[Hinds' Precedents, Volume 4]
[Chapter 93 - Bills Returned Without the President's Approval]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
BILLS RETURNED WITHOUT THE PRESIDENT'S APPROVAL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Provision of the Constitution. Section 3520.
2. Reception of veto message in House. Sections 3521-3523.
3. Bills passed over the veto. Sections 3524-3529.
4. Privilege of motions relating to a veto message. Sections
3530-3533.
5. Consideration of veto messages in the House. Sections 3534-
3552.\1\
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3520. A bill which the President does not approve he returns with his
objections to the House in which it originated.
The House to which a bill is returned with the objections of the
President enters the objections on the Journal and proceeds to
reconsider it.
If two-thirds of the House to which a bill is returned with the
President's objections agree to pass it, and then two-thirds of the
other House, it becomes a law.
On a vote on passing a bill returned with the objections of the
President the yeas and nays are required to be entered on the Journal.
A bill not returned by the President within ten days (Sundays
excepted) becomes a law as if signed, unless Congress by adjournment
prevent its return.
The Constitution of the United States in Section 7 of Article 1
provides:
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and
the Senate, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the
President of the United States. If he approve, he shall sign it, but if
not, he shall return it with his objections to that House in which it
shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their
journal and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration
two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be
sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it
shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that
House it shall become a law. 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. If any bill shall not be returned by the
President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been
presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had
signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return,
in which case it shall not be a law.
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the
Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a
question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the
United States, and before the same shall take effect shall be approved
by him, or being disapproved by him shall be repassed by two-thirds of
the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and
limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Question of consideration not in order as against. Sections 4969,
4970 of Vol. V.
Sec. 3521
3521. A veto message may not be returned to the President of the
United States.--On August 15, 1876,\1\ two messages from the President
were laid before the Senate successively. Both were dated the same day.
The first returned with objections the bill (S. 779) providing for the
sale of certain Indian lands (Otoe and Sac and Fox); and the second
stated that the President requested the return of the former message,
as he was convinced that the bill should be signed.
Mr. George F. Edmunds, of Vermont, raised the question that, as the
Constitution was explicit, the bill could not be returned to the
President. The Senate must now act. This view was concurred in
generally, and the question was taken on the passage of the bill. The
bill was passed.
3522. A veto message of the President may not be read in the absence
of a quorum, even though the House be about to adjourn sine die.
A vetoed bill, not acted on before adjournment sine die, because of
the failure of a quorum, was acted on at the next session of the same
Congress.
On August 3, 1854,\2\ a message was received from the President of
the United States transmitting his objections to the river and harbor
appropriation bill. Before this message was read, a quorum failed, and
when a demand was made for the reading of the message, the Speaker \3\
overruled the demand on the ground that no quorum was present.
A quorum not appearing on the next day, a question arose as to the
disposition of the message under the Constitutional requirements as to
bills returned without the Executive approval. It was certain that no
quorum would appear by the time fixed for adjournment sine die.
The Speaker \3\ stated that the message would be spread on the
Journal of the 3d. There was a quorum, according to his recollection,
when the message was received. Soon afterwards the House found itself
without a quorum, and no motion was made or action taken on the
message. But the Chair thought that under the provision of the
Constitution the message should go on the Journal.
So the message appears on the Journal.
On December 4, 1854, the first day of the next session, as soon as
the House was ready for business the Speaker directed the message to be
read. It was ordered printed, and on December 6 the question was taken
as provided by the Constitution.
3523. A motion to adjourn was held in order, although if carried the
effect would have been to prevent for the session the consideration of
a veto message of the President.--On March 3, 1855,\4\ in the closing
hours of the session a message was received from the President
transmitting his objections to the bill making appropriations for the
transportation of the United States mails.
Pending consideration of this message, a motion was made by Mr. John
Wheeler of New York, that the House adjourn.
Mr. Phillip Phillips, of Alabama, made the point of order that the
House was
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 5664.
\2\ First session Thirty-third Congress, Journal, p. 1340; Globe, pp.
2144, 2221. Second session, Journal, pp. 8, 49; Globe, p. 2.
\3\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Thirty-third Congress, Globe, p. 1157.
Sec. 3524
bound under the Constitution to consider a veto message, and that
therefore a motion to adjourn on the last day of the session before
consideration of the message was contrary to the Constitution.
The Speaker \1\ said:
The Chair decides that it is competent for this House to adjourn if
it chooses to do so, and no debate can arise on the proposition that
the House do now adjourn.
The motion to adjourn was decided in the negative.\2\
3524. A bill passed, notwithstanding the objections of the President,
is sent by the presiding officer in the House which last acts on it to
the Secretary of State for preservation.--The statutes of the United
States \3\ provide that--
Whenever a bill, order, resolution, or vote is returned by the
President with his objections and on being reconsidered is agreed to be
passed and is approved by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and
thereby becomes a law or takes effect, it shall be received by the
Secretary of State from the President of the Senate or Speaker of the
House of Representatives, in whichsoever House it shall last have been
approved, and he shall carefully preserve the originals.
