[Cannon's Precedents, Volume 8]
[Chapter 249 - The Motion to Lay on the Table]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Chapter CCXLIX.\1\
THE MOTION TO LAY ON THE TABLE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In order before Member presenting a proposition is
recognized for debate. Sections 2649, 2650.
2. As applied to other motions. Sections 2651-2659.
3. As to effect when decide affirmatively. Sections 2656-2659.
4. General decisions. Section 2660.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2649. A motion to lay a proposition on the table is in order before
the Member entitled to prior recognition for debate has begun his
remarks.
The motion to lay on the table is not debatable.
On July 18, 1913,\2\ the House having under consideration the
resolution (H. Res. 181) instructing the Attorney General to transmit
to the House correspondence relating to the prosecution of Maury Diggs
and Drew Caminetti, Mr. Henry D. Clayton, of Alabama, asked unanimous
consent that there be four hours general debate at the expiration of
which time the motion to lay on the table be voted upon.
Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, moved, as preferential, that the
resolution be laid on the table, and objected to further debate.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, submitted that Mr. Clayton, as
Chairman of the Committee reporting the resolution was entitled to one
hour, in which to discuss the report and said:
Mr. Speaker, the resolution having been reported from the Committee
on the Judiciary by the gentleman from the Alabama, he having withdrawn
his motion to lay on the table, is he not entitled to the floor for the
discussion of the resolution ahead of any demands of any person to be
recognized for the purpose of moving to lie on the table? It is
perfectly patent, Mr. Speaker, when a bill is called up before the
House, if any Member on the floor can take off his feet a person in
charge of the bill by a motion the bill on the table, it would be a
very common method of filibustering.
The Speaker \3\ ruled:
Section 740 of the Manual says:
``In debate the members of the committee, except the Committee of the
Whole, are entitled to priority of recognition for debate, but a motion
to lay a proposition on the table is in order before the Member
entitled to prior recognition for debate has begun his remarks.''
Therefore the motion of the gentleman from Tennessee is in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Supplementary to Chapter CXIX.
\2\ First session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 2539.
\3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 2650
Mr. Julius Kahn, of California, asked unanimous consent to proceed in
debate for two minutes.
The Speaker said:
The motion to lay on the table is not debatable. The question is on
the motion of the gentleman from Tennessee to table this resolution.
2650. On August 20, 1921,\1\ Mr. W. Bourke Cockran, of New York,
offered as involving the privileges of the House, a resolution
characterizing as ``an unconstitutional violation'' of the rights and
privileges of the House, a message delivered in the Senate by the
President of the United States.
Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, moved that the resolution be laid
on the table.
Mr. Cockran submitted that he was entitled to recognition as the
proponent of the resolution, and could not be taken from the floor by a
motion to lay on the table.
The Speaker \2\ said:
The gentleman from New York is mistaken, because it would then be in
the power of any Member by offering a resolution to get the floor for
an hour's debate. That was the reason for the motion to lay in the
table.
2651. The previous question being demanded on a resolution, a motion
to lay the resolution on the table was held to be in order and to take
precedence.
Discussion of the relative privilege of the motions to adjourn, to
lay on the table and for the previous question.
The motion to discharge a committee from the consideration of a
resolution is not debatable.
On June 17, 1909 \3\ Mr. Cordell Hull, of Tennessee, moved to
discharge the Committee on Ways and Means from the further
consideration of a privileged resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 72) asking
for date received through diplomatic correspondence pertaining to wages
and manufactures in foreign countries.
In response to a parliamentary inquiry from Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of
New York, the Speaker \4\ held that the motion was not debatable.
The motion was agreed to, and the resolution being under
consideration, Mr. Hull demanded the previous question.
Mr. Payne moved to lay the resolution on the table.
Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, made the point of order that the
question came first on the ordering of the previous question.
The Speaker ruled:
The Chair caused to be read by the Clark Rule XVI, clause 4. The
Chair will read it again.
