[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 11. Questions of Privilege]
[E. Basis of Questions of Personal Privilege]
[Â§ 24. Introductory; General Opinion or Criticism]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1660-1665]
 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
              E. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
 
Sec. 24. Introductory; General Opinion or Criticism


    Rule IX defines questions of personal privilege as those that 
affect the ``rights, reputation, and conduct'' of individual Members in 
their representative capacity.(15) To give rise to a 
question of personal privilege, a criticism must reflect directly on 
the Member's integrity or reputation.(16) Mere statements of 
opinion about or general criticism of his voting record or views do not 
constitute adequate grounds for a question of personal 
privilege.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. House Rules and Manual Sec. 661 (1973).
16. Sec. 24.1, infra.
17. Sec. 24.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is not in order by way of a point of personal privilege or by 
raising a question of the privilege

[[Page 1661]]

of the House to collaterally attack an order previously adopted by the 
House.(18) Similarly, the refusal of Members in charge of 
time for general debate on a bill to allot time therefor to a Member 
does not give such Member grounds for a question of personal privilege. 
Thus, in one instance,(19) a Member claimed the floor for a 
question of personal privilege and proceeded to discuss the fact that 
the Member in charge of time for general debate on a bill had refused 
to assign him any time for that purpose. However, the Speaker 
(20) ruled that the Member's request for time could not be 
brought up by way of a question of personal privilege. Said the 
Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 114 Cong. Rec. 30214, 30215, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. See Sec. 3.2, 
        supra, for a detailed discussion of this precedent.
19. 79 Cong. Rec. 5454, 5455, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 11, 1935.
20. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The rules provide that a Member may rise to a question of 
    personal privilege where his rights, reputation, and conduct 
    individually, in his representative capacity, is assailed or 
    reflected upon. The Chair fails to see where the gentleman has 
    presented a question of personal privilege which will bring himself 
    within that rule. The rules provide for the conduct of the business 
    of the House. . . .
        . . . They provide the method of procedure. If this rule is 
    adopted the gentleman may, of course, appeal to those who have 
    charge of the time for time, but there are 435 Members of the 
    House, and the gentleman must appreciate, as the Chair does, that 
    it is impossible for those gentlemen to yield to everyone. However, 
    the Chair is very sure that opportunity will be afforded the 
    gentleman sometime during the discussion of the bill to express his 
    views.
        The Chair fails to see where the gentleman has been denied any 
    right that has not been denied to every Member of this House. The 
    gentleman has his right of appeal to get time, as the Chair stated, 
    if this rule is adopted. If the rule is not adopted and the bill is 
    taken up, then the gentleman may proceed under the rules of the 
    House. The Chair fails to see where the gentleman has raised a 
    question of personal 
    privilege.                          -------------------

Criticism of Member's Legislative Activity or Position

Sec. 24.1 Ordinarily, a Member may not rise to a question of personal 
    privilege merely because there has been some criticism of his 
    legislative activity. A question of personal privilege ordinarily 
    involves a reflection on a Member's integrity or reputation. Thus, 
    it was ruled that a Member could not rise to a question of personal 
    privilege where he had been criticized merely for certain 
    questionnaires he had distributed.

[[Page 1662]]