3525. Before the enactment of the statute the House directed the
Clerk to take to the Secretary of State its bills passed over the
President's veto.--On July 17, 1866,\4\ a message from the Senate
announced that they had passed over the veto of the President the bill
(H. R. 613) to continue in force and amend an act to establish a bureau
for the relief of freedmen and refugees, which had already been
similarly passed by the House.
On July 18, by unanimous consent, Mr. Thomas D. Eliot, of
Massachusetts, offered the following resolution, which was agreed to:
Resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives be directed
to present to the Secretary of State the act entitled ``An act to
continue in force and to amend an act for the relief of freedmen and
refugees, and for other purposes,'' together with the certificates of
the Clerk of the House of Representatives and Secretary of the Senate
showing that the said act was passed by a vote of two-thirds of both
Houses of Congress after the objections of the President thereto had
been received and after the reconsideration of said act by both Houses,
in accordance with the Constitution.
On the same day the Speaker laid before the House a letter from the
Clerk informing the House that he did this day, in accordance with the
resolution of the House, present to the Secretary of State the act,
etc.
3526. On March 2, 1867,\5\ a message from the Senate announced that
that body had passed over the veto of the President the bill (H. R.
1143) to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States.
Then, on motion of Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania,
Resolved, That the Clerk of the House be directed to present to the
Secretary of State the bill entitled ``An act to provide for the more
efficient government of the rebel States,'' together with the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\2\ In 1876 two bills returned to the House by the President of the
United States without his approval were referred to a committee and not
acted on further. A new bill on the subject of one of these bills was
reported by the committee. (First session Forty-fourth Congress, bills
H. R. 1922 and H. R. 4085. See history of bills in Journal and Record.)
\3\ Second session Forty-third Congress, Laws, 18 Stat., p. 294.
\4\ First session Thirty-ninth Congress, Journal, pp. 1030, 1039,
1050; Globe, p. 3905.
\5\ Second session Thirty-ninth Congress, Journal, pp. 583, 604.
Sec. 3527
certificates of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the
Secretary of the Senate showing that the said act was pawed by a vote
of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress after the same had been
returned to the House of Representatives by the President with his
objections and after the reconsideration of said act by both Houses of
Congress, in accordance with the Constitution.
On the same day the Speaker laid before the House a letter from the
Clerk stating that, according to the instruction of the House, he had
presented the bill to the Secretary of State.
On March 7, 1867,\1\ the Clerk transmitted to the House a letter from
the Secretary of State acknowledging the receipt of the act and
announcing his purpose to promulgate it.
3527. On March 25, 1867,\2\ the House received a message from the
Senate announcing that that body had passed over the veto of the
President the bill (H. R. 33) supplemental to the act for the more
efficient government of the rebel States, and on the same day the
House, by resolution, directed the Clerk to present the bill to the
Secretary of State. On March 26 \3\ the Clerk presented to the House
the acknowledgment of the Secretary of State.
3528. Since the enactment of the statute the House takes no special
action in relation to transmitting to the Secretary of State bills
passed over the President's veto.--In 1876 \4\ several bills were
passed over the veto of the President, and it does not appear that in
the case of any one of them any resolution was adopted providing for
filing them with the Secretary of State:
S. 779. (First session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 1511;
Record, pp. 5664, 5696.)
S. 489. (Journal, p. 1014; Record, pp. 3229, 3347.)
H. R. 1337. (Journal, pp. 1345, 1361; Record, pp. 4940, 5011.)
3529. On February 28, 1878,\5\ the President returned to the House
with his disapproval the bill (H. R. 1093) to authorize the coinage of
the standard silver dollar and to restore its legal-tender character.
Upon reconsideration the House passed the bill, yeas 196, nays 73, and
the bill was taken to the Senate. On March 1 a message from the Senate
announced that the Senate had passed the bill, two-thirds of the Senate
agreeing to the same. It does not appear that any further action was
taken with a view to transmitting the bill to the Secretary of State.
3530. Resolutions relating to the disposition of bills passed over
the veto of the President have been treated as privileged.--On June 23
and 26, 1868,\6\ resolutions directing the Clerk to present to the
Secretary of State acts passed over the veto of the President were
presented and received in the House as privileged.
3531. A bill returned with the President's objections is privileged,
but the same is not true of a bill reported in lieu of it.--On August
15, 1876,\7\ Mr. George Willard, of Michigan, claiming the floor for a
question of privilege,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fortieth Congress, Journal, p. 15.
\2\ First session Fortieth Congress, Journal, pp. 106, 112.
\3\ Journal, p. 119.
\4\ See history of bills, Record and Journal, first session Forty-
fourth Congress.
\5\ Second session Forty-fifth Congress, Journal, pp. 550, 555;
Record, pp. 1420, 1427.
\6\ Second session Fortieth Congress, Journal, pp. 917, 933.
\7\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 5689.
Sec. 3532
reported back the bill (H. R. 4085), which had been returned with the
President's objections, from the Committee on the District of Columbia,
with a new bill (H. R. 4108) in lieu thereof.
The Speaker pro tempore \1\ said:
The Chair must state that this is not a privileged question. The
gentleman has a right to report back the original bill so that the
House may vote upon passing it over the veto of the President.