``When a question is under debate, no motion shall be received but to
adjourn, to lay on the table, for the previous question (which motions
shall be decided without debate), to postpone to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 5357.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ First session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 3411.
\4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 2652
a day certain, to refer, or to amend, or postpone indefinitely; which
several motions shall have precedence in the foregoing order.''
Now, the rule speaks for itself. There can be no mistaking of its
language. Now, on the first motion, the Chair again says the gentleman
from Tennessee, Mr. Hull, was entitled to an hour. The gentleman
yielded the floor by moving the previous question and, then, what
motion was in order? It was the motion to adjourn.
The gentleman could not have been taken off of his feet for an hour
by a motion to adjourn unless he should yield. No motion to adjourn was
made. The second motion is ``to lay on the table.'' What is the third?
It is ``for the previous question.'' Now, the gentleman moved the
previous question. Can it be contended for a moment that, pending that
motion, it would not be in order to move to adjourn? Certainly not. By
the express terms of the rule, the motion to adjourn would be in order.
Again, ``to lay on the table,'' which precedes the ``previous
question.'' Now, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Payne, at that point
interposes the motion, which is a preferential motion by the express
terms of the rule, to lay on the table. If the gentleman could not make
the motion at that time, he could not make it at any time until the
previous question had been decided. This rule deprives the House of no
power. It is a mere question of precedence of motions. If the House
desires to dispose of this resolution by a motion to lay on the table,
it has the opportunity under the rule to dispose of that business
before it orders the previous question, which it ordered, leads up to
either the passage of the resolution or the defeat of the resolution.
The Speaker than referred to sections 5409 and 5411 of Hinds'
Precedents and continued:
Now, then, let us see where that construction of the rule would take
us. The gentleman from Tennessee had the floor for an hour. He could
not be taken from the floor to enable anybody to move the previous
question. But he moved the previous question, thereby yielding the
floor; and then, for the first time, a Member had the right, under the
rule, to make the preferential motion--the motion to lay the resolution
on the table--the same right that he would have to move to adjourn,
second only to the more preferential motion to adjourn. The Chair
overrules the point of order. The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from New York, that the resolution lie on the table.
2652. It is in order to lay on the table a motion to reconsider.
A motion to reconsider the vote by which an amendment was agreed to
may be laid on the table without carrying with it the amendment
proposed to be reconsidered.
On July 9, 1913,\1\ while the House was considering the resolution
(H. Res. 198) providing for the investigation of an alleged lobby, Mr.
James R. Mann, of Illinois, moved to reconsider the vote by which an
amendment offered by Mr. Jefferson Levy, of New York, had been agreed
to earlier in the day.
Mr. Richard W. Austin, of Tennessee, inquired if it would be in order
to move to lay on the table the motion to reconsider.
The Speaker \2\ replied:
The parliamentary inquiry is whether it is in order to lay this
motion on the table. The Chair thinks it is.
Mr. Henry A. Cooper, of Wisconsin, then asked if affirmative action
on a motion to reconsider would carry to the table the amendment
proposed to be reconsidered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session, Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 2348.
\2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 2653
The Speaker answered in the affirmative but after further
consideration ruled:
The gentleman from Wisconsin propounded a parliamentary inquiry a
short time ago as to whether a motion to lay the motion of the
gentleman from Illinois on the table would carry the resolution with
it. After considering the matter, the Chair said he thought it would;
but I have reflected on it, and while there do not seem to be any
precedents on the subject, by analogy the Chair does not believe that
to table this motion of the gentleman from Illinois would table the
resolution. There is a very common precedent. We always move to
reconsider the vote by which a bill is passed and lay that on the
table, and, of course, it does not carry the bill. That is what made
the Chair change his opinion about it, and if the question arises he
will hold that it does not carry the resolution.
2653. The motion to lay on the table may not be applied to the motion
to recommit authorized after the previous question is ordered.