    On June 18, 1936,(1) Mr. Kent E. Keller, of Illinois, 
offered as a matter involving a question of the privilege of the House 
a resolution deploring the allegedly unauthorized action taken by Mr. 
Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, whereby he addressed questionnaires to 
school teachers in the District of Columbia requesting their opinions 
on communism. A point of order was raised by Mr. Claude A. Fuller, of 
Arkansas, asserting that the offered resolution did not involve a 
question of the privilege of the House. When the Chair sustained the 
point of order, Mr. Blanton sought to address the House on the ground 
that the resolution gave rise to a point of personal privilege:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 80 Cong. Rec. 9947, 9948, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 86 Cong. 
        Rec. 11046-49, 11150-58, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 27, 1940; 
        and 79 Cong. Rec. 494, 495, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 16, 
        1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Blanton: Mr. Speaker, since this ridiculous resolution has 
    been read into the Record and will go in the press, and every fair-
    minded man in the House knows that votes for it here would be 
    negligible and it could not be passed, I think it is only fair that 
    the House should give me 5 minutes, and I ask unanimous consent to 
    proceed for 5 minutes.
        The Speaker: Is there objection?
        Mr. [Martin J.] Kennedy of New York: I object.
        Mr. Blanton: Mr. Speaker, of course, one objection can prevent 
    it, so I rise to a question of personal privilege.
        The Speaker: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Blanton: I submit the last four clauses of the resolution 
    just read, which was filed here by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Keller], without any notice whatever to me, at a time when I was in 
    a Senate conference, working for this House, and did get an 
    agreement with the Senate conferees on an important appropriation 
    bill, will be used by ``red'' newspapers as a reflection upon me, 
    although, as a matter of fact, it cannot hurt me or my good name in 
    any way. I had no notice that this resolution was to be offered, 
    and I was called out of that conference with Senate managers after 
    the resolution had been sent to the Clerk's desk for consideration. 
    While under a strict interpretation of the rules I realize full 
    well that because the resolution does not reflect upon me, and will 
    not hurt me, it does not constitute privilege, but I feel that I 
    should raise the question to show what a great injustice was done 
    me by it being presented. I submit that, as a matter of personal 
    privilege, I should have a right to be heard.
        The Speaker: The Chair stated that in his opinion the subject 
    matter stated in the resolution was not of such nature as reflected 
    upon the gentleman from Texas.

        The Chair is of the opinion that the matter stated by the 
    gentleman from Texas does not constitute a question of personal 
    privilege.

Sec. 24.2 The mere statement of opinion by a group of news

[[Page 1663]]

    paper correspondents with reference to a Member's record or 
    position in the House does not present a question of personal 
    privilege.

    On Mar. 27, 1939,(3) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rising to a question of personal privilege, called the attention of the 
House to a magazine article in which it was stated that a poll of 
newsmen revealed their opinion that Mr. Hoffman was among the least 
useful Members of the House. In ruling on the question of personal 
privilege, the Speaker (4) made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 84 Cong. Rec. 3361, 3362, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Michigan rises to A question of personal 
    privilege, which question is based upon the language he has just 
    read from a paper he held in his hand. It seems that the gravamen 
    of the matter relates to a newspaper poll that was purported to 
    have been made with reference to the usefulness, standing, and so 
    forth, of Members of the House of Representatives.
        Of course, there are sometimes border-line cases in which it is 
    rather difficult for the Chair to reach, for himself, a definite 
    conclusion on the question of personal privilege, but the Chair 
    thinks the rule should again be stated because this question is 
    frequently stated.
        Rule IX provides:

                             Questions of Privilege

            Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the 
        rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the 
        integrity of its proceedings; second, the rights, reputation, 
        and conduct of Members, individually, in their representative 
        capacity only; and shall have precedence of all other questions 
        except motions to adjourn.

        The gentleman from Michigan takes the position that this 
    newspaper criticism, if the Chair may call it that, states a 
    question of personal privilege. While the Chair is inclined to give 
    the greatest elasticity and liberality to questions of personal 
    privilege when raised, the Chair is of the opinion that in this 
    particular instance the mere statement of opinion by a group of 
    newspaper correspondents with reference to a Member's record or 
    position in the House of Representatives does not present in fact, 
    or under the rules of the House, a matter of personal privilege.
        Therefore, the Chair is constrained to rule that the gentleman 
    has not presented a question of personal privilege.

Sec. 24.3 A newspaper statement asserting that all House Members from a 
    specific delegation support a certain bill was held not to give 
    rise to a question of personal privilege to a Member of such 
    delegation opposed to the bill.

