who was absent in the Philippines, serving as an officer of
the Army, did not appear in the House to take the oath, and about
February 9, 1900, the Clerk, by advice of the Speaker (David B.
Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker), omitted Mr. Wheeler's name from the list
of Members. On the roll call of February 9 Mr. Wheeler's name appears
in the list of Members not answering. On the next roll call, that of
February 17, 1900, his name does not appear, having been stricken off.
This action was taken on the theory that the oath is necessary to
enable a Member to vote.
\2\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 182; Record, p.
1832.
\3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\4\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 5206, 5207.
\5\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 936, 937;
Record, pp. 8345, 8352, 8373.
Sec. 6052
On the roll call there were 94 yeas, 44 nays--not a quorum. The hour
of 5 o'clock arriving the House took a recess under the special rule
\1\ providing for a special class of business on Friday evening.
On August 9 the Speaker announced as the regular order of business
the question on agreeing to the resolution from the Committee on Rules,
on which the yeas and nays had been ordered, and on which the roll call
had begun on the previous day.
Thereupon Mr. Benjamin A. Enloe, of Tennessee, claimed the floor on a
question of personal privilege, which the Speaker \2\ declined to
entertain on the ground that a roll call had been ordered and begun.
Mr. John H. Rogers, of Arkansas, appealed from the said decision of
the Chair, which appeal the Speaker declined to entertain.
The roll call then proceeded.\3\
6052. On August 28, 1850,\4\ the House was considering the bill of
the Senate (No. 307) relating to the boundary of Texas, and a point of
order arose as to an amendment proposed by Mr. Linn Boyd, of Kentucky.
The Chair having rendered a decision, there was an appeal, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered. The Clerk had commenced to call the roll
when Mr. Robert C. Schenck, of Ohio, said he wished to say a few words
on the appeal.
The Speaker \5\ said that the gentleman was not in order, as the
Clerk had commenced to call the roll and a gentleman had answered to
his name.
Mr. Schenck said that he had addressed the Chair before the call
commenced, but the Speaker said that the gentleman had not been
recognized until after the call had commenced.
6053. A motion to adjourn may not interrupt a call of the yeas and
nays.--On February 16, 1882,\6\ during consideration of a bill relating
to the apportionment of Representatives, the yeas and nays were
ordered, and the call of the roll had begun, when Mr. Charles M.
Shelley, of Alabama, moved that the House adjourn.
The Speaker \7\ said:
The roll call can not be interrupted by a motion to adjourn.\8\
6054. A roll call is not interrupted by the arrival of an hour fixed
for a recess by rule or prior vote of the House.--On August 8, 1890,\9\
a Friday, the hour of 5 o'clock arrived while a roll call was still in
progress.
Mr. Benjamin A. Enloe, of Tennessee, made the point of order that,
under the rule, the House must take a recess until 8 o'clock p. m.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 3281 of Vol. IV of this work for rule relating to
Friday evenings.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\3\ The roll call is interrupted, however, for messages from the
President and the other House; and it is conceivable that a question of
privilege might arise, such as an assault or an accident within the
Hall which might justify an interruption.
\4\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Globe, p. 1686.
\5\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
\6\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 597; Record,
pp. 1238, 1245.
\7\ J. Warren Keffer, of Ohio, Speaker.
\8\ Roll calls have been interrupted in some instances by final
adjournment.
\9\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 934; Record, p.
8352.
Sec. 6055
The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order and held that the roll
call must be concluded.\2\
6055. On Friday, January 21, 1898,\3\ the yeas and nays had been
ordered on the motion of Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, that the
House do adjourn.
Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, rising to a parliamentary inquiry,
asked:
If the hour of 5 o'clock should arrive during the roll call, will the
roll call be completed or will the House, under the rule, take a recess
until 8 o'clock?
The Speaker \1\ said:
The roll call will be completed, and unless the House should by this
vote determine to adjourn a recess will be taken upon the completion of
the roll call until 8 o'clock this evening.
6056. A roll call may not be interrupted because of the arrival of
the time fixed by the rules for another order of business.--On February
9, 1892,\4\ the yeas and nays had been ordered on ordering the previous
question on the engrossment and third reading of the bill (H. R. 566)
to amend the internal-revenue laws, and for other purposes.
During the roll call, at 1 o'clock and 30 minutes p. m., Mr. William
H. Hatch, of Missouri, made the point of order that the hour for the
consideration of bills under clause 4, Rule XXIV,\5\ having expired, it
was not in order to further continue the call of the roll.
The Speaker \6\ overruled the point of order on the following ground:
So far as the Chair is informed and believes, it has always been held
that when the roll call has been commenced it can not be interrupted
either by a standing order of the House that at a given hour the House
shall adjourn, or by the expiration of the morning hour, or by any
other similar case. The gentleman is aware of the fact that frequently
it has happened that when, under the order of the House, the hour of 5
o'clock on Friday has arrived and the House should take a recess until
7.30, a roll call was in progress, and when the hour of 5 o'clock
arrived the roll call would not be completed, but would be continued to
completion, although it may have extended fifteen or twenty minutes
beyond the hour of 5 o'clock.
The Chair will hold, therefore, that where a roll call has begun
before the expiration of the morning hour it must be completed,
although its completion extends beyond the hour.
6057. A roll call may not be interrupted even to admit the Senate to
a joint meeting for counting the electoral vote.--On February 10,
1869,\7\ during the proceedings incident to the electoral count, the
House was in session considering objections to counting the electoral
vote of the State of Georgia. A motion had been made to reconsider the
action of the House in relation thereto; the yeas and nays were
ordered. During the roll call a message was received from the Senate
informing the House that that body had resolved that the objections to
the electoral vote of Georgia were not in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\2\ In 1879 (third session Forty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 188) Mr.
Speaker Randall declined to interrupt a roll call because of the
arrival of the hour fixed for a recess, because the roll call was on a
motion to adjourn, whereby the House might change its mind as to the
recess. He intimated that had the roll call been on the pending bill he
might have interrupted it to declare the House in recess.
\3\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 847.
\4\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 61, 62; Record,
p. 976.
\5\ The morning hour at present does not necessarily expire in sixty
minutes.
\6\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
\7\ Third session Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 1062.
Sec. 6058
Mr. Fernando Wood, of New York, moved that the roll call be suspended
for the purpose of admitting the body of the Senate.
The Speaker \1\ said:
The House has ordered the roll to be called. Upon the entrance of the
Senate the Speaker would be obliged to vacate the chair, but even that
can not interrupt the roll call; nothing can interrupt it but the close
of a session of Congress.
6058. The roll call may not be interrupted either for a parliamentary
inquiry or a question of personal privilege.--On April 7, 1902,\2\ a
roll call was being taken on a bill (S. 176) to provide for the
extension of the charters of national banks, when Mr. Thomas H. Ball,
of Texas, asked recognition for a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker \3\ declined to allow the roll call to be interrupted for
a parliamentary, inquiry.
Then Mr. Ball asked recognition for a question of personal privilege.
The Speaker declined to allow the roll call to be interrupted.
