[Hinds' Precedents, Volume 5]
[Chapter 141 - The Rules]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
THE RULES.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Provision of the Constitution. Section 6741.
2. In practice the rules a permanent system. Section 6742.
3. Rules of one House not binding on its successor. Sections
6743-6755.\1\
4. House exercises its constitutional power within limits fixed
by itself. Section 6756.\2\
5. Jefferson's Manual and general parliamentary law. Sections
6757-6763.\3\
6. Binding effect of the rules, especially in reference to
conflicting statute. Sections 6764-6768.
7. Amendments to the rules, especially as to functions of
Committee on Rules. Sections 6769-6781.\4\
8. The joint rules. Sections 6782-6789.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
6741. The Constitution confers on the House the power to determine
the rules of its proceedings.--The Constitution, in Article IV of
section 1, provides:
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.
6742. Each House has usually adopted the rules of its predecessor,
sometimes with additions or changes, thus building up what has become
in fact a permanent system.--According to the practice of the House for
the whole of its existence, except a brief period,\5\ a system of rules
is adopted when each new House organizes for the Congress in which its
term falls. While in theory these rules are new in each Congress, yet
in fact the essential portions of the system
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See also sections 82, 210, 187, 194, 499 of Volume I and 6002 of
this volume. (Ruling of Mr. Speaker Reed.)
\2\ House declines to adopt rules until the Members are sworn. (Sec.
140 of Vol. I.) Adoption of rules at the organization of the House.
(Secs. 93-102 of Vol. I.)
\3\ See also sections 757 of Volume I, and 5604 and 6727 of this
volume.
\4\ See also Chapter LXXXVIII of Volume IV, sections 3152-3265, as to
special orders. Relation of the question of consideration to reports
from the Committee on Rules. (Secs. 4961-4963 of this volume.)
Dilatory motions forbidden while reports from the Committee on Rules
are pending. (Secs. 5738-5742 of this volume.)
\5\ See sections 6743-6755 of this chapter.
Sec. 6743
of rules are continued from Congress to Congress, and become an
existing code,\1\ permanent in its essential provisions.\2\
6743. For a time the rules provided for their own continuance in a
new Congress, thus affording a rule for election of officers.--On March
19, 1860,\3\ the House adopted a rule:
These rules shall be the rules of the House of Representatives of the
present and succeeding Congresses, unless otherwise ordered.
At the same time another rule was adopted, providing:
All elections of officers of the House, including the Speaker, shall
be conducted in accordance with these rules, so far as the same are
applicable; and, pending the election of a Speaker, the Clerk shall
preserve order and decorum, and shall decide all questions of order
that may arise, subject to appeal to the House.\4\
At the organization of the Thirty-eighth Congress the validity of
these rules seems to have been considered doubtful and questionable,
although no issue was raised.\5\
The rule continuing the rules of one Congress during the next
remained through the Fiftieth Congress,\6\ but was dropped in the
Fifty-first, in 1890. The House at that time proceeded on the
assumption that the rules of the Fiftieth Congress
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thus, the present code of rules has been readopted by each
succeeding House with practically no change of importance since 1895.
This code, known as the ``Reed rules,'' has in it certain portions
which embody the reforms instituted under the leadership of Mr. Speaker
Reed, but while in essence these changes were of far-reaching
importance, verbally they amounted to minor changes only in the code as
it had gradually grown up from the foundation of the Government. For
the form of the rules and their history see ``Rules'' in the Digest
Index.
\2\ Criticism of the rules has often been very severe, as the
increase of membership and business has required that they be more
strict. On January 14, 1828, speaking of the rules, Mr. John Randolph,
of Virginia, said that when he came to the House he knew all the rules,
but after having grown gray in the service of the House, he had grown
out of knowledge of them. They had become complicated and extremely
unparliamentary. (First session Twentieth Congress, Debates, p. 1002.)
On September 3, 1850, a proposition to have the Manual and rules
published gave rise to a discussion of the rules, in which they were
criticized as cumbersome and useless. (First session Thirty-first
Congress, Globe, p. 1735.)