On February 2, 1910,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union reported to the House the bill (H. R. 18364) relative to
the provision for the Thirteenth Decennial Census, with an amendment,
and with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the
bill as amended be passed.
On motion of Mr. Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, the previous
question was ordered on the bill and amendment to final passage.
Mr. Champ Clark, of Missouri, moved to recommit the bill to the
Committee on the Census with instructions to report it back forthwith
with an amendment prohibiting inquiry on the part of census enumerators
as to the political affiliations of persons enumerated.
Mr. Crumpacker moved to lay the motion on the table.
Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, raised a question of order
against the motion.
The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order and said:
It seems to the Chair that the motion to lay on the table a motion to
recommit is not in order.
2654. It is in order to lay on the table a motion to postpone to a
day certain.
On March 18, 1910,\3\ Mr. Joseph H. Gaines, of West Virginia, moved
to postpone the pending subject of discussion to the next day.
Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, moved to lay on the table the
motion to postpone.
The Speaker \4\ expressed at first doubt as to whether or not the
motion was in order, but decided to admit it.
Subsequently,\5\ in discussing this decision, the Speaker held:
In some cases one privileged motion is not applicable to another.
Thus it would undoubtedly not be in order to move to lay on the table a
motion to adjourn or for the previous question, as they are not
debatable or amendable. But as the motion to postpone is both debatable
and amendable, there is an advantage to it a motion to lay on the
table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1416.
\2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 3416.
\4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\5\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2794.
Sec. 2655
2655. The motion to lay on the table was held not to be applicable to
the motion to recommit.
The previous question being ordered on a bill to final passage on
motion to lay the bill on the table was not entertained.
On May 26, 1920,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union reported to the House the bill (S. 3451) for payment of
claims of wooden-ship builders.
On motion of Mr. William S. Greene, of Massachusetts, the previous
question was ordered on the bill and amendments to final passage.
Mr. Ewin L. Davis, of Tennessee, moved to lay the bill on the table.
The Speaker \2\ held:
That motion is not in order. It would be in order if the previous
question had not been ordered. The previous question has been ordered.
So now the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the
bill.
Mr. Green moved to recommit the bill to the committee on the Merchant
Marine and Fisheries.
Mr. Davis moved to lay that motion on the table.
The Speaker said:
The Chair does not think that motion is in order.
Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, submitted that the motion was in
order as the previous question had not been ordered on the motion to
recommit.
The Speaker ruled:
A citation has just been shown to the Chair saying that a motion to
lay on the table is not in order. The gentleman from Massachusetts
moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, and on that he moves the previous question.
2656. A proposed amendment being laid on the table carries with it
the pending measure to which offered.
On January 8, 1909,\3\ during consideration of the resolution (H.
Res. 478) relating to certain messages from the President of the United
States with reference to the Secret Service, Mr. Augustus P. Gardner,
of Massachusetts, proposed an amendment to the pending resolution.
Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, offered a motion to lay the
amendment on the table.
Mr. Speaker \4\ said:
To lay the amendment on the table, the Chair suggests, would lay
everything on the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7708.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 682.
\4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 2657
2657. Laying on the table the motion to postpone consideration of
Senate amendments was held not to carry to the table pending motions
for their disposition.
The motion to postpone to a day certain may be laid upon the table.
The motion to postpone to ``the next legislative day'' was construed
as a motion to postpone to a day certain.
On February 17, 1911,\1\ the House was considering Senate amendments
to the Indian appropriation bill.
Mr. Charles H. Burke, of South Dakota, moved that the House further
insist on its disagreement to the pending Senate amendment.
Mr. Louis B. Hanna, of North Dakota, offered a motion to recede from
disagreement to the amendment and concur therein.
Thereupon Mr. Charles C. Carlin, of Virginia, moved that further
consideration be postponed until the next legislative day.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
motion to recede and concur tended to bring the two Houses together and
therefore took precedence of the motion to postpone to a day certain.