6059. On February 6, 1844,\4\ the roll had been called on a motion
relating to the title of certain Members to their seats, and before the
result had been announced, a question of order was raised as to whether
or not the Members whose title to their seats was questioned were
entitled to vote. The Speaker pro tempore \5\ ruled on the question, an
appeal was taken, and the Chair was sustained on a yea-and-nay vote.
After the vote sustaining the Chair had been announced, the Speaker
proceeded to announce the result on the previous roll call.
6060. A Member who has answered ``present'' on a roll call may change
the answer to ``yea'' or ``nay,'' but the Speaker may not entertain the
request of a Member who has not answered at all to record his vote.--On
May 13, 1897,\6\ the question before the House was a motion by Mr.
William L. Terry, of Arkansas, that Mr. Jerry Simpson, of Kansas, be
allowed to proceed in order in his remarks upon the question of
approving the Journal.
On a yea-and-nay vote the motion of Mr. Terry was defeated, yeas 83,
nays 96, answering ``present'' 14.
Mr. Marriott Brosius, of Pennsylvania, who was one of those who had
answered ``present'' when his name was called, asked, after the roll
call had been completed but before the result was announced, that he be
allowed to change his response of ``present'' to vote ``no.''
The Speaker \7\ decided that he might do this, the proceeding being
exactly the same as changing a vote from ``aye'' to ``no,'' which had
always been allowed.\8\ In this connection the Speaker also said:
The Chair will take this opportunity to call the attention of the
House to the terms of the rule with regard to voting. The rule does not
permit the Speaker to even ask unanimous consent for the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
\2\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 3810.
\3\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\4\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 353-356;
Globe, pp. 240, 241.
\5\ Samuel Beardsley, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
\6\ First session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 1068-1069.
\7\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\8\ It is not the practice, however, to allow a Member to be recorded
``present'' after the roll call is completed, unless proceedings are
taking place for securing a quorum.
Sec. 6061
recording of a vote which has not been given in accordance with the
rules. The object of that rule was to promote attention by Members and
secure a more speedy calling of the roll, so that time might be saved.
That is one of the improvements in the methods of voting which reduced
the time of calling the roll nearly 30 per cent. The Chair desires that
the House shall take notice of this matter, so that there may not be
any misunderstanding hereafter.
6061. Where a vote actually given fails to be recorded it is the
right of the Member to have the proper correction made before the
approval of the Journal.
The duty of the Speaker to give a casting vote may be exercised after
the intervention of other business when a correction of the roll call
reveals a tie not before ascertained.
On January 8, 1849,\1\ as soon as the Journal of the preceding
session had been read, the Speaker \2\ said:
The House will remember that the vote on the passage of the bill for
the relief of the representatives of Antonio Pacheco was originally
made up by the Clerk, yeas 90, noes 89, and this record having been
handed to the Speaker and by him announced to the House, the Speaker
proceeded to make some remarks upon the bill, preparatory to giving the
vote contemplated in such cases by the rules \3\ of the House. While in
the act of explanation, the Speaker was interrupted by the Clerk, who
stated that, on a more careful count, the vote was found to be, ayes
91, noes 89. The intervention of the Speaker was therefore no longer
allowable, and the bill was declared to have passed the House.\4\
The Chair takes the earliest opportunity to state to the House this
morning that, upon a reexamination of the yeas and nays, the Clerk has
ascertained that in error still existed in the announcement of the vote
on Saturday. The vote actually stood, ayes 89, noes 89. The correction
will now accordingly be made in the Journal; and a case is immediately
presented, agreeably to the twelfth rule of the House, for the
interposition of the Speaker's vote.
At this stage of the proceedings the Speaker was interrupted by Mr.
John W. Farrelly, of Pennsylvania, who rose and called for a further
correction of the Journal, stating that he voted in the negative on
Saturday last, and his vote appeared not to have been recorded.
The Speaker decided that it was the right of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania to have his vote recorded, if he voted on Saturday last,
and the correction was accordingly made.
The vote was then finally announced, yeas 89, nays 90.
The Speaker stated that he came into the House with the full
expectation of giving his vote upon this bill, and prepared to give his
reasons for the vote. But as the question now stood, although it might
be in his power to vote agreeably to the letter of the twelfth rule, it
was, in his opinion, not within the contemplation or intention of the
rule that he should vote. The rule contemplated that the Speaker should
be allowed to vote whenever he could make a difference in the result,
by passing or preventing the passage of the proposition before the
House. Under present circumstances the Speaker's vote could not in any
way affect the decision of the House. The bill was already lost by the
vote as it stood. A vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Thirtieth Congress, Journal, p. 211; Globe, p.
172.
\2\ Robert C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ For rule at that time relating to vote of the Speaker, see
section 5964 of this work.
\4\ The Globe (p. 187) quotes from the debate a statement that the
first vote ever given by a Speaker in the House was under these
circumstances. Apparently the first tie on which a Speaker voted was
September 28, 1789, and the Journal of that date does not indicate the
conditions referred to.
Sec. 6062
against the bill would only increase the majority by which it was
defeated, while a vote in favor of the bill would only make a tie, and
the bill would still be lost. The Speaker therefore did not consider
himself called upon to give any vote on the subject.
6062. The Journal of Wednesday, December 22, 1847,\1\ has the
following entry:
The Journal of yesterday having been read, Mr. Ligon arose and stated
that he was present yesterday and voted in the affirmative upon the
question of laying upon the table the petition presented by Mr.
Giddings in regard to slavery in the District of Columbia, and asked
that the Journal be amended by recording his vote thereon in the
affirmative.
The Journal was amended accordingly.
The record of debates quotes the Speaker \2\ as saying that under
repeated precedents in similar cases, the gentleman had a right to have
his name recorded. It does not appear that the question of amending the
Journal in this case was put to the House at all. The record of debate
shows that the vote before the addition of Mr. Ligon's name, stood yeas
97, nays 97. The addition of his vote made it 98 to 97, and so changed
the result, but the Speaker voted in the negative, thus restoring the
tie. The Journal of December 22 does not record these facts, but the
Journal of the 21st, as corrected, shows the Speaker voting, and the
motion disagreed to.
6063. On March 4, 1862,\3\ Mr. James A. Cravens, of Indiana, stated
that he had voted in the negative and not the affirmative, as recorded,
on the question of laying on the table the resolution submitted on the
previous day by Mr. Holman, in regard to the ``present unfortunate,
civil war,'' and by unanimous consent the Journal was corrected
accordingly.
The Speaker \4\ then announced that the vote should have been
declared yeas 59, nays 59, and as this presented a case where by the
rules he was required to vote, he should vote in the affirmative. So
the resolution was laid on the table.
6064. The vote of a Member having failed to be recorded, he may
insist that it be recorded even after the Chair has declared the
result, and the Chair then makes a new declaration.
There being a dispute among Members as to whether or not a Member
whose name was recorded was present when his name was called, the
Speaker held that in the absence of the Member the Clerk's record must
stand.\5\
The usage as to the recapitulation of a yea and nay vote does not
permit it to be done after the announcement of the result, except by
unanimous consent.
On March 24, 1892,\6\ while the House had under consideration the
bill (H. R. 4426) for the free coinage of silver, for the issue of coin
notes, and for other purposes, and the question was on a motion to
reconsider the vote whereby the House had refused to lay the bill on
the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Thirtieth Congress, Journal, pp. 139, 140, 144;
Globe, p. 63.