3532. A motion to discharge a committee from the consideration of a
vetoed bill presents a question of constitutional privilege and is in
order at any time.--On July 29, 1886,\2\ Mr. Julius C. Burrows, of
Michigan, moved to discharge the Committee on Invalid Pensions from the
further consideration of the bill (H. R. 4058) relating to Joel D.
Monroe.
Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, made the point of order that it
was not in order to move, as a privileged matter, to discharge a
committee from the consideration of a bill. Although this bill was
privileged, yet it was in the hands of the committee, and it was the
duty of that committee to report it.
The Speaker \3\ ruled:
The Constitution of the United States provides that when the
President returns a bill to the House in which it originated, with his
objections, that House shall proceed to reconsider it and determine
whether the bill shall be again passed, the objection of the President
to the contrary notwithstanding. The Constitution of the United States
provides also that each House shall judge of the election, returns, and
qualification of its own Members, and may make its own rules for the
government of its proceedings; and yet it has been always held that
under that provision of the Constitution, which does not in terms make
it imperative upon the House to proceed to consider election cases, a
motion to discharge the Committee on Elections from the further
consideration of a contested case and bring the same before the House
was privileged. The Chair so decided only a few days ago, when the
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Turner, moved to discharge the Committee on
Elections from the further consideration of a contested case from the
State of Rhode Island. The Chair think that the privilege in the
present case is certainly equal to that in the case of a contested
election.
3533. The House has declined to give privilege to a motion to
discharge a committee from the consideration of an ordinary matter of
legislation.--The motion to discharge a committee from the
consideration of an ordinary legislative proposition has no privileged
status, and consequently may not intrude on the order of business. On
February 27, 1880,\4\ during the revision of the rules, Mr. John F.
House, of Tennessee, proposed a rule that when for fifty days a
committee should fail to report a public bill or resolution it should
be in order on any Monday to move to discharge the committee and place
the bill or resolution on the Calendar. In the debate it was urged that
the Commerce Committee was defying the wishes of the House by declining
to report the bill to regulate interstate commerce. The Committee of
the Whole disagreed to the proposed rule, ayes 61, noes 75.
On February 7, 1884,\5\ Mr. Oscar Turner, of Kentucky, proposed a
rule that whenever a committee should have failed or refused for forty
days to report back a bill either favorably or adversely it should be
in order for the Member who had
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Milton Sayler, of Ohio, Speaker pro tempore.
\2\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 7699; Journal, p.
2397.
\3\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1199-1202.
\5\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 964-973.
Sec. 3534
introduced the bill to move on any Tuesday to discharge the committee,
with the object of having the bill considered by the House. In
opposition to this proposition Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, pointed
out that the House could hardly act on more than 8 per cent of the
bills referred; and while nonaction by a committee might be an evil,
the House could not afford to put into the hands of the individual
Member a privileged motion that would relate to nine-tenths of the
business of the House and would result in much consumption of time. Mr.
Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, following in the same line, urged
that it would not be wise to provide that any bill which could not
secure the recommendation of a committee should be precipitated upon
the House for a final vote, yea or nay. The House disagreed to the
rule, ayes 56, noes 15.
When the House desires to discharge a committee from a legislative
proposition, it may be done by suspension of the rules or on a report
from the Committee on Rules.
3534. It is the usual but not invariable rule that a bill returned
with the objections of the President shall be read and considered at
once.
Form of putting the question on the passage of a bill returned with
the objections of the President. (Footnote.)
On June 29, 1842,\1\ President Tyler transmitted to the House his
veto of the bill of the House, ``An act to extend for a limited period
the present laws for laying and collecting duties on imports.'' The
House proceeded to the reconsideration of the bill, and the question,
that the House on reconsideration do agree to pass the same, the
objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding,\2\ was
stated. The question was debated from day to day, and on July 4 the
House again resumed the reconsideration of the bill. The previous
question was ordered, and the main question, ``That the House on
reconsideration do agree to pass the bill,'' was then determined in the
mode prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, there being
114 yeas and 97 nays.
3535. On August 3, 1846,\3\ the President returned with his
objections the bill entitled ``An act making appropriations for the
improvement of certain harbors and rivers.''
The message having been read,\4\ Mr. George Ashmun, of Massachusetts,
raised the point that according to the Constitution the message must be
spread upon the Journal before the House could proceed to its
reconsideration.
The Speaker \5\ decided that by the rules of construction and the
practice of the House the message was considered as already spread on
the Journal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 1032, 1051;
Globe, pp. 695, 717.
\2\ The form now in use by the Speaker in putting the question is:
``Will the House on reconsideration agree to pass the bill, the
objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?'' (Record,
p. 1183, second session, Fifty-fourth Congress.)
\3\ First session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, pp. 1209, 1214,
1218; Globe, p. 1183.
\4\ On June 15, 1880 (second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p.
4587), the Senate declined to have read a veto message just received
from the President, and on the next day, June 16 (Record, p. 4612), the
Senate by a vote of yeas 30, nays 17, voted to go to other business
instead of having the message read. This was a message of President
Hayes vetoing a bill relating to chief supervisors of elections. On
June 16 the Congress adjourned sine die without hearing the message.
