[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 11. Questions of Privilege]
[C. Basis of Questions of Privilege of the House]
[Â§ 10. Charges Involving House Officers or Employees]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1606-1608]
 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
            C. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 10. Charges Involving House Officers or Employees

Criticism of Speaker

Sec. 10.1 A newspaper column alleging that the Speaker took care to 
    insure that only Members amenable to a certain program were 
    appointed to the House Ways and Means Committee was held not to 
    give rise to a question of the privilege of the House.

    On May 2, 1956,(9) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rising to a question of the privilege of the House, presented a 
resolution (10) requesting the appointment of a committee to 
investigate and make recommendations concerning a newspaper column 
which charged that ``Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, had carefully 
scrutinized the House Ways and Means Committee to make sure nobody was 
put on the committee who might vote against the 27\1/2\ percent oil 
depletion allowance.'' The Speaker pro tempore,(11) in 
ruling the claim of privilege invalid, said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 102 Cong. Rec. 3838, 3839, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. H. Res. 417.
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair rules that the gentleman does not present a question 
    of the privilege of the House.

[[Page 1607]]

        It is perfectly all right for the Speaker or any Member to 
    advocate a 27\1/2\ percent depletion. The resolution does not 
    present a question which involves the privilege of the House.

Criticism of Doorkeeper

Sec. 10.2 A resolution proposing to deny a newspaper report that the 
    Doorkeeper of the House acted rudely in accomplishing the removal 
    of a visitor from the gallery was held not to raise a question of 
    the privilege of the House.

    On July 9, 1935,(12) Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, 
offered as a matter raising a question of the privilege of the House a 
resolution proposing the denial of a newspaper report which charged 
that the Doorkeeper of the House rudely forced a mother who was breast-
feeding her child to leave the gallery of the House. Mr. Earl C. 
Michener, of Michigan, interrupted the reading of the resolution to 
make the point of order that the resolution did not give rise to a 
question of the privilege of the House. In his ruling sustaining the 
point of order, the Speaker (13) stated: ``The Chair 
suggests that the gentleman from Texas ask unanimous consent that the 
resolution be read. The Chair does not think the resolution is 
privileged.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 79 Cong. Rec. 10905, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By unanimous consent, the reading of the resolution continued. Mr. 
Blanton then asked unanimous consent for consideration of the 
resolution, but objection was heard.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 79 Cong. Rec. 10906, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Improper or Unauthorized Actions by Committee Employee

Sec. 10.3 A resolution alleging that a committee employee appeared in a 
    court as special counsel for a committee of the House without the 
    authorization of the House was presented as a question of the 
    privilege of the House.

    On July 1, 1952,(15~) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
presented as a matter involving a question of the privilege of the 
House a resolution alleging that a committee employee appeared in the 
United States District Court for the Southern District of California as 
special counsel for a subcommittee of the Committee on Executive 
Expenditures without the authorization of the House. Debate on the 
resolution ensued, at the con
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 98 Cong. Rec. 8768, 8769, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1608]]

clusion of which a motion to refer the resolution to the Committee on 
the Judiciary was agreed to.