\2\ Robert C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Thirty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 399; Globe,
p. 1061.
\4\ Galusha A. Grow, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
\5\ See also sections 6095-6099 of this chapter.
\6\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 113-115;
Record, pp. 2548, 2549.
Sec. 6065
The yeas and nays having been taken, the Speaker announced the result
as yeas 148, nays 148, and that the motion to reconsider was disagreed
to.
A recapitulation of the vote having been demanded, and objection
being made thereto, the Speaker \1\ held that it was too late after the
announcement of the result to insist on a recapitulation of the vote
just taken.
By unanimous consent it was then ordered that the vote be
recapitulated.
Then Mr. Adolph Meyer, of Louisiana, and Mr. George F. Huff, of
Pennsylvania, stated that they had voted in the affirmative.
By direction of the Speaker, their votes were recorded in the
affirmative.
There were then yeas, 150; nays, 148; not voting, 32. So the motion
to reconsider the vote by which the House refused to lay the bill on
the table was agreed to.
The question recurring on the motion to lay the bill on the table,
and being put, there were yeas, 145; nays, 148.
The vote being recapitulated, objection was made to recording the
vote of Mr. Donovan, who appeared as voting in the negative, it being
asserted on the one part that he was not in the Hall during the roll
call or when his name was called, and on the other that he was present
during a portion of the roll call.
The Speaker held that in the absence of the gentleman whose vote was
in dispute the vote as recorded by the Clerk must stand.
On March 28, in accordance with a communication from Mr. Donovan, the
Journal was corrected by striking his name from the list of those
voting in the negative.
6065. On April 28, 1864,\2\ the House was considering the amendments
to the bill (H. R. 405) to provide internal revenue to support the
Government and to pay interest on the public debt.
The vote having been taken by yeas and nays on an amendment, the
Speaker announced the vote 71 yeas, 72 nays.
Then Mr. Charles Upson, of Michigan, stated that he had voted in the
affirmative and that his vote was erroneously omitted from the count.
The Speaker then announced the vote on the said amendment--yeas, 72;
nays, 72--when Mr. Philip Johnson, of Pennsylvania, made the point of
order that it was too late to correct the former announcement of the
vote.
The Speaker \3\ overruled the point of order, causing to be read the
following from the Digest:
All proceedings of the House subsequent to the erroneous announcement
of a vote, which would have been irregular if such vote had been
correctly announced, are to be treated as a nullity and are not to be
entered on the Journal.
And saying--
The Chair thinks that when a gentleman is present and votes he has a
right to have his vote recorded.
Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, suggested that an amendment
had been voted on after the announcement of the vote. The Speaker said:
The Chair thinks that it is not too late for the gentleman to have
his vote recorded. If the motion to reconsider had been made and it had
been laid upon the table the Chair might have doubt, but at present he
has no doubt that the gentleman has the right to record his vote.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
\2\ First session Thirty-eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 586, 587;
Globe, p. 1941.
\3\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
Sec. 6066
Mr. Johnson having appealed, the decision of the Chair was sustained.
6066. A Member who has failed to respond when his name was called,
may not, as a constitutional right, demand that his vote be recorded
before the announcement of the result.--On April 13, 1874,\1\ when a
roll call had been completed, but before the announcement of the
result, Mr. James Monroe, of Ohio, stated that he had stepped out of
the House a few moments, and found on his return that the roll call had
been completed. He asked if his vote might be recorded.
The Speaker \2\ held that the rule prohibited the Member from voting.
Mr. James A. Garfield, of Ohio, made the point of order that before
the announcement of the vote, and while the measure was still pending,
a gentleman had a right, under the Constitution, to vote, and that the
rule was unconstitutional.
The Speaker said:
The Chair does not think this rule violates the constitutional right
of any Member. * * * This rule operates equally and impartially upon
every Member. There in no selection of one Member and placing a
disability on him. The roll call must cease at some time, and the House
has determined it shall cease at a particular point. But if the House
should say by rule that the Representative of the Third District of
Maine should not vote, or the Representative of any other district who
happened to be a Member of the House and elected Speaker, that presents
a different case, because that attempts to disfranchise a single Member
from a right enjoyed by all other Members, and therefore operates
without equal and exact justice. This does not, in the opinion of the
Chair, present that point. * * * The question presented rests on two
constitutional points. The yeas and nays are to be called on the demand
of one-fifth of the Members present, and the House has the right to
determine the rule under which they shall be called. If the House
should decide that the roll should be called through, and when called
through that the vote shall be announced and the absentees on the roll
call should not have the right to vote, the Chair thinks it would be an
entire compliance with the Constitution in every respect.
6067. On February 8, 1878,\3\ at the conclusion of the roll call, but
before the announcement of the result, Mr. Thomas T. Crittenden, of
Missouri, stated that he had been engaged in committee work while the
roll was being called, and demanded his right to vote under the
Constitution and the rules.
The Speaker \4\ said:
There is a clause of the Constitution giving Members the right to
vote; but another clause provides that ``each House may determine the
rules of its proceeding;'' and that rule-making power has been
exercised with reference to this question of voting. * * * The
Constitution gives to every Member the right to vote; but it also
provides that each House may make such rules for its government as it
may see fit. Under the rules and under the practice the gentleman from
Missouri, not having been in the House during the roll call, has not
the right to vote.
6068. On December 19, 1883,\5\ at the conclusion of a roll call, Mr.
Melvin C. George, of Oregon, stated that he had been giving attention
but did not hear his name called. Therefore he asked that he might
vote.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Forty-third Congress, Record, pp. 3046, 3047.
\2\ James G. Blaine, of Maine, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Forty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 871.
\4\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
\5\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 189.
Sec. 6069
The Speaker \1\ said:
It has been the practice of the House to allow a gentleman to have
his vote recorded after the second roll call if he states he did
actually vote or that he was giving attention but did not hear his name
called.
Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, objected to allowing the name
to be recorded.
There was debate as to the constitutional right of a Member to vote
under such circumstances, but the Speaker held to a rigid construction
of the rule, and, unanimous consent being refused, Mr. George was not
allowed to vote.
6069. The Speaker may not entertain the request of a Member to answer
``present'' at the conclusion of the roll call provided for by section
1 of Rule XV.--On May 16, 1900,\2\ there had been a yea-and-nay vote on
a motion for the previous question on the bill (S. 2931) to incorporate
the American National Red Cross Association, etc., when Mr. Phanor D.
Breazeale, of Louisiana, who had not been in the Hall when his name was
called asked that he be recorded as ``present.''
The Speaker \3\ said:
That is the same as voting, and it is not within the Chair's power to
admit the request.
6070. It is not permissible to entertain the request of a Member to
record his vote after he has failed to respond because his attention
was distracted when his name was called.--On March 10, 1902,\4\ the
yeas and nays had been taken on a motion to recommit the bill
(H. R. 11728) relating to the free rural delivery service.
Mr. Joseph T. Johnson, of South Carolina, stated that just as the
Clerk called his name a gentleman spoke to him, distracting his
attention so that he did not respond to his name.
The Speaker \3\ said:
The gentleman was listening to the gentleman who spoke to him and not
to the Clerk, and the Chair thinks he can not be allowed to vote on the
question.