\5\ John W. Davis, of Indiana, Speaker.
Sec. 3536
The House then proceeded to the reconsideration of the bill, and
after some proposals for postponement, the previous question being
ordered, the main question ``Will the House, on reconsideration, agree
to pass the bill'' was determined in the mode prescribed by the
Constitution of the United States; when it appeared, for passing, the
bill 97 against it 91. And so the bill was not passed, two-thirds of
the House, on reconsideration, not agreeing to pass the same.
3536. On February 17, 1855,\1\ during the consideration of the bill
(H. R. 595) making an appropriation for mail steamers, the main
question having been ordered, and the yeas and nays having been ordered
on a motion to reconsider the vote by which an amendment had been
agreed to, a message was received transmitting the reasons of the
President for not approving the bill for the ascertainment of certain
French spoliation claims. Mr. Speaker Boyd raised a question as to
whether the veto message should be laid before the House at once. After
consultation, it was decided that the House should dispose of the
pending bill before considering the message, and it was done in that
way.
3537. A vetoed bill received in the House by way of the Senate is
considered as if received directly from the President and supersedes
the regular order of business.
The two-thirds vote required to pass a bill notwithstanding the
objections of the President is ``two-thirds of the members present.''
On July 8, 1856,\2\ Mr. Solomon G. Haven, of New York, as a question
of privilege, asked that the House proceed to the reconsideration of
the bill of the Senate (S. 1) entitled ``An act making an appropriation
for deepening the channel over the St. Clair flats, in the State of
Michigan.''
Mr. Thomas L. Clingman, of North Carolina, objected, holding that
there was nothing in the Constitution which made this a question of
privilege. The Constitution provided that the House should consider
again a vetoed bill, but did not say when it should do it.
The Speaker \3\ said:
This message having been received from the Senate, with the
accompanying message from the President of the United States, the Chair
thinks that it is a matter which supersedes the ordinary business of
the House, and must be considered at this time, subject to the rules of
the House. The Chair places his decision upon the following grounds: If
the bill had originated in the House, and had been returned by the
President, with his objections, the language of the Constitution would
have required the House to proceed at once to the consideration of the
bill, with the objections of the President. The case before us,
however, differs in this: The bill having originated in the Senate, it
comes to us from that body, and in a different form. The duty of the
House is prescribed in the seventh section of the Constitution, in this
language: ``If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that House
shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the
objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be
considered.'' The Chair thinks that the proper interpretation of the
word ``likewise'' is, ``in like manner,'' as in the House where the
bill originated.
The Speaker referred to the action of the House in 1845, on the bill
S. No. 66, which came up under similar circumstances, and which the
House at once considered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Thirty-third Congress, Globe, p. 797.
\2\ First session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 1176, 1178;
Globe, p. 1563.
\3\ Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 3538
The question being put on reconsideration, there were yeas 139, nays
55. So it was--
Resolved, That the bill do pass, two-thirds of the Members present
agreeing thereto.
In the same manner on the same day the bill of the Senate (S. 2),
entitled ``An act making an appropriation for deepening the channel
over the flats of the St. Marys River, in the State of Michigan,'' was
passed by a vote of 136 yeas to 54 nays, two-thirds of those present.
3538. Again, on August 11, 1856,\1\ the bill of the House (H. R. 12)
entitled ``An act for continuing the improvement of the Des Moines
Rapids, in the Mississippi River,'' was passed over the President's
veto by 130 yeas to 54 nays, two-thirds of those present.\2\
3539. It is the practice for one House to inform the other by message
of its decision that a bill returned with the President's objections
shall not pass.--On February 3, 1815,\3\ a message from the Senate
informed the House that the Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of
the bill, entitled ``An act to incorporate the subscribers to the bank
of the United States of America,'' which was returned by the President
of the United States on the 30th day of January, 1815, with objections;
and have resolved that the said bill do not pass, two-thirds of the
Senate not agreeing thereto.
3540. On May 31, 1830,\4\ a message was received from the Senate
informing the House that the bill ``authorizing a subscription of stock
in the Washington Turnpike Road Company,'' which the President had that
day returned to the Senate with his objections to the same, had not
passed, two-thirds of the Senate not voting for the passage thereof, as
required by the Constitution.
3541. On July 13, 1832,\5\ a message from the Senate announced that
in the Senate the bill to continue the incorporation of the bank of the
United States, which had been returned with the objections of the
President, had not passed, ``two-thirds of the Senators present not
agreeing thereto.''
3542. The constitutional mandate that the House ``shall proceed to
reconsider'' a vetoed bill has been held not to preclude a motion to
postpone consideration to a day certain.--On May 27, 1830,\6\ President
Jackson sent to the House his message vetoing the bill authorizing a
subscription to the stock of the Maysville and Washington Turnpike Road
Company in Kentucky.
The message being read, a motion was made by Mr. William W. Irvin, of
Ohio, that the House do now proceed to reconsider the bill.