Mr. Mann also contended that as the date of ``the next legislative
day'' was subject to change, the motion to postpone to the next
legislative day was a motion to postpone indefinitely rather than a
motion to postpone to a day certain.
The Speaker \2\ ruled:
Paragraph 4 of Rule XVI, page 383, of the Manual, says:
``When a question is under debate no motion shall be received but to
adjourn, to lay on the table, from the previous question (which motions
shall be decided without debate), to postpone to a day certain, to
refer, or to amend, or postpone indefinitely.''
Now, this question is under debate. Two preferential motions have
been made, one by the gentleman from South Dakota and one by the
gentleman from North Dakota. Now the gentleman from Virginia makes
another motion, applying to a differently class of preference, because
the other two motions were motions to being the House to a disposition
of these particular amendments, and may be said to be incidental to
these amendments, but the motion of the gentleman from Virginia is to
postpone to the next legislative day, and has relation not alone to
this bill but to the general order of business in the House. He might
have moved, if you choose, in the same order of motion, to postpone
indefinitely or to lay on the table.
The Speaker then cited section 5393 of Hinds' Precedents, and
concluded:
The Chair thinks the precedent is in point, and therefore overrules
the point of order.
Mr. Mann moved to lay on the table the motion to postpone.
Mr. Carlin made the point of order that the motion to lay on the
table might not be applied to the motion to postpone.
The speaker referred to a decision on a similar question decided on
March 18, 1910, and overruled the point of order and announced:
The Chair entertains the motion of the gentleman from Illinois to lay
on the table the motion of the gentleman from Virginia.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2794.
\2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 2658
Mr. Swagar Sherley, of Kentucky, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked if
affirmative action on the motion to table the motion to postpone
consideration would carry with it the motion to further insist and the
motion to recede and concur.
The Speaker replied:
Certainly not. They are entirely independent motions. The judgment of
the Chair is no. A motion to reconsider may lay on the table, and is
frequently made, without carrying anything with it. The question is on
the motion of the gentleman from Illinois.
2658. Affirmative action on a motion to lay on the table a resolution
instructing conferees was held not to carry to the table with the
resolution the bill in disagreement.
The motion to lay on the table has precedence of the motion for the
previous question.
On November 10, 1921,\1\ by unanimous consent, the bill H. R. 8245,
the internal revenue tax bill, was taken from the Speaker's table,
Senate amendments were disagreed to, and the conference asked by the
Senate was granted.
Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, offered a resolution to instruct
the managers on the part of the House to agree to Senate amendment No.
122, increasing surtax rates from 32 per cent to 50 per cent.
After debate, Mr. Garrett demanded the previous question on the
resolution, and Mr. Frank Mondell, of Wyoming, offered a motion to lay
the resolution on the table.
Mr. Charles R. Crisp, of Georgia, submitted an inquiry as to whether
affirmative action on the motion to lay on the table would carry the
bill to the table with the resolution.
The Speaker pro tempore \2\ held:
In the view of the Chair this is an independent motion operating only
on those who shall be made the managers on the part of the House, as a
guide for their action, and while it may limit the freedom of action on
the part of the conferees, it is not directly and intimately related to
the bill which has been sent to conference, in such a manner, as in the
opinion of the Chair, would carry the bill to the table. When a motion
to reconsider the vote by which a bill is passed is laid on the table
it does not carry the bill to the table, and this would seem to be an
independent motion of a character which if tabled does not carry with
it a bill to which it is related.
Mr. Garrett made the point of order that the demand for the previous
question took precedence of the motion to lay on the table.
The Speaker pro tempore said:
The Chair will state that the same question arose on June 17, 1909,
when Mr. Speaker Cannon ruled that at the close of an hour's debate,
the previous question being moved, the Member moving it thereby yielded
the floor, and then a Member had the right under the rules to make the
preferential motion, the motion to lay the resolution on the table, the
same right that he would have had if he had moved to adjourn, and that
the motion to lay upon the table takes precedence over the motion for
the previous question.