6071. A Member who is listening when his name should be called and
fails to hear it, is permitted to vote at the end of the roll call; but
under no other circumstances may the Speaker entertain a Member's
request to be recorded.--On June 6, 1896,\5\ at the conclusion of a
call of the yeas and nays, Mr. Farish C. Tate, of Georgia, requested
that his vote might be recorded. He said he had been present in his
seat and did not hear his name.
The Speaker having asked if he was listening when his name should
have been called, and failed to hear it, Mr. Tate did not respond in
the affirmative, except to say that he was ``present and failed to
hear.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\2\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 5620.
\3\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\4\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2605.
\5\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 6220.
Sec. 6072
The Speaker \1\ said:
The Chair desires to say that in matters of this kind he simply
enforces the rule of the House. The exception under which gentlemen are
allowed to have their votes recorded after the roll call rests upon the
idea that by some mistake the name was not called. The object of the
rule is to command the attention of Members during the vote. * * * The
Chair thinks that the gentleman can not vote under the rule.
6072. On March 24, 1896,\2\ at the conclusion of a roll call, Mr.
Loren Fletcher, of Minnesota, announced that he desired to vote.
The Speaker having interrogated him as to whether or not he was
listening when his name should have been called, and failed to hear it,
Mr. Fletcher could not say further than that he did not hear his name.
Thereupon the Speaker \1\ said:
The Chair ought to say to the House that attention has been called to
the rule \3\ in regard to the recording of names after the roll call. *
* * The practice in the Fifty-first Congress, when the same rule
prevailed, was to ask a Member if he was listening at the time his name
should have been called, and failed to hear it, so as to meet the
possible contingency that the calling of the name had been omitted.
That is the condition of the rule as it stands at present.
6073. The fact that a Member was absent on the service of the House
does not justify the Speaker in submitting a request that his name be
recorded after the yea-and-nay call is finished.--On February 20,
1889,\4\ after a yea-and-nay vote had been concluded, Mr. Joseph G.
Cannon, of Illinois, announced that he had been absent at the session
of a conference committee until after his name had been called for the
last time and requested that his vote might be recorded.
The Speaker \5\ said:
According to the letter of the rule no Member can vote, nor can the
Speaker entertain a request for unanimous consent that the Member be
allowed to vote, after the completion of the second roll call; but
inasmuch as there is at all times more or less noise on the floor, and
it frequently happens that a gentleman fails to hear his name called or
the Clerk fails to hear his response, it was thought to be manifestly
unjust that a Member should be deprived of his vote under inch
circumstances. * * * Inasmuch as it might lead to a very great
inconvenience if there should be a still further relaxation of the
rule, the Chair thinks the gentleman had better content himself with
stating how he would have voted.
6074. In the earlier practice of the House Members were allowed often
to record their votes after the close of the roll call, sometimes on
the next day, even.--On March 1, 1845,\6\ by the unanimous consent of
the House, Mr. John Campbell, of South Carolina, was permitted to have
his name recorded on the question taken on the preceding day,
Will the House agree with the Senate in their amendment to the
resolution of the House (No. 46) entitled, ``A joint resolution for
annexing Texas to the United States?''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\2\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 3140.
\3\ Section 1 of Rule XV. (See section 6046 of this chapter.)
\4\ Second session Fiftieth Congress, Record, p. 2106.
\5\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\6\ Second session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 532; Globe, p.
383.
Sec. 6075
6075. On February 3, 1863,\1\ several Members were permitted by
unanimous consent to have their votes recorded on the bill passed the
day previous relative to the enlistment of negro soldiers. The Journal
has no reference to this.
6076. On May 12, 1834,\2\ after the list of yeas and nays had been
called, and before the decision had been pronounced, Mr. William Allen,
of Ohio, asked to have his vote taken, having been out of the House
when his name was called, attending to his duties as a member of the
Committee on Indian Affairs, which committee had leave to sit during
the sitting of the House. The request of Mr. Allen, under the
circumstances of his case, was granted by a vote of the House.
6077. On December 23, 1836,\3\ the House suspended the rules in order
to give permission to Mr. George N. Briggs, of Massachusetts, to record
his vote on the roll call just taken, he having stated that he had been
absent on the service of his committee, which had leave to sit during
the sessions of the House.
6078. On July 28, 1854,\4\ the House made an order that members of
the Committees on Ways and Means and Enrolled Bills, who should find
their duties keeping them away from the sitting of the House, should be
allowed to record their names on roll calls taken during their absence,
provided such recordings would not change any announced results.
6079. On March 16, 1864,\5\ the Committee on Rules made a futile
attempt to break up the practice of allowing Members to vote who did
not respond on the call, if they could respond to the Speaker's
interrogatory as to their presence within the bar when the name was
called. It was proposed to take away from the Speaker the power to
submit request for leave to vote. Mr. Speaker Colfax said at this time
that it was the practice of the House to allow Members to be recorded
who were away on business of the House.
6080. The fact that a Member responded under an erroneous belief as
to a pair does not justify the Speaker in entertaining a request to
change the record after a vote is declared.--On April 9, 1904,\6\ Mr.
George G. Gilbert, of Kentucky, asked that his name on a roll call of
the preceding day be changed from ``present'' to ``aye.'' It appeared
that he had refrained from voting ``aye'' because he erroneously
supposed himself to have been paired.
The Speaker \7\ after having read section 1 of Rule XV, said:
The rule absolutely prevents the Speaker from even entertaining a
request for unanimous consent. The matter of pairs is a matter for
gentlemen to regulate among themselves. * * * The Chair declines, under
the rule, to entertain the request, the rule prohibiting him from
submitting the request.
6081. It is not permissible to entertain the request of a Member to
record his vote after he has, on the call of his name, refrained from
voting because of a misunderstanding as to a pair.--On February 23,
1901,\8\ the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Thirty-seventh Congress, Globe, p. 695.
\2\ First session Twenty-third Congress, Journal, p. 616.
\3\ Second session Twenty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 114.
\4\ First session Thirty-third Congress, Journal, p. 1233; Globe, p.
1996.
\5\ First session Thirty-eighth Congress, Globe, p. 1143.
\6\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 4574.
\7\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\8\ Second session, Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2915.
Sec. 6082
yeas and nays had been taken on a motion to concur in a Senate
amendment to the Agricultural appropriation bill.
Before the announcement of the vote, Mr. Charles H. Grosvenor, of
Ohio, stated that he had refrained from voting on a misunderstanding.
When his name was called he had erroneously supposed himself paired. He
therefore asked that his name be called, and that he be permitted to
vote.
The Speaker,\1\ after quoting Rule XV, said that it was impossible to
recognize the gentleman to vote.
6082. A Member may not have the record of his vote changed on the
statement that he voted on a misapprehension of the question, and a
motion relating thereto is not a matter of privilege.\2\--On August 14,
1850,\3\ Mr. Isaac E. Morse, of Louisiana, rose and stated that he had
risen to a question of privilege; that on the question just taken upon
agreeing to the amendment to the thirty-fourth rule he had voted under
a total misapprehension of the question; that he believed be was voting
on a motion to lay the amendment upon the table. He therefore moved
that the Journal be amended, so that his name should appear in the
negative upon agreeing to the said amendment.