A motion was made by Mr. Henry Daniel, of Kentucky, that the
reconsideration of the bill be postponed until to-morrow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 1420; Globe, p.
2036.
\2\ The principle that two-thirds of those present are sufficient was
established on March 3, 1945 (second session Twenty-eighth Congress,
Journal, p. 567; Globe, p. 396), when the House passed a Senate bill
over a veto by a vote of yeas 127, nays 30, a yea vote considerably
less than two-thirds of the entire membership. Mr. Speaker Jones
declared ``that the bill was passed by the constitutional majority of
two-thirds.'' On July 7, 1856 (first session Thirty-fourth Congress,
Senate Journal, p. 419; Globe, pp. 1544-1550) President pro tempore
Bright made in the Senate a formal ruling based on this House practice,
and after learned debate was sustained on appeal, yeas 34, nays 7.
\3\ Third session Thirteenth Congress, Journal, p. 705 (Gales and
Seaton ed.); Annals, p. 1120.
\4\ First session Twenty-first Congress, Journal, p. 812.
\5\ First session Twenty-second Congress, Journal, p. 1162.
\6\ First session Twenty-first Congress, Journal, p. 742; Debates, p.
1138.
Sec. 3543
Mr. Charles A. Wickliffe, of Kentucky, then made the following
motion: That this House will at 12 o'clock meridian, to-morrow, proceed
to the reconsideration of the said bill.
Mr. Daniel accepted this as a modification of his motion.
This motion as modified was agreed to after a futile effort by Mr.
Philip Doddridge, of Virginia, to strike out ``12 o'clock.''
The record of the debates says:
When the reading was concluded there arose a hurried and anxious
debate, involving no principle of the bill, but merely the question
whether the bill should be reconsidered instanter or whether the
reconsideration should be postponed until to-morrow. During the whole
of the proceeding there was a tendency to debate the main question and
an effort on the part of the Chair to confine the debate to the
question of postponement. In this Messrs. Irving of Ohio, Daniel,
Vance, Ingersoll, Brown, Potter, P. P. Barbour, Wickliffe, Polk, Bell,
Coleman, Letcher, Burges, Yancey, and Barringer participated. Finally,
as by common consent, it was agreed that the consideration could be
postponed until to-morrow, by which time it was supposed the message
would be printed and in the hands of every Member.
3543. On February 21, 1811,\1\ the President returned to the House
without his approval the bill ``incorporating the Protestant Episcopal
Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia.''
Discussion having arisen as to the procedure required by the
Constitution, Mr. Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina, moved that the
consideration of the bill be postponed until to-morrow, justifying the
motion by a precedent of April 5, 1792,\2\ when the House having heard
read the objections of President Washington to the bill making
apportionment of Representatives came to this resolution:
Resolved, That to-morrow be assigned for the reconsideration of said
bill, according to the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. Macon therefore offered his motion in the same terms, and it was
agreed to by the House.
3544. On June 11, 1844,\3\ President Tyler returned to the House,
with his objections, the bill entitled ``An act making appropriations
for the improvement of certain harbors and rivers.''
The message having been read, a motion was made by Mr. David L.
Seymour, of New York, that it be entered on the Journal and printed,
and that the message and bill be made a special order for Thursday
next.
Mr. Seymour moved the previous question, which was seconded; and the
main question was now ordered to be put.
The Speaker \4\ decided that the motion to postpone and print had
been set aside by the ordering of the previous question; \5\ and the
main question would be, ``Will the House, on reconsideration, agree to
pass the bill?''
A motion was made by Mr. Hannibal Hamlin, of Maine, that the vote by
which the House had ordered the main question to be now put, be
reconsidered; which was decided in the negative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Eleventh Congress, Journal, p. 567 (Gales and
Seaton ed.); Annals, pp. 983, 985.
\2\ First session Second Congress, Journal, pp. 563, 564 (Gales and
Seaton ed.).
\3\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 1081, 1084,
1085; Globe, p, 663.
\4\ John W. Jones, of Virginia, Speaker.
\5\ This was formerly the operation of the previous question.
Sec. 3545
The House then proceeded to the reconsideration of the bill.
The question was then put and determined in the mode prescribed by
the Constitution of the United States, when there appeared 104 yeas and
84 nays, so the bill was not passed, two-thirds of the House, on
reconsideration, not agreeing thereto.
3645. On December 4, 1854,\1\ the Speaker having announced, as the
business first in order, the message of the President of the United
States returning, with his objections, the bill of the House (No. 392)
entitled ``An act making appropriations for the repair, preservation,
and completion of certain public works heretofore commenced under the
authority of law,'' which was received on the eve of the adjournment of
the last session.
The same was read; when, on motion of Mr. Thomas L. Clingman, of
North Carolina, the further consideration of the bill, with the
objections of the President thereto, was postponed until Wednesday
next.
3546. On March 2, 1895,\2\ Mr. Hugh A. Dinsmore, of Arkansas, moved
that the Committee on Indian Affairs be discharged from the
consideration of the bill (H. R. 8681) authorizing the Arkansas
Northwestern Railway Company to construct and operate a railway through
Indian Territory, and for other purposes, returned to the House by the
President, with his objections, thereto, and that the House proceed to
its reconsideration.