The Chair overrules the point of order made by the gentleman from
Tennessee, Mr. Garrett. The question is upon the motion to lay the
motion to instruct the conferees on the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 7620.
\2\ Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Speaker pro tempore.
Sec. 2659
2659. A motion to lay on the table a motion to reconsider the vote by
which an amendment to a pending motion was rejected does not carry to
the table the motion to which the amendment was offered.
The motion to lay on the table is applicable to the motion to
reconsider.
On May 5, 1924,\1\ the Committee on the Whole House on the state of
the Union rose and reported that they had had under consideration the
bill (H. R. 7358) to provide for the expeditious and prompt settlement,
mediation, conciliation, and arbitration of disputes between carriers
and their employees and subordinate officials, and had come to no
resolution thereon.
Mr. Alben W. Barkley, of Kentucky, moved that general debate on the
bill in the Committee of the Whole be limited to three hours.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, offered a substitute limiting debate
to 24 hours.
The proposed substitute being rejected, yeas 95, nays 205, Mr. Carl
R. Chindblom, of Illinois, entered a motion to reconsider the vote.
Mr. Barkley moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, as
to the effect of laying on the table the motion to reconsider, the
Speaker \2\ held:
The Chair thinks it would just carry that motion to reconsider. The
Chair thinks it simply carries the motion to reconsider and nothing
else. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Kentucky to
lay the motion on the table.
The question being submitted to the House was decided in the
affirmative, and the motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The question then recurred on the motion to limit debate to three
hours, which was agreed to.
2660. Laying on the table a resolution providing for adverse
disposition of a matter does not carry to the table the original matter
proposed to be disposed of.
An instance in which it was held that the motion to table might be
applied to a proposition to lay on the table when that proposition was
incidental to other provisions relating to the subject proposed to be
tabled.
Affirmative action on the motion to lay on the table, while not a
technical rejection, is in effect an adverse disposition equivalent to
rejection.
The motion to lay on the table has precedence over the motion for the
previous question.
A demand for the previous question takes precedence of a motion to
amend.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 7897.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 2660
On January 25, 1923,\1\ at the conclusion of general debate on the
resolution (H. Res. 425) proposing impeachment of Harry M. Daughtery,
Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Andrew J. Volstead, of
Minnesota, submitted the following:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from
further consideration of the charges and proposed impeachment of Harry
M. Daugherty, Attorney General, and that H. Res. 425 be laid upon the
table.
Mr. Volstead demanded the previous question.
Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, moved to lay on the table the
resolution proposed by Mr. Volstead.
Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, submitted that the motion to
lay on the table was not in order pending the demand for the previous
question.
The Speaker \2\ held:
The Chair thinks not. Anybody who wishes to move to lay upon the
table has always the prior right of recognition over a person moving
the previous question.
Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, made the point of order that it was
not in order to move to lay on the table a proposition to lay on the
table.
The Speaker ruled:
This is not a resolution such as is referred to in the citation (V,
5426), nor is it an amendment. This is a resolution disposing of the
whole matter. This is a resolution laying the whole subject on the
table. It seems to the chair at first blush that a motion to lay that
on the table, if it carried, would be equivalent to rejecting it. It
would be rejecting a motion to lay the impeachment proceedings on the
table, and it seems to the Chair that it would still leave the
impeachment matter pending. If the motion of the gentleman from
Minnesota were simply a motion to lay upon the table, then the Chair
thinks it would not be in order for the gentleman from Tennessee to
move to lay it on the table; but the Chair thinks that the resolution
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota is much more than that, that it
is an independent resolution which disposes of the whole subject and
which couples with the motion to lay on the table other factors.
Therefore the Chair believes the motion of the gentleman from Tennessee
is in order, although to adopt it would be simply to refuse to dispose
of the subject and would leave it exactly where it is now. The Chair
will recognize the gentleman from Tennessee if he wishes to make the
motion, for it is a preferential motion on which the leader of the
minority is entitled to recognition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2449.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.