Objection being made, the Speaker \4\ decided that, inasmuch as the
Journal was correctly made up, it was not a question of privilege or a
privileged question to move an amendment of the record. When the
Journal was incorrectly made up, and the vote of a Member was recorded
differently from the fact, a motion to correct the Journal was in
order; but the Chair knew no instance wherein the Journal had been
amended upon the statement of a Member that he had voted upon a
misapprehension of the question.
From this decision of the Chair Mr. Morse appealed. The decision of
the Chair was sustained.
6083. On December 17, 1898,\5\ after the approval of the Journal Mr.
John W. Gaines, of Tennessee, announced that on a roll call on the
preceding day he had voted under a misapprehension, and asked that his
vote might be withdrawn and that the Journal might be corrected in
accordance therewith.
The Speaker \6\ expressed the opinion that the Record could not be
changed.
6084. In 1835 it was recognized that an error in a vote might be
corrected after the announcement, or proceedings might be at the mercy
of a clerk.--On February 27, 1835,\7\ the House was considering a
special order providing for the consideration of a report of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs dealing with the relations of the United
States with France. A motion to amend the order so as to provide for
consideration in the House instead of in the Committee of the Whole was
voted on, and there appeared in the affirmative 111 and in the negative
110, the vote being taken by yeas and nays.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\2\ See also sections 5931-5933 of this volume.
\3\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 1266; Globe, p.
1577.
\4\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
\5\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 270.
\6\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\7\ Second session Twenty-third Congress, Debates, p. 1522.
Sec. 6085
The amendment was then declared adopted, and the resolution as
amended was agreed to.
Then Mr. Phineas Miner, of Connecticut, stated that there had been an
error in recording his vote on the amendment, and that he was recorded
in the affirmative, whereas he had voted in the negative. A motion was
made that the error be corrected, but Mr. Joseph B. Anthony, of
Pennsylvania, objected that the intervention of the other vote would
prevent the correction. To this it was replied that such a doctrine
would put the proceedings of the House at the mercy of the errors of a
clerk. So, by general consent, the error was corrected, the amendment
was declared to be disagreed to, and the resolution was then voted on
again.
6085. Where, by an error of the Clerk in reporting the yeas and nays,
the Speaker announces a result different from that shown by the roll,
the status of the question must be determined by the vote as actually
recorded.--On July 26, 1886,\1\ Mr. William C. Oates, of Alabama,
rising immediately after the reading of the Journal, said:
Mr. Speaker, I desire to correct the Journal wherein it states that
on the last bill under consideration at the evening session on
Saturday, on the motion of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Cobb] for
the previous question on the bill and pending amendments, it was
announced that no quorum voted thereon. That point was made, and the
House, under a misapprehension, supposed it was so. In fact, a quorum
had voted, and the previous question was ordered. The Record shows
there were 128 yeas and 37 nays, making 165 votes. That was the fact;
but the House, on the suggestion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Boyle] that no quorum had voted, accepted that as correct,
although, in fact, a quorum had voted and the previous question was
ordered.
The Speaker \2\ said:
The Journal will be corrected in accordance with the statement of the
gentleman from Alabama. The Chair desires to state, as a matter of
justice to the tally clerk, that in recording the affirmative vote in
the column assigned for that purpose upon the sheet, when that vote had
reached 49 he put down the figures 49 and called two or three more
names before there was any other vote in the affirmative. When the next
gentleman voted in the affirmative, the tally clerk, looking back to
his previous figures, took the 9 for a 4--and it looks very much like a
4, as the gentleman from Alabama will see if he examines it--and
therefore recorded the next vote as 45, when it should have been 50;
and that error was continued until the close of the roll call, and the
footings were made accordingly. It was a mistake made simply by the
tally clerk on account of mistaking the figure. The Chair, therefore,
thinks the Journal should be corrected to show the previous question
was ordered.
6086. A vote having been erroneously announced in such a way as to
change the true result, subsequent proceedings in connection therewith
fall, and the Journal is amended accordingly.--On September 10,
1850,\3\ the Speaker stated that the result of the vote of the House on
the preceding day on the passage of the bill of the House (No. 387) to
supply a deficiency in the appropriation for pay and mileage of Members
of Congress for the present session had been erroneously announced and
that the subsequent proceedings upon the bill would consequently fall.
The Speaker \4\ then announced the vote to be yeas 78, nays 76.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 7545, 7546.
\2\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\3\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 1436; Globe, pp.
782, 783.
\4\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
Sec. 6087
So the bill was passed, and the Journal of the preceding day was
ordered to be amended accordingly.
The vote was announced on September 9 as 78 yeas and 77 nays,
whereupon the Speaker voted in the negative, and the announcement was
made that the House refused to pass the bill. A motion to reconsider
was made, and proceedings thereon were pending when the House
adjourned. On the next day, the true vote having been found to be 78
yeas to 76 nays, the action recorded in the Journal took place.
6087. On May 26, 1902,\1\ the question was on the passage of the bill
(H. R. 11879) to correct the military record of Michael Mullet, and the
roll having been called, the Speaker announced yeas 73, nays 73, and
that the bill had failed to pass.
Later, on the same day, the Speaker \2\ announced that an error had
been discovered in the footings, and that, in fact, the yeas had been
74 and the nays 73. Therefore the bill had passed.
6088. On December 18, 1903,\3\ the House was considering the
following resolution:
Resolved, That the Committee on Expenditures in the Post-Office
Department is hereby authorized to request the Postmaster-General to
send to the committee all papers connected with the recent
investigation of his Department the publication of which is consistent
with the welfare of the public service.
when the previous question was moved, and on a yea-and-nay vote there
appeared, as announced by the Chair, yeas 108, nays 107, and the
previous question was considered as ordered.
The question recurring on agreeing to the resolution, there were yeas
109, nays 100, and the Speaker declared the resolution agreed to.
On December 19,\4\ after the reading of the Journal, but before its
approval, the Speaker \5\ said:
It is the duty of the Chair to call the attention of the House to the
fact that the vote yesterday on ordering the previous question upon the
resolution reported by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Wanger] was
incorrectly reported. The yeas were reported as being 108 and the nays
107. A correct count afterwards shows that the yeas were 107 and the
nays 107--a tie vote. Therefore the motion upon ordering the previous
question was lost. Without objection the Journal will be amended in
accordance with the facts, and all proceedings touching this resolution
had subsequent to that erroneous announcement will be vacated. [After a
pause.] The Chair hears no objection. The question now is upon the
approval of the Journal as amended. Is there objection? [After a
pause.] The Chair hears none, and the Journal is so approved.
Then, the resolution being taken up as unfinished business, the
Speaker recognized Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, who on the
preceding day had opposed the motion for the previous question. Mr.
Williams proposed an amendment, which was agreed to after debate, and
then the resolution as amended was agreed to.
6089. A wrong result having been announced on a vote on an amendment
to a bill, it was held on the next day that the question recurred to
that point with all rights intact, although the bill had actually been
passed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 5928-5930.
\2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 75; Record, pp.
385, 386.
\4\ Journal, p. 80; Record, p. 403.
