[Cannon's Precedents, Volume 8]
[Chapter 241 - The Question of Consideration]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Chapter CCXLI.
THE QUESTION OF CONSIDERATION.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In relation to other motions and debate. Sections 2436,
2437.
2. In relation to adjournment. Section 2438.
3. In relation to questions of order. Section 2439.
4. As to reports from the Committee on Rules. Sections 2400,
2441.
5. Not in order against motions relating to the order of
business. Sections 2442, 2443.
6. May be demanded against Calendar Wednesday business.
Sections 2444-2447.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2436. It is not in order to raise the question of consideration
against a bill until the bill has been read.
It is not in order in the House to move to postpone or otherwise
consider a bill which is still in the Committee of the Whole.
The first reading of a bill in Committee of the Whole may be
dispensed with by unanimous consent only, and a motion to that effect
is not in order.
In Committee of the Whole amendments are not in order on the first
reading of the bill.
The Chairman's count of a quorum is not subject to verification by
tellers.
The Committee of the Whole having risen to report proceedings
incident to securing a quorum the Speaker declined to entertain a
motion to adjourn.
On April 15, 1914,\2\ the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H. R. 15578) to codify, revise, and amend the laws relating to the
judiciary.
The Clerk read the title of the bill when Mr. Mann proposed to raise
the question of consideration.
The Chairman \3\ held that the question of consideration could not be
raised until the bill had been read in full.
Presently, the committee rose and reported to the House having come
to no resolution, and Mr. John T. Watkins, of Louisiana, moved that
further consideration of the bill be postponed until the fourth
Wednesday in May, 1914.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Supplementary to Chapter CXI.
\2\ Second-session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 6766.
\3\ Joseph J. Russell, of Missouri, Chairman.
Sec. 2437
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
motion to postpone was not in order while the bill was pending in
Committee of the Whole.
The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order.
The House again resolved into the Committee of the Whole and after
the Clerk had proceeded for some time with the reading of the bill, Mr.
J. Hampton Moore, of Pennsylvania, asked recognition to move to strike
out the last word.
The Chairman declined to recognize for that purpose on the ground
that the motion to amend is not in order on the first reading of a
bill.
Mr. Moore then moved to dispense with the first reading of the bill.
The Chairman stated:
A motion of that sort is not in order. The first reading of the bill
can only be dispensed with by unanimous consent.
Mr. Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, made the point that there was not
a quorum present, and the Chairman having announced the presence of a
quorum, Mr. Madden demanded tellers to ascertain if a quorum was
present.
A point of order by Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, that the
count of a quorum by the Chair is not subject to verification by
tellers, was sustained by the Chairman.
After further reading of the bill, a second point of no quorum was
sustained and the roll was called. The committee having risen to report
proceedings incident to securing a quorum, Mr. Martin D. Foster, of
Illinois, moved that the House adjourn.
The Speaker declined to recognize for that purpose, and after
receiving the report of the Chairman, directed that the committee
resume its sitting.
2437. The question of consideration may be demanded against the
motion to reconsider.
A motion to reconsider is debatable if the motion proposed to be
reconsidered was debatable and the previous question is not operating.
On January 19, 1925, \2\ Mr. Daniel R. Anthony, Jr., of Kansas, moved
to reconsider the vote by which the bill (H. R. 5084) amending the
national defense act had been passed earlier in the same day.
In that connection Mr. Anthony inquired if the motion to reconsider
was debatable.
The Speaker \3\ held that as the proposition sought to be
reconsidered was debatable the motion to reconsider was debatable.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, demanded the question of
consideration on the motion to reconsider.
The Speaker took the question under advisement and subsequently
announced:
The Chair perhaps ought to state now, although it is a little late,
that the Chair has looked the matter up in respect to the question of
consideration raised by the gentleman from Texas, and he thinks the
question of consideration can be raised, if the gentleman wishes to
make it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2100.
\3\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 2438
2438. Although the question of consideration has been once decided in
the affirmative it may nevertheless be raised on a subsequent day when
the bill is again called up as unfinished business.
A point of order against taking from the Speaker's table a Senate
bill substantially the same as a House bill already reported favorably
and on the House Calendar, comes too late after actual consideration
has begun.
On July 24, 1919,\1\ Mr. George S. Graham, of Pennsylvania, called up
from the Speaker's table as the unfinished business, the bill S. 180,
the Near East relief bill, against which the question of consideration
had been raised on a previous day.
Mr. J. Hampton Moore, of Pennsylvania, having again raised the
question of consideration, Mr. Graham submitted that the question of
consideration had been passed upon by the House when the bill was first
taken from the Speaker's table, and was not again in order.
The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order and said:
The Chair thinks that the fact that the question has been raised on
one day does not preclude its being raised another day.
Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, advanced the further point of
order that the House bill of like import was improperly on the House
Calendar and it was consequently not in order to call up the Senate
bill from the Speaker's table for consideration.