On February 16, 1853, the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means
defended the rules and the Speaker and committees against the charge
that they were responsible for the obstruction of the public business.
(Second session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, pp. 651, 652.)
On May 24, 1872, the House agreed to a resolution providing for a
revision of the rules so as to ``facilitate the presentation of reports
of committees, enlarge the means of intelligent transaction of general
business, and secure to every Member a proper opportunity to examine
all legislative measures before they are submitted for consideration
and action by the House.'' (Second session Forty-second Congress,
Journal, p. 946; Globe, p. 3819.)
In 1860, at the time of an important general revision of the rules,
there was much criticism of them; and again in the general revision of
1880, the burden of complaint being that the liberty of the individual
Member suffered under them. Of course, these complaints have not tended
to diminish, as the membership of the House has still further
increased. In 1890, at the time Mr. Speaker Reed instituted his far-
reaching reforms, the agitation over the rules reached the dignity of a
national political issue.
\3\ Thirty-sixth Congress.
\4\ First session Thirty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 1051; Rules,
146, 147.
\5\ First session Thirty-eighth Congress, Globe. pp. 5, 8.
\6\ Second session Fiftieth Congress, Journal, p. 795.
Sec. 6744
had lapsed, and on December 2 and 9, 1889,\1\ adopted a few rules
temporarily; but generally proceeded under general parliamentary law
until February 14, 1890, when a code of rules was adopted,\2\ which did
not include the rule of 1860.
On December 5, 1881,\3\ at the organization of the House, before the
adoption of rules, and as the vote was about to be taken for choice of
Speaker, the Clerk \4\ announced:
The rule of the House provides that the votes shall be viva voce.
In this case the motion to proceed to the election of Speaker had not
specified the method of voting.
6744. The theory that a House might make its rules binding on the
succeeding House was at one time much discussed, and even followed in
practice.--On December 7, 1875,\5\ Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of
Pennsylvania, offered a resolution providing that the rules of the
House of the Forty-third Congress be the rules of the present House
until otherwise ordered, except two specified rules.
Mr. James A. Garfield, of Ohio, raised the point of order that the
rules were existing without a resolution of that sort.
The Speaker \6\ said:
The Chair overrules it on the ground that the Constitution clearly
gives to each House the right to adopt its own rules. Whatever may have
been the rules or orders of a preceding House in reference to this
matter, they can not supersede the constitutional right of this House
to adopt its own rules.\7\
6745. On March 3, 1877,\8\ when the House adopted a rule giving the
Sergeant-at-Arms authority to enforce order under the direction of the
Clerk pending the election of a Speaker or Speaker pro tempore, Mr.
James A. Garfield, of Ohio, objected that the present House might not
bind by a rule a succeeding House, recalling that the Speaker had very
recently ruled that such was the case. The House at this time had among
its rules the following, dating from March 19, 1860: ``These rules
shall be the rules of the House of Representatives of the present and
succeeding Congresses unless otherwise ordered.'' \9\
The House, however, adopted the rule against which Mr. Garfield
protested.
6746. In 1879,\10\ at the beginning of the Congress, on March 29, a
question was raised as to the rule providing that the rules of the last
House should be the rules of the succeeding until new ones should be
adopted, and was discussed at some length. Mr. Speaker Randall laid
before the House the history of the rule, and expressed an opinion
indicating that he thought the rule proper, and that the rules of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, pp. 83, 130.
\2\ Journal, p. 233.
\3\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 8.
\4\ George M. Adams, of Kentucky.
\5\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 174.
\6\ Michael C. Kerr, of Indiana, Speaker.
\7\ It is to be noted that the rule of 1860, whereby it had been
sought to impose the rules of one House on its successor, had been a
part of the rules of the preceding House, and was at this time in
effect, if it had validity--which it did not.
\8\ Second session Forty-fourth Congress, Record. pp. 2234, 2235.
\9\ Rule 147; Journal. p. 719.
\10\ First session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 110-112.