\5\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 6089
All related proceedings subsequent to the announcement of an
erroneous result fall, the votes to reconsider and lay on the table not
excepted.
On July 18, 1848,\1\ the bill (H. R. 298) making appropriations for
the civil and diplomatic expenses of the Government was reported from
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union with certain
amendments, among them the following:
Strike out this paragraph: ``For removal of obstructions in Savannah
River and the naval anchorage near Fort Pulaski, under the direction of
the Secretary of War, fifty thousand dollars.''
The question being put on agreeing to this amendment, it was
announced that there were yeas 86, nays 83. So the amendment was agreed
to, and the paragraph was stricken out.
The bill was then passed to be engrossed and read a third time, and a
motion to reconsider the vote whereby this was done was made and laid
on the table.
On July 19, 1848, Mr. Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, rose and
stated that he voted in the negative on the amendment and asked that
his vote be corrected. This being done, the Speaker \2\ announced the
vote on the amendment to be yeas 85, nays 84.
Thereupon the Speaker voted in the negative, and there being yeas 85,
nays 85, the question on the amendment was lost, and the paragraph was
not stricken from the bill.
Later in this day Mr. Charles E. Stuart, of Michigan, moved to
reconsider this vote.
On the following day, July 20, the Speaker gave his decision, he
having on the preceding day questioned the propriety of the motion. He
said that it was well known to the House that the item in the civil and
diplomatic appropriation bill which provided for the removal of
obstructions in the Savannah River had been struck out in Committee of
the Whole on the state of the Union, and that the vote in the House
upon concurring in that amendment was reported on the record yeas 86,
nays 83. Of course the amendment was adopted and the appropriation
struck out. Yesterday, however, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Stephens] rose and stated that his vote was wrongly entered, that he
voted ``aye'' instead of ``no,'' and called for a correction, which was
accorded to him as his right. The vote was then reported, yeas 85, nays
84. A case then arose under the rule \3\ in which it was the duty of
the Speaker to settle the question; the Speaker voted in the negative,
making the vote, yeas 85, nays 85, whereby the amendment was rejected
and the original item as contained in the bill reported by the
Committee of Ways and Means was retained. In the meantime, however, the
bill had been ordered to be engrossed; a motion had been made to
reconsider the vote ordering the engrossment, and that motion had been
laid on the table. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stuart] had then
raised the question of reconsideration, and moved that the vote by
which the House had rejected the amendment of the Committee of the
Whole, upon the correction of the Journal and by the casting vote of
the Speaker,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Thirtieth Congress, Journal, pp. 1057, 1064, 1066,
1067, 1078-1083; Globe, pp. 953, 954.
\2\ Robert C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ For the rule at that time relating to the Speaker's vote, see
section 5964 of this volume.
Sec. 6090
be reconsidered. A question was then made whether the motion to
reconsider could be received.
The Chair now decided that, inasmuch as when the House ordered the
bill to be engrossed a provision was not in it which was afterwards put
in by the casting vote of the Speaker, the House was entitled to a new
vote upon the engrossment. The question then arose upon the motion to
reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.
Thereupon Mr. Franklin Clark, of Maine, moved that the vote whereby
the amendment had been rejected be reconsidered.
Mr. Armistead Burt, of South Carolina, rose to inquire whether, in
order to get at the question of reconsideration, it was not necessary
that the House, by its vote, should refuse to order the bill to be
engrossed.
The Speaker said that the question of engrossment, owing to these
mistakes, was now open; and after the reconsideration should have been
disposed of, the question would recur on the engrossment of the bill.
The motion to reconsider was then, on motion put and carried, laid on
the table.
The question then recurred on ordering the bill to be engrossed.
6090. On January 16, 1849,\1\ the Journal of the preceding day was
read, when the Speaker stated that a resolution had been offered on the
preceding day in the following words:
Resolved, That the bills reported by the Committee on Territories to
establish Territorial governments in upper California and New Mexico,
be made the special order for Tuesday, the twenty-third day of January,
instant.
The vote (the Speaker \2\ continued) as handed to the Chair by one of
the clerks, was 114 in favor to 51 against the resolution. There being
two-thirds in its favor, the resolution was declared to have been
adopted. It appeared that there had been a misreading of one of the
figures on the part of one of the clerks, and that the true state of
the vote was--yeas 114, nays 71. The correction would be made in the
Journal this morning, and the resolution would be declared not to have
passed. The vote to reconsider and to lay on the table would of course
be a nullity.\3\
6091. On September 9, 1850,\4\ the question was taken on the passage
of the bill (H. R. 387) and there were announced--yeas 78, nays 77. The
Speaker voted in the negative, and thereupon announced that the House
had refused to pass the bill.
Mr. Jacob Thompson, of Mississippi, moved to reconsider the vote by
which the House refused to pass the bill and to lay the motion to
reconsider on the table.
Pending this motion the House adjourned.
On the next day the Speaker,\5\ stated that the result of the vote
had been erroneously announced, and that the consequent proceedings on
the bill would consequently fall. He then announced the vote to be--
yeas 78, nays 76. So the bill was passed, and the Journal of the
preceding day was ordered to be amended accordingly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Thirtieth Congress, Journal, p. 256; Globe, p.
267.
\2\ Robert C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ The motion to reconsider is not now admitted under such
circumstances.
\4\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 1436; Globe, pp.
1782, 1783, 1786.
\5\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
Sec. 6092
6092. On January 22, 1851,\1\ after the reading of the Journal, the
Speaker \2\ stated that it had been ascertained, on a reexamination of
the vote on the motion submitted by Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee,
on the previous day, to lay on the table the bill of the Senate (No.
19) ``to amend the several acts establishing district courts of the
United States in the State of Florida, and to provide for writs of
error and appeals from said courts,'' that the actual result of the
vote was--yeas 93, nays 91, and not--yeas 92, nays 91, as had been
announced in the House immediately after the vote was taken.
Consequently the vote of the Speaker, which had been given in the
negative, would not defeat the said motion. It was therefore ordered
that the said bill be laid on the table.
6093. Before the decision of the Chair on a vote has been pronounced
finally and conclusively, a Member may change his vote.\3\--On April 3,
1810,\4\ the yeas and nays were ordered on a question relating to a
resolution of inquiry into the conduct of Brig. Gen. James Wilkinson.
The Clerk having called over the roll, but the result not having been
announced, it was suggested by a Member in his place, Mr. Alexander
McKim, of Maryland, that he had committed a mistake in giving his vote
on the question last taken, and that he had intended to vote in the
negative, and not in the affirmative, side of the said question, as the
same had been recorded by the Clerk.
The Speaker then directed the Clerk to call the name of Mr. McKim
again, and being so called, Mr. McKim answered in the negative.
Mr. John Randolph, of Virginia, objected to the right to change a
vote except by the unanimous consent of the House.
The Speaker \5\ decided that, in accordance with the practice, the
gentleman had a right to change his vote.
Mr. Randolph having appealed, on April 4 the decision of the Chair
was sustained--yeas 76, nays 19.
6094. On February 28, 1829,\6\ the yeas and nays were taken on a
motion to order the previous question on the bill to compensate Susan
Decatur.