The Speaker held that however meritorious the point of order might be
it was too late to present it after consideration had actually begun,
and said:
The Chair without examination of the bill can not decide whether the
gentleman's point of order is well taken, but it is too late now to
make that point of order, the bill having already been considered by
the House. The question is, Shall the bill be now considered by the
House?
2439. A point of order relating to a proposition against which the
question of consideration had been demanded was held in abeyance until
the House had decided the question of consideration.
On January 17, 1913,\3\ Mr. John L. Burnett, of Alabama, called up
the conference report on the bill (S. 3175), the immigration bill. The
Clerk having completed the reading of the report, Mr. James R. Mann, of
Illinois, proposed to make the point of order that the conferees had
exceeded their jurisdiction.
Mr. J. Hampton Moore, of Pennsylvania, claimed the floor to raise the
question of consideration.
In declining to recognize Mr. Mann to make the point of order the
Speaker \4\ said:
The Chair thinks that if the House is not going to consider the bill
there is no use arguing points of order about it.
The Chair will hear the gentleman on his point of order as soon as
this question is determined. The question is, Will the House now
consider this conference report on the immigration bill?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3112.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 1684.
\4\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 2440
2440. The question of consideration may not be raised against a
report from the Committee on Rules relating to the order of considering
individual bills.
On December 15, 1919,\1\ Mr. Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, called up
a resolution (H. Res. 416) reported from the Committee on Rules
providing for the consideration of House Report No. 487, from the
Select Committee on Expenditures in the War Department.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, raised the question of consideration
against the resolution.
Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that the
question of consideration could not be raised against a report from the
Committee on Rules.
The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order and said:
The Chair thinks the question of consideration can not be raised upon
a report from the Committee on Rules. The Chair sustains the point of
order.
An appeal by Mr. Blanton from the decision of the Chair was, on the
motion of Mr. Walsh, laid on the table.
2441. On February 19, 1925,\3\ Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York,
from the Committee on Rules, reported a resolution relating to the
consideration of the bill (H. R. 745) for the establishment of
migratory bird refuges.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, demanded the question of
consideration.
Mr. Snell submitted that it was not in order to raise the question of
consideration on a report from the Committee on Rules.
The Speaker \4\ said:
You can not raise the question of consideration on a report from the
Committee on Rules.
2442. The question of consideration may not be raised on a motion
relating to the order of business.
The question of consideration may not be raised against a motion to
resolve into the Committee of the Whole.
On May 27, 1920,\5\ Mr. William R. Green, of Iowa, moved that the
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 14197) to amend
the revenue act of 1918.
Mr. Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, proposed to raise the question of
consideration.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
question of consideration was decided by the vote of the House on going
into the Committee of the Whole and to permit it to be again raised was
unwarranted duplication and not in order.
The Speaker \6\ ruled:
A vote not to go into the Committee of the Whole House would be
tantamount to a refusal to consider. The point of order is sustained.
The question is on the motion to go into the committee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 598.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 4181.
\4\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\5\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7759.
\6\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 2443
2443. The question of consideration may not be raised on a motion to
take from the Speaker's table Senate bills substantially the same as
House bills already favorably reported and on the House Calendar.
On March 1, 1921,\1\ Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, moved to take
from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 5023) closing a road in the
District of Columbia, a House bill of similar tenor having been
previously reported favorably and being on the House Calendar.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, proposed to raise the question of
consideration.
The Speaker \2\ held that the question of consideration might not be
raised and said:
The Chair would state that the gentleman has moved to take up this
bill, which was agreed to, and the Chair thinks that that is equivalent
to a question of consideration.
2444. The question of consideration is admitted in the Committee of
the Whole on Calendar Wednesday.
On February 16, 1910,\3\ the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union under the Calendar Wednesday rule
for the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 163) for painting
portraits of certain ex-Speakers of the House of Representatives.
Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, demanded the question of
consideration against the resolution.
Mr. Charles H. Burke, of South Dakota, made a point of order against
the request for the question of consideration.
After debate, the Chairman \4\ ruled:
The gentleman from New York raised the question of consideration. As
to whether this may be the proper time or not, the Chair rules that
this is the first opportunity on which the question could be raised. As
touching the question of the effect of the raising of the point of
order and the discussion of that proposition, the Chair reads now from
the Index of the Digest as follows:
``A point of order which, if sustained, might prevent the
consideration of the bill, should be made and decided before the
question of consideration is put.''
The question of consideration, therefore, can be now considered and
the question is, Will the committee consider the resolution?
2445. Under the later practice it has been held that the question of
consideration may be raised against a Union Calendar bill in the House
on Calendar Wednesday.
On December 17, 1924,\5\ it being Calendar Wednesday, Mr. Fiorello H.
LaGuardia, of New York, by direction of the Committee on the Post
Office and Post Roads, called up the bill (H. R. 6942) establishing an
air mail service.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, raised the question of consideration
against the bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4201.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1974.