Mr. Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, moved that the further
consideration of the motion of Mr. Dinsmore be postponed until 11.30
a.m. (calendar day), March 4, 1895.
Mr. Dennis T. Flynn, of Oklahoma, made the point that the
consideration of the bill returned by the President, with his
objections, presented a question of the highest privilege, and that a
motion to postpone its consideration was therefore not in order.
The Speaker \3\ overruled the point made by Mr. Flynn, holding as
follows:
The Constitution provides that when the President shall return a bill
without his sanction the House shall proceed to reconsider it, and it
has been held that the question of consideration can not be raised
against the proceeding. But it has also been held that a motion to
postpone may be entertained. A motion to postpone the consideration of
a measure to a given day is in itself consideration, and under the
rulings heretofore made is now in order. When a veto message is
received from the President, it does not follow that the House must
immediately proceed to vote upon the question. It has been expressly
ruled that the House may postpone the consideration of the subject to a
future day. In a ruling made in the Twenty-first Congress, found in the
Journal of the Twenty-first Congress on page 742, it was held that the
motion to postpone a veto message, or a bill vetoed, to a future day
was in order.
3547. On March 2, 1897,\4\ a message was received from the President,
who returned without his approval the bill (H. R. 7864) ``to amend the
immigration laws of the United States.''
After the message had been read, Mr. Richard Bartholdt, of Missouri,
moved that its consideration be postponed until 1 o'clock the following
day.
A question of order being suggested as to the admissibility of the
motion at the time, the Speaker \5\ said:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second-session Thirty-third Congress, Journal, p. 8; Globe, p. 2.
The message was received as soon as the formalities of assembling were
over.
\2\ Third session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 190.
\3\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 2667-2668.
\5\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
Sec. 3548
It is quite true that a veto message is always a question of
privilege. At the same time the House very often refers such a message
to a committee. There does not appear to the Chair any reason why the
House may not fix a time for the consideration of such a message.
3548. It is not in order to move to postpone indefinitely the
consideration of a veto message of the President.--On February 21,
1811,\1\ the President returned to the House without his approval the
bill ``incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of
Alexandria, in the District of Columbia.''
The message having been read, Mr. John Randolph, of Virginia, asked
if a motion to postpone indefinitely would be in order.
The article of the Constitution having been read, the Speaker \2\
expressed the opinion that the motion would not be in order.
3549. A bill returned with the objections of the President may be
laid on the table.--On April 9, 1866,\3\ a message of the President of
the United States giving his reasons for withholding his approval from
the bill (S. 61) ``to protect all persons in the United States in their
civil rights and furnish the means of their vindication ``was laid
before the House.
Mr. William E. Niblack, of Indiana, proposed to make a motion to lay
on the table.
Mr. Robert C. Schenck, of Ohio, raised a question of order that the
motion was not in order.
The Speaker \4\ said.
The Chair overrules the point of order, and will state the grounds
for overruling it. As the Chair first stated to the House, the
Constitution seems to indicate that the House shall immediately vote
upon the passage or rejection of the bill, but upon an examination of
the precedents he finds that the Congress has acted so as to enlarge
this construction very considerably. In the Twenty-first Congress the
vote upon a vetoed bill was postponed for a long time. In another
Congress a motion was made and entertained to recommit a bill that had
been vetoed by the committee from which it originated. But perhaps the
decision most applicable to this case is to be found on page 10 of
Barclay's Digest, which has been adopted as the parliamentary law of
this House, which binds both the Members and the Speaker. It is as
follows:
``A veto message and bill may be referred, or the message alone or
the bill may be laid on the table.''
The Chair finds in the Journal of the Twenty-seventh Congress, second
session, page 1256, when Hon. John White, of Kentucky, occupied the
chair, the following precedent: [Here is quoted the precedent so far as
the ruling of the Chair was concerned.] The bill was then laid on the
table by a vote of 97 to 73; and among those who voted to lay on the
table were two gentlemen who have taken the oath under the Constitution
as President of the United States, John Quincy Adams and Millard
Fillmore. Mr. William Pitt Fessenden, Mr. Joshua R. Giddings, and other
gentlemen of distinction at that day, whose names the Chair need not
repeat, also voted to lay the bill on the table.
The Chair is now bound by this decision of a Speaker of the House,
which was sustained by the House on an appeal. That decision enters
into the parliamentary law of the House and has been incorporated into
the Digest which we have adopted as our parliamentary law. As the House
had on several occasions enlarged what the Speaker would deem to be the
strict construction of this provision of the Constitution by a variety
of motions apart from the question of passing or rejecting the bill,
the Chair thinks the motion to lay this bill on the table is in order.
There is still an additional reason. If two-thirds of the House
desire to pass the bill over the Presidential veto, it is evident that
they will reject the motion to lay the bill on the table. If they
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Eleventh Congress, Annals, p. 983.
\2\ Joseph B. Varnum, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ First session Thirty-ninth Congress, Globe, p. 1860.