The Members on each side of the question being communicated by the
Clerk to the Speaker, the Speaker announced to the House that there
were--yeas 79, nays 81.
At this stage of the proceedings, and before the Speaker had
pronounced the decision of the question to the House, Mr. Mark
Alexander, of Virginia, announced his desire to change his vote and was
permitted to do so.
Thereupon he changed his vote from the negative to the affirmative,
thus producing an equal division, which was broken by the Speaker
voting in the affirmative.
Thereupon Mr. Joel B. Sutherland, of Pennsylvania, raised a question
of order as to the power of the Speaker to permit a Member to change
his vote after the numbers of votes on each side of a question had been
announced from the Chair.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 171.
\2\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
\3\ See also sections 5931-5933 of this volume for additional
precedents on this point.
\4\ Second session Eleventh Congress, Journal, pp. 342, 343 (Gales &
Seaton ed.); Annals, pp. 1762, 1754.
\5\ Joseph B. Varnum, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\6\ Second session Twentieth Congress, Journal, pp. 500, 501.
Sec. 6095
The Speaker \1\ decided that it was the right of a Member to change
his vote at any stage of proceeding before the decision of the House
thereon should have been finally and conclusively pronounced from the
Chair.
Mr. Burwell Bassett, of Virginia, having appealed, the decision of
the Chair was sustained--yeas 122, nays 49.
6095. The record of a yea-and-nay vote may not be impeached by
showing that Members voted who were recorded as paired.--On April 11,
1904,\2\ Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, claiming the floor to
suggest a correction of the Record, said:
I find from that vote, on page 4767 of the Record, that the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Morgan] is recorded as having voted ``yea,'' and I find
that the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Dovener] is also recorded as
having voted ``yea.'' I find upon the same page that the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Morgan] is recorded as having been paired with his colleague
from Ohio [Mr. Snook], and I find on the next page that the gentleman
from West Virginia [Mr. Dovener], who voted, is recorded as having been
paired with the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Trimble]. I furthermore
find, upon page 4767, that neither Mr. Snook nor Mr. Trimble voted,
and, as a matter of fact, neither one of them was here, The vote as
announced was yeas 103, nays 100.
I ask a correction in the Record, and that the names of Mr. Morgan
and Mr. Dovener be taken from the list of yeas and put among the list
of those answering ``present'' and paired. That will leave the vote 101
to 100.
Objection being made that votes should not be stricken out for such a
reason, the Speaker \3\ said:
The Chair will state to the gentleman from Mississippi that the
statement of pairs in the Record is purely an unofficial statement. The
statement of a vote is official. The gentleman can see at once that
where pairs are made, not infrequently--* * * The Chair was about to
state that the statement of the pairs in the Record is purely
nonofficial matter, and it does not, in the opinion of the Chair, lie
in the mouth of any Member upon either side to criticize the vote of
any other Member. * * * The record is made up as the memoranda were
given, and a nonofficial statement can not avail to affect the official
statement.
6096. The statement that a Member who is alleged to be absent has
been recorded as voting should be sustained by undoubted evidence to
justify the Chair in ordering the vote stricken off.\4\--On January 9,
1902,\5\ the vote had been taken by yeas and nays on the bill (H. R.
3110) to provide for the construction of a canal connecting the waters
of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, when Mr. John S. Williams, of
Mississippi, stated that he was satisfied that Mr. Frank A. McLain, of
Mississippi, had not been present during the roll call, and that his
name had been improperly recorded.
The Speaker \6\ said:
All Members will, of course, appreciate the delicacy involved in the
question of erasing a name from the record after it has been once
placed thereon by an officer of the House. Of course, in the present
instance it could make no possible change in the result, but in a close
vote it might lead to very serious consequences. Unless a Member
himself calls attention to the error, the Chair thinks that to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 4664.
\3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\4\ See also section 6064 of this chapter.
\5\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 558.
\6\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
Sec. 6097
undertake to erase a name under such circumstances would be setting a
precedent for very dangerous legislation. The Chair therefore, although
he felt it his duty to call attention to the matter, would decline to
order the name erased.
On January 10,\1\ on a statement made by Mr. McLain that he had not
in fact been present, the Speaker directed the correction to be made.
6097. On an uncontradicted assertion that, a Member recorded as
voting had not been present and had not voted, the Chair directed the
name to be stricken from the list of those voting.
Instance wherein the Speaker debated a point of order while a Speaker
pro tempore occupied the chair, and was about to rule.
On January 27, 1875,\2\ during prolonged dilatory proceedings on the
civil rights bill, the Chair announced that on a motion to adjourn over
to Saturday there were yeas 63, nays 131.
Thereupon Mr. John B. Storm, of Pennsylvania, rising to a question of
privilege, stated that Mr. James A. Garfield, of Ohio, was recorded as
voting when in fact he had not been present.
At first the Speaker pro tempore \3\ was inclined to hold that he
could not intervene in the matter. But Mr. E. Rockwood Hoar, of
Massachusetts, said:
Suppose a vote was taken on a motion to adjourn, and declared to be
carried in consequence of the vote of a Member who was known to all of
us not to have been here in the House, and whose name had been recorded
by mistake by the Clerk; is it not the privilege of the body, and not
merely of the Member, that an erroneous entry of the vote shall not be
made?
Mr. James G. Blaine, of Maine, the Speaker, who was temporarily out
of the Chair, said:
This, I think, will govern the case. The testimony is all on one
side. It is not disputed that there was evidently a mistake. There are
no two points in the controversy before the Chair. There is an
allegation here that the gentleman from Ohio did not vote; there is no
allegation that he did. If there were a disputed point, it must of
course be determined by testimony, but there is no disputed point. The
fact stated is uncontradicted, and therefore, with all due respect to
the Chair, I think the error should be corrected.
The Speaker pro tempore held:
It having been asserted that Mr. Garfield was not present and did not
vote, and nobody asserting to the contrary, the roll will be corrected
accordingly, and his name will be stricken from it.
6098. On April 8, 1902,\4\ a roll call had been completed on the
motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union to consider the bill (H. R. 12765) to
provide for reciprocal trade relations with Cuba, when Mr. Michael E.
Driscoll, of New York, said:
Mr. Speaker, when the name of the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Bristow] was called, I, in the confusion, mistook it for my own name
and answered ``aye.'' Subsequently, when my own name was called, having
discovered my mistake, I voted. I wish now to have the error corrected
by which Mr. Bristow is recorded as voting. I understand he is not
present.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Record, p. 564.
\2\ Second session Forty-third Congress, Record, pp. 795, 796.
\3\ John Cessna, of Pennsylvania, Speaker pro tempore.
\4\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 3848.
Sec. 6099
The Speaker \1\ said:
Upon the statement of fact just made by the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Driscoll], it seems clear that the vote of Mr. Bristow, as
recorded, should be stricken out, as he seems not to have been present,
but by mistake his name was answered to by the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Driscoll]. In the absence of objection, the vote standing in the
name of Mr. Bristow will be stricken out.
6099. A Member having stated on his responsibility that another
Member recorded as voting on a preceding day was not then present, the
Speaker ordered the correction of the Journal before its approval.--On
April 14, 1906,\2\ the Journal of the preceding day's session had been
read but not approved when Mr. Halvor Steenerson, of Minnesota, said:
Mr. Speaker, I desire to say that in regard to the vote on the motion
to recommit the post-office appropriation bill the Record shows that
the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Hedge, voted ``no,'' when, as a matter of
fact, the gentleman from Iowa was not here. * * * I know Mr. Hedge was
not here.