    On Mar. 31, 1938,(5) Mr. Michael J. Stack, of 
Pennsylvania,

[[Page 1664]]

rising to a question of personal privilege, read a newspaper statement 
which asserted that it was understood that all members of the 
Philadelphia delegation favored an effective reorganization bill. In 
fact, the Member was uncommitted regarding such a bill. At the 
conclusion of the Member's statement of the question, the Speaker 
(6) said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 83 Cong. Rec. 4473, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
 6. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman has very cleverly gained recognition to make a 
    statement stating his attitude on the bill which is to come before 
    the House, but the Chair is of the opinion the gentleman does not 
    state a matter of personal privilege.

Sec. 24.4 A newspaper article alleging that a minority report filed by 
    a Member had been written by employees of a political party was 
    held not to involve a question of personal privilege.

    On Mar. 30, 1939,(7) Mr. Wallace E. Pierce, of New York, 
submitted as a question of personal privilege a statement from a 
newspaper article alleging that a minority report which Mr. Pierce had 
filed as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary had been written by 
several employees of the Republican National Committee. In his decision 
on the question, the Speaker (8~) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 84 Cong. Rec. 3552-54, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair, of course, can well understand the indignation 
    of any Member of the House at a newspaper article that appears to 
    be absolutely unfair or critical of his conduct as a Member of the 
    House, but on this question of personal privilege the Chair is of 
    course compelled to follow the precedents of the House, very few of 
    which were established by the present occupant of the Chair.
        The Chair has read the newspaper article which the gentleman 
    from New York has read, to see if under the precedents and under 
    the philosophy of the rule, the gentleman would be entitled to 
    present this matter as a question of personal privilege. The Chair, 
    within the past few days, has upon several occasions read into the 
    Record the rule affecting this question of personal privilege. 
    There are several precedents upon this particular question of 
    newspaper criticism. One of them is found in section 2712 of Hinds' 
    Precedents, volume 3:

            A newspaper article in the nature of criticism of a 
        Member's acts in the House does not present a question of 
        personal privilege.

      That is the syllabus of the decision.

        Another decision holds that a newspaper article criticizing 
    Members generally involves no question of privilege.
        Having recourse again to the precedents the Chair finds the 
    following: ``The fact that a Member is misrepresented in his acts 
    or speech does not constitute a matter of personal privi

[[Page 1665]]

    lege, nor does misrepresenting a Member's vote.''
        The Chair personally would be delighted to have the gentleman 
    from New York given the opportunity to address himself to the 
    membership of the House on the question presented by him. The 
    Chair, however, is constrained to rule in this instance as well as 
    all others according to the precedents of the House and therefore 
    rules that the matter complained of does not, in the opinion of the 
    Chair, constitute a matter of personal privilege.

Sec. 24.5 A newspaper article asserting that a Congressman's staff 
    greeted a labor union delegation with copies of a pamphlet critical 
    of the union and questioning the use of a Congressman's office as a 
    distribution center for such material was held not to give rise to 
    a question of personal privilege.

    On Mar. 23, 1945,(9) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
presented as involving a question of personal privilege a newspaper 
article asserting that his office staff had greeted a CIO delegation 
with copies of ``Join the CIO and help build a Soviet America,'' and 
questioning the use of a Congressman's office as a distribution center 
for such material. After the Member's presentation of the objectionable 
article the Speaker (10) in his ruling on the question 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 2665, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        What the gentleman has read so far is hardly sufficient to 
    entitle the gentleman to recognition on a question of personal 
    privilege.

Sec. 24.6 Language in a newspaper stating that a Member was ``very 
    generous with government money,''and that he had introduced bills 
    which would cost the government $125 billion, was held not to give 
    rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On Jan. 30, 1950,(11) Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, submitted as involving the question of personal privilege 
a newspaper article which stated in part
that ``Representative Rankin is very generous--with Government money,'' 
and declaring that he had introduced bills which would cost the 
government $125 billion. The Speaker (12) ruled that the 
remarks referred to did not involve a question of personal privilege. 
However, the Member was granted recognition for one minute to answer 
the allegations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 96 Cong. Rec. 1093, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1666]]