\4\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
Sec. 3550
desire to have the bill laid upon the table, the Chair can not, upon
reflection, see why they should not have that privilege. If they wish
to refer it to a committee, as was done with a veto in the last
Congress, they should have the right to do it. This is a matter coming
back to the House with the objections of the President, and by the
precedents quoted the House can do as they see fit with it. And if two-
thirds of the House are in favor of passing the bill it is certainly
evident that a majority will vote against laying the bill on the table.
Mr. Schenck proposed an appeal, but withdrew it, and the House
acquiesced in the decision.
3550. A motion to refer a vetoed bill, either with or without the
message, has been held allowable within the constitutional mandate that
the House ``shall proceed to reconsider.''
Not only have vetoed bills been referred to committees, but in
practice those committees have often neglected to report. (Footnote.)
A vetoed bill when laid on the table is still highly privileged, and
thus justifies a motion to take it from the table and action thereon by
majority vote. (Footnote.)
It is the duty of the Speaker to put a motion in order under the
rules and practice without passing on its constitutional effect.
On August 10, 1842,\1\ the House proceeded to the reconsideration of
the bill (No. 472) entitled ``An act to provide revenue from imports,
and to change and modify existing laws imposing duties on imports, and
for other purposes,'' which had been presented to the President of the
United States on the 6th instant and returned by him with objections.
A motion was made by Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, that
the message of the President returning the bill, together with the
bill, be referred to a select committee, to consist of thirteen
Members, with instructions to report thereon.\2\
Mr. Thomas F. Foster, of Georgia, submitted the following question of
order:
The motion to refer is not in order, on the ground that by the
Constitution of the United States (which declares that ``if the
President approve a bill, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return
it, with his objections, to that House in which it shall have
originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their Journal
and proceed to reconsider it'') it is not in order to refer the said
bill, but that the only question for the consideration of the House is,
Does the House, on reconsideration, agree to pass the said bill?
In the debate, Mr. Caleb Cushing, of Massachusetts, took the ground
that the message, having been entered on the Journal as the
Constitution specifies, was not before the House. While the question on
the passage of the bill was pending it was not in order to take up the
message and refer it to a committee. The question was on the bill, the
message being not in possession of the House except as a matter of
history.
Mr. Joseph R. Underwood, of Kentucky, contended that a message might
contain statement of facts which a committee should examine. This one
contained reasons and matters of opinion. It was therefore proper to
refer it.
Mr. Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, said that a majority of the committee
might refuse to report, thereby indefinitely postponing consideration,
a thing which the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 1253-1257;
Globe, pp. 873, 875, 905.
\2\ It is a common practice in such cases now for the House to refer
bill and message together. (See Congressional Record, first session
Fifty-fourth Congress, pp. 5535, 5918.)
Sec. 3550
House had no power to do.\1\ A committee could not reform or amend the
bill in any way, but could only recommend to the House whether or not
to reconsider. He did not believe that the Constitution contemplated a
reference to a committee.
The Speaker \2\ referred to a bill passed in 1832 which had not
received the assent of the President, but was returned to the House at
the commencement of the succeeding session, accompanied by the
President's reasons for withholding his assent. The bill and message
were referred to a committee and never came back to the House.
Mr. Wise, in reply, declared that in the spring of 1832, within less
than ten days of the adjournment of Congress, a bill for the
improvement of certain rivers and harbors was sent to General Jackson.
He did not sign it, and it failed thereby to become a law. At the next
session the President sent a message informing Congress that the bill
had not become a law. This message, which was not a veto message, was
referred to a committee.\3\
The Speaker stated that there was no question of order involved; that
it was a matter for the House to decide, and not the Chair. It was his
duty to entertain any motion not forbidden by the rules of the House
and the course of parliamentary proceedings; and he conceived it to be
his duty to entertain the motion to refer.
From this decision Mr. Foster appealed to the House. The appeal was
laid on the table by a vote of 107 to 9, and so the decision of the
Speaker was sustained.
The question recurred on the motion, made by Mr. Adams, that the
message and bill be referred to a select committee; when Mr. Adams
modified his motion so that the message alone should be referred to a
committee, without the bill.
It was objected that it was not in order to refer the message without
the bill.
The Speaker decided the motion to be in order.
From this decision Mr. Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, appealed to the
House; which appeal was, on motion of Mr. Millard Fillmore, of New
York, laid upon the table; and the decision of the Speaker was
sustained.
The question again recurred on the motion of Mr. Adams, that the
message be referred to a select committee.
This passed in the affirmative, and the committee were appointed,
with Mr. Adams chairman.
The question was then propounded, that the House, on reconsideration,
do agree to pass the bill to provide revenue from imports, etc., when a
motion was made by Mr. James Cooper, of Pennsylvania, that the bill do
lie on the table.
Mr. William Cost Johnson of Maryland, objected to this motion as not
in order, because, according to the Constitution, the House must
proceed to the reconsideration of the bill.
The Speaker decided that the motion to lay on the table was in order.