\4\ Charles G. Washburn, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
\5\ Second session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 738.
Sec. 2446
The question being taken, on a division, the yeas were 106, nays 23,
and the Speaker \1\ announced:
The House automatically resolves itself into Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union.
2446. It is in order on Calendar Wednesday to raise the question of
consideration against a Union Calendar bill when called up for
consideration in the House and before resolving into the Committee of
the Whole.
The question of consideration against a bill being decided in the
affirmative on Calendar Wednesday, the House automatically resolves
into the Committee of the Whole, and no intervening business, as the
motion to adjourn or questions of privilege, are in order.
On April 28, 1926,\2\ when the Committee on Foreign Affairs was
reached in the Calendar Wednesday call of committees, Mr. Hamilton
Fish, jr., of New York, in behalf of that committee, called up the bill
(H. R. 9694) to erect an American military monument in France.
Mr. Tom Connally, of Texas, offered as privileged a motion to
dispense with proceedings in order on Calendar Wednesday under the
Calendar Wednesday rule.
The Speaker pro tempore \3\ ruled:
In the opinion of the Chair, the motion of the gentleman from New
York is of higher privilege than the motion of the gentleman from
Texas. It is within the province of the committee to call up any bill
it has on the calendar. Of course, the gentleman from Texas can raise
the question of consideration.
Thereupon, Mr. Connally raised the question of consideration against
the bill.
The question being put, it was decided in the affirmative, yeas 224,
nays 91.
Pending the announcement resolving the House into the Committee of
the Whole, Mr. Connally moved that the House adjourn.
Mr. Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, made the point of order
that the question of consideration having been decided in the
affirmative the House automatically resolved into the Committee of the
Whole, and no intervening motion was in order.
The Speaker \4\ sustained the point of order and announced:
The Chair sustains the point of order made against the motion to
adjourn, and the House automatically resolves itself into Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the
bill.
2447. The question of consideration may be raised against unfinished
business on the House Calendar in order under the Calendar Wednesday
rule.
The question of consideration is not debatable.
On Wednesday, December 14, 1910,\5\ the Committee on the Revision of
the Laws having been reached under the Calendar Wednesday call of
committees,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\2\ First session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 8383.
\3\ Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
\4\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
\5\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 297.
Sec. 2447
Mr. Reuben O. Moon, of Pennsylvania, from that committee, called up as
the unfinished business the bill (H. R. 23377) to amend the laws
relating to the judiciary.
Mr. William Hughes, of New Jersey, asked recognition to raise the
question of consideration against the bill.
Mr. Moon was proceeding in debate when Mr. Marlin E. Olmsted, of
Pennsylvania, made the point of order that the question of
consideration was not debatable.
The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order.
Mr. Olmsted submitted the further point of order that the question of
consideration might not be interposed touching a bill under
consideration.
After debate, the Speaker ruled:
Calendar Wednesday was set aside for the consideration of bills
called up by committees, each committee being entitled to two days at
least for the consideration of business so presented. The question of
consideration under the general practice of the House and under the
rules and precedents of the House could not be raised except at the
proper time, and the proper time would be prior to the beginning of
debate.
The question of consideration of this bill was not raised on last
calendar Wednesday, but this is another day, and the House, in
pursuance of the business on calendar Wednesday, is met by a question
of consideration upon the bill which came over as unfinished business
from last calendar Wednesday. So that, while under the practice of the
House the question of consideration might not have been raised last
Wednesday after debate had begun on this bill, yet on this day, before
debate begins again, we have the question presented whether the
question of consideration can be raised upon the bill.
There are no precedents exactly in point, and yet the rule should
receive the construction that would enable the House to have the
greatest liberty to determine what it will do on a given day. The
object of the question of consideration is to enable the House to
protect itself on any day against business which it may not wish to
consider on that day. Should the House to-day be constrained to
consider a bill against its will simply because it has begun
consideration of the bill on a preceding day? It has been well said by
the gentleman from Illinois that unless the House can at the proper
time dispose of this bill by refusing to consider it, it may, under the
rule, be bound to consider it until its consideration can be completed,
unless it be willing to postpone it indefinitely or to defeat it
entirely by a proper motion.
The Chair finds little to guide him in the precedents in disposing of
this point of order. The Chair is inclined, however, to say that the
House may at the proper time--and if there be the any proper time
before we enter upon the consideration of this bill to-day, this would
be the proper time--determine whether it will refuse to consider
unfinished business. There are two decisions which involve cases
somewhat similar. They are to be found in the Precedents, volume 5,
sections 4967, 4968. The Chair does not care to again put them in the
Record. The House ought not to be deprived of the right to do what it
desires to do, or what a majority of the House desire to do, on any day
[applause] to a greater extent than is absolutely necessary for the
orderly conduct of business. Therefore the Chair overrules the point of
order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.