Sec. 6747
preceding House would continue under it until superseded. After this it
seems to have been assumed that the rules of the previous House
continued without the customary resolution adopting them, for on April
8 a resolution proposed to enforce a certain rule, and on April 9 \1\
the Committee on Rules submitted certain amendments to the rules, which
were adopted. But the rules themselves were not adopted by any vote, it
being assumed that they were in existence.
On February 27, 1880,\2\ Mr. Edward H. Gillette, of California,
proposed a rule providing that the rules should not be the rules of a
succeeding House until adopted by that House. He declared that the
existing rule which made the rules of one House those of its successor
until amended or changed was destructive of the liberty of the House.
His amendment was not agreed to by the House.\3\
6747. The question as to whether or not one House might make its
rules binding on the next House was discussed incidentally, but at some
length, on January 18, 1882.\4\
The theory finally disappeared in 1889 and 1890, when Mr. Speaker
Reed, having in mind the destruction of the system of obstruction which
had existed for many years, and which was intrenched in the code of
rules as they had existed in the preceding Congress, disregarded the
provisions of the rule of 1860, and held that the House was governed by
general parliamentary law until it should itself adopt rules.\5\ Mr.
Speaker Carlisle had proceeded on the same assumption,\6\ but the rule
had been readopted.
6748. Although the House becomes functus officio at the end of its
term, yet in practice certain rules and regulations have extended
beyond that time.--On March 3, 1861,\7\ an effort was made to repeal so
much of the House resolutions of May 17, 1858, as reduced during the
recesses the force employed by the Doorkeeper. It is evident from this
that these resolutions had a certain binding effect with Congresses
succeeding that by which they were adopted.
6749. On January 13, 1845,\8\ on motion of Mr. John B. Weller, of
Ohio, and under suspension of the rules, the House agreed to the
following:
Resolved, That the Doorkeeper of the House of Representatives be
authorized to retain John Thomas McDuffie as a page to the end of the
present session, the fact that he is over 16 years of age to the
contrary notwithstanding.
Mr. Weller explained that the rules prescribed the age of 16. But no
such rule appears among the standing rules. The usage of the House as
established by former Houses was probably meant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Journal, pp. 48, 57.
\2\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1207.
\3\ See also section 6759.
\4\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 486-491.
\5\ See section 6002 of this volume. Mr. Speaker Reed's two most
important rulings, one as to counting a quorum and the other as to
dilatory motions, which destroyed obstruction, were made while the
House was operating under general parliamentary law.
\6\ Section 6759.
\7\ Third session Thirty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 602.
\8\ Second session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 202; Globe, p.
129.
Sec. 6750
6750. In 1888,\1\ the House having been invited to attend the
centennial celebration of the inauguration of President Washington, the
Committee on the Judiciary reported that as the term for which the
Members were chosen would expire on the 4th of March preceding the
event, the House would be functus officio, and could not as a House
participate in the ceremonies. Furthermore, the House might not accept
the invitation for the succeeding House. Therefore they reported
against the acceptance of the invitation.
6751. March 2, 1827,\2\ at the close of the Congress, the House
ordered that the Hall of the House should not be used during recesses
of Congress.
6752. The House has made rules which have been followed through other
Congresses by the Executive Departments, although the authority for the
rules has been considered doubtful.--On December 30, 1791,\3\ the House
considered this resolution:
Resolved, That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury
to lay before the House of Representatives, on the fourth Monday of
October in each year, if Congress shall be then in session, or, if not
then in session, within the first week of the session next following
the said fourth Monday of October, an accurate statement and account of
the receipts and expenditures of public moneys, etc.
The presentation of this resolution occasioned considerable
discussion as to the right of the House to make a rule with the intent
of having it binding on future Congresses. It was urged on the one side
that the Constitution empowered one Congress to make rules for another,
although it was admitted that the House had proceeded on the contrary
supposition. Against this argument it was urged that under such a
theory one House might choose a Speaker for a subsequent House.
The resolution was finally agreed to.
6753. On February 1, 1830,\4\ the House agreed to this resolution:
Resolved, That the Secretary of War cause to be annually laid before
this House a number of copies of the printed Army list equal to the
number of Members of the House.