The Speaker \3\ said:
The gentleman stating on his responsibility as a Member that he has
personal knowledge that the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Hedge, was not
here and did not vote, and there being nothing that contradicts the
gentleman's statement, it seems to the Chair it is his duty to direct
that Mr. Hedge's name be stricken out.\4\
6100. It was held in the Senate that when the yeas and nays were
ordered and taken, and a quorum failed to respond, debate was not in
order when a quorum appeared.
Reference to instances in the Senate wherein debate was had after the
yeas and nays were ordered, but not after the calling of the roll had
been begun.
On February 27, 1904,\5\ the Senate were considering the bill (S.
2263) ``to require the employment of vessels of the United States for
public purposes,'' the pending question being on a motion to recommit.
On the preceding day the yeas and nays had been ordered on the motion,
but a quorum failing to answer on the call, a call of the Senate was
had and a quorum appeared. Thereupon the Senate adjourned.
On this day Mr. Stephen R. Mallory, of Florida, rising to a
parliamentary inquiry, asked if debate was in order on the motion to
recommit.
After debate as to the custom of the Senate, the President pro
tempore \6\ held--
The Chair is of the opinion that where there has been a roll call
ordered, and on the call no quorum is developed, and the same day a
call of the House is had, and a quorum is developed, the first thing
immediately to be done, then, is to proceed with a new roll call.
Mr. James H. Berry, of Arkansas, insisted that such had not been the
practice of the Senate; but Mr. Eugene Hale, of Maine, insisted that it
had been the practice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\2\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 5258.
\3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\4\ The permanent Record has omitted the above, which appeared in the
daily Record. The permanent Record indicates that the corrections were
made, but omits the statement of them.
\5\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2457.
\6\ William P. Frye, of Maine, President pro tempore.
Sec. 6101
The President pro tempore said:
The Chair is entirely clear about it. The presence of a quorum has
been developed. The Secretary will call the roll.
But it is a frequent custom for the Senate to debate a question after
the yeas and nays are ordered. An instance occurred on December 10,
1877,\1\ also another in 1890,\2\ and another on March 24, 1868.\3\
These, however, were cases where the yeas and nays were merely ordered,
without any effort to take them.
6101. In the general, although not universal, practice, debate has
not been closed by the ordering of the yeas and nays until one Member
has responded to the call.--On January 5, 1809,\4\ the House was
considering a bill ``to enforce and make more effectual an act entitled
`An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and
harbors of the United States, and the several acts supplementary
thereto.' ''
A question being taken by the yeas and nays, Mr. John Randolph, of
Virginia, proposed the following question of order:
When a question, by yeas and nays, has been put by the Speaker, and
the Clerk has proceeded to the call, in consequence of which a vote is
given by any one of the Members, and at the same time a Member rises in
his place to address the Chair, does it preclude further debate on the
said question?
The Speaker \5\ decided, as the opinion of the Chair, that in all
such cases further debate on the question then depending before the
House ought to be precluded.
Mr. Randolph having appealed, the decision of the Chair was
sustained--yeas 99, nays 10.
6102. On February 1, 1822,\6\ the House was considering the bill for
the apportionment of Representatives among the several States,
according to the Fourth Census, and, the question being on an
amendment, the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Speaker thereupon put the question, by saying that those who were
in favor of the amendment would, when their names were called, answer
in the affirmative, and those of a contrary opinion would, when their
names were called, answer in the negative.\7\
No Member having answered, Mr. Rollin C. Mallary, of Vermont, rose
and presented himself to the House for the purpose of discussing the
amendment.
The Speaker \8\ thereupon decided that at this stage debate was
inadmissible.
Mr. Weldon N. Edwards, of North Carolina, appealed from this
decision, and after debate the decision of the Chair was reversed--114
to 51.
6103. On April 22, 1828,\9\ the House had ordered the yeas and nays
on a resolution relating to the adjournment of Congress.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Forty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 86.
\2\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 3197.
\3\ Second session Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 2076.
\4\ Second session Tenth Congress, Journal, p. 446 (Gales & Seaton
ed.); Annals, p. 994.
\5\ Joseph B. Varnum, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\6\ First session Seventeenth Congress, Journal, pp. 216, 217;
Annals, p. 873.
\7\ The formula for putting the question is somewhat different now.
\8\ Philip P. Barbour, of Virginia, Speaker.
\9\ First session Twentieth Congress, Debates, p. 2479.
Sec. 6104
The yeas and nays had been ordered and the first name had been called
by the Clerk, but not responded to, when Mr. Charles F. Mercer, of
Virginia, claimed the floor.
Mr. William Drayton, of South Carolina, asked if it would be in order
for the gentleman to proceed.
The Speaker \1\ replied that the gentleman from Virginia was in time,
as no response had been given by the Member whose name had been called.
6104. On April 14, 1874,\2\ the Speaker put the pending question to
the House, and on division there appeared in the affirmative 64, in the
negative 145.
Mr. James A. Garfield, of Ohio, demanded the yeas and nays, and while
the question on ordering the yeas and nays was being put, sought
recognition for debate.
The Speaker \3\ said:
The House is now dividing, and the Chair thinks that in consenting to
a division the gentleman waived the right of discussion.
The yeas and nays were then ordered.
Thereupon Mr. Garfield sought recognition on the ground that debate
was in order, the previous question not being ordered.
The Speaker said:
The gentleman from Ohio will not contend that, during a division of
the House, he can debate the question. The House is now engaged in
perfecting the process of that division. The gentleman from Ohio made
his point, debated it, and took his seat. The Chair put the question,
and the House not being satisfied with the viva voce vote, the division
was called for. Now, a further process of certification of the
division, by calling the yeas and nays, has been ordered. All these
steps are certifications of the vote, and there is no point between
them where the gentleman can stop the process and initiate debate. The
result is the same as if the previous question had been ordered.
6105. On June 8, 1876,\4\ the House had passed to be engrossed the
bill (H.R. 1442) to repeal section 821 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States, and to provide an oath for grand and petit jurors in the
courts of the United States.
Mr. J. Proctor Knott, of Kentucky, moved to reconsider the vote by
which the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and
demanded the yeas and nays thereon.
The Speaker pro tempore put the question upon ordering the yeas and
nays; and those in the affirmative having voted, announced that the
yeas and nays were ordered.
Pending which, Mr. George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts, rose to speak on
the motion to reconsider.
Mr. William J. O'Brien, of Maryland, made the point of order that
debate was not now in order, the yeas and nays having been ordered on
the motion to reconsider.
The Speaker pro tempore \5\ overruled the point of order, holding
that the previous question did not operate upon the motion to
reconsider, and that Mr. Hoar, claiming the floor upon that motion, was
entitled to the same.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, Speaker.
\2\ First session Forty-third Congress, Record, p. 3076.
\3\ James G. Blaine, of Maine, Speaker.
\4\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 1069; Record, p.
3692.
\5\ Samuel S. Cox, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.