From this decision Mr. William Cost Johnson appealed to the House;
which appeal was, on motion of Mr. Fillmore, ordered to lie on the
table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the Fiftieth Congress there were 200 or more vetoes in the
first session, so that the disposal of them by yea-and-nay votes became
a serious problem. In this condition of affairs some of the messages
referred to the Invalid Pensions Committee were not reported back. (See
Record, first session Fiftieth Congress, ``Index of bills,'' H. R.
9106, 10563, 9372, 1233, etc.) In the Fifty-ninth Congress all the veto
messages were referred to committees, and were not reported thence.
\2\ John White, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Twenty-second Congress, Journal, p. 24.
Sec. 3551
The question was then put, that the bill do lie on the table, and it
passed in the affirmative, 97 to 73.\1\
On April 5, 1882,\2\ in the Senate President pro tempore David Davis,
of Illinois, decided that a motion to refer a veto message and bill was
in order.
3551. While the ordinary motion to refer may be applied to a vetoed
bill, it is not in order to move to commit it pending the demand for
the previous question or after it is ordered on the constitutional
question of reconsideration.--On August 2, 1882,\3\ Mr. Horace F. Page,
of California, as a privileged question, called up the message of the
President returning the bill of the House relating to rivers and
harbors without his approval.
Mr. Page moved that the House proceed to consider the bill, on which
motion he moved the previous question.
Mr. John A. Kasson, of Iowa, moved to refer the message and bill to
the Committee on Commerce, with instructions; which motion he
subsequently modified by withdrawing the instructions.
Mr. Page made the point of order that the motion was not now in
order.
The Speaker \4\ held that the motion to refer would be in order but
for the pendency of the motion for the previous question on the first
motion submitted by Mr. Page.
Mr. Kasson made the point of order that the motion to refer was in
order under the practice of the House, and particularly under clause 1
of Rule XVII,\5\ which permitted a motion to refer with or without
instructions pending the demand for or after the previous question
shall have been ordered.
After debate on the point of order, the Speaker overruled the same,
saying:
Since the inquiry was first made whether it would be in order to move
to refer, and since the motion which the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Kasson] proposed to make was sent to the Clerk, the Chair understands
the gentleman from Iowa to have withdrawn that part of his motion which
included instructions to the committee. Clearly that would be out of
order. The House could not instruct the committee to report the bill
back with amendments, as it is a bill which the House itself could not
amend when it was being considered. What the House can not do itself it
can not instruct a committee to do.
This bill comes back to the House by reason of the veto message of
the President of the United States, and under the Constitution,
paragraph 2, section 7, article 2, the House must proceed to reconsider
it. That does not necessarily mean that the House may debate it.
Reconsidering may be voting on it; and perhaps that was all that was
intended by the language of the Constitution. The Chair would not
intimate that if the House desires, it-may not debate; but
reconsideration might be had by simply voting on the bill.
It is settled, the Chair thinks, by the practice, that a motion to
refer--a simple motion to refer--to a committee may be entertained. But
the Chair thinks that that motion to refer must come in at the proper
time. It is the first duty of the House, under the Constitution, as the
Chair interprets its language, to reconsider and proceed to vote upon
the vetoed bill. If the House chooses, by ordering the previous
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In response to an inquiry as to whether a vote of two-thirds
would be required to take the bill from the table, the Speaker replied
that a majority vote would be sufficient (Globe, p. 875), thus
indicating that the bill was not finally and adversely disposed of by
this vote. Indeed, on August 17 (Journal, p. 1327), the House voted to
proceed to reconsider the bill, 126 yeas, 76 nays. The motion was held
to be privileged (Globe, p. 905).
\2\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 2607, 2608.
\3\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 1792; Record,
p. 6803.
\4\ J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, Speaker.
\5\ See section 6790 of Vol. V. of this work for this rule.
Sec. 3552
question, to cutoff debate upon this matter of reconsideration, that is
within the power of the House. If the House does not order the previous
question, the Chair would hold that a motion to refer would be in
order. It is claimed that under Rule XVII of the House the motion to
refer being, as the Chair holds, equivalent to a motion to commit, is
in order. The Chair does not think so. Rule XVII speaks entirely of
proceedings governing the ordinary passage of the bill. If the whole
rule is read it will appear that a motion for the previous question is
made, first, upon the engrossment and third reading of the bill. Then,
that having exhausted itself upon the third reading of the bill, the
second step is a motion for the previous question upon the passage of
the same bill, such a bill as the House has ordered to be engrossed and
read a third time. This rule refers to the passage of a bill in the
ordinary sense. The bill before us is at a different stage. It is a
reconsideration of a bill which the House and the Senate have already
passed, and for the purpose of determining whether the House will by a
two-thirds vote pass the bill, notwithstanding the President's veto, as
provided by the Constitution.
The Chair feels bound to hold that the demand for the previous
question having been made first, must be first submitted to the House.
If that be voted down, the Chair will entertain a motion to refer the
bill.
3552. A vetoed bill having been rejected by the House, the message
was referred.--On May 29, 1879,\1\ the House, after it had refused, on
reconsideration, to pass over the President's veto the legislative
appropriation bill, referred the veto message to the Committee on the
Judiciary, with leave to report thereon at any time by bill or
otherwise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Forty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 415; Record, p.
1712.