6754. On March 20, 1834,\5\ the Speaker laid before the House a
letter from the Secretary of War accompanied by 250 printed copies of
the Army Register for 1834 for the Members of the House. The letter was
laid on the table. This was apparently in response to the order of the
House passed in a preceding Congress.
On January 28, 1841,\6\ the Speaker laid before the House a letter
from the Secretary of War transmitting, ``in compliance with the
resolution of the 1st of February, 1830,'' a certain number of copies
of the Army Register.
On February 28, 1854,\7\ the Speaker laid before the House a letter
from the Secretary of War transmitting, in compliance with a resolution
of the House of of February 1, 1830, 250 copies of the Official Army
Register of 1854.
6755. Discussion by the Supreme Court of the power of the House to
make its own rules.--On February 29, 1892, the Supreme Court of the
United
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fiftieth Congress, Report No. 2441.
\2\ Second session Nineteenth Congress, Journal, p. 370.
\3\ First session Second Congress, Journal, p. 484 (Gales and Seaton
ed.); Annals, pp. 300, 301.
\4\ First session Twenty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 227, 242.
\5\ First session Twenty-third Congress, Journal, p. 426.
\6\ Second session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 214.
\7\ First session Thirty-third Congress, Journal, p. 432.
Sec. 6756
States, in the case of the United States v. Ballin,\1\ gave a decision
sustaining the action of Mr. Speaker Reed in counting a quorum. In the
course of the decision it discussed the power of the House to make its
rules, as follows:
The Constitution empowers each House to determine its rules of
proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints
or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable
relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the
rule and the result which is sought to be attained. But within these
limitations all matters of method are open to the determination of the
House, and it is no impeachment of the rule to say that some other way
would be better, more accurate, or even more just. It is no objection
to the validity of a rule that a different one has been prescribed and
in force for a length of time. The power to make rules is not one which
once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject
to be exercised by the House, and within the limitations suggested,
absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal.
6756. In exercising its constitutional power to change its rules the
House has confined itself within certain limitations.--On December 13,
1878,\2\ Mr. Roger Q. Mills, of Texas, proposed for immediate
consideration a resolution providing for a committee to revise the
rules of the House, claiming privilege for the resolution on the ground
that the Constitution gave to the House a power in this respect of
which it could not divest itself.
The Speaker \3\ said:
The House, acting in pursuance of its constitutional power, has
adopted certain limitations as to changes of its rules.
6757. The House is governed by the rules of Jefferson's Manual in all
cases in which they are applicable and in which they are not
inconsistent with the standing rules and orders of the House.
Present form and history of Rule XLIV.
Rule XLIV of the rules of the House is:
The rules of parliamentary practice comprised in Jefferson's Manual
shall govern the House in all cases to which they are applicable and in
which they are not inconsistent with the standing rules and orders of
the House and joint rules \4\ of the Senate and House of
Representatives.
This rule dates from September 15, 1837.\5\ The Manual had been
written by Mr. Jefferson for the use of the Senate,\6\ over which he
presided as Vice-President.\7\ In the revision of 1880 the Committee on
Rules decided to retain the Manual as an authority, although, as they
said in their report, ``compiled as it was for the use of the Senate
exclusively and made up almost wholly of collations of English
parliamentary practice and decisions, it was never especially valuable
as an authority in the House of Representatives, even in its early
history, and for many years past has
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 144 U. S., p. 5.
\2\ Third session Forty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 175, 176.
\3\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
\4\ There are no longer joint rules, and there have not been any
since the Forty-third Congress,
\5\ First session Twenty-fifth Congress, Globe, p. 1533.
\6\ For rules of the Senate, with date of the adoption of each, see
Senate Report No. 56, second session Fortieth Congress.
\7\ On February 28, 1812 (first session Twelfth Congress, Journal, p.
211; Annals, p. 1112), the House authorized the purchase of copies of
Jefferson's Manual, provided the rules of the House should be annexed
thereto. On April 15, 1830 (first session Twenty-first Congress,
Journal, p. 536), a resolution was presented which indicates that the
printing of the Constitution, Rules, and Jefferson's Manual in a volume
was usual.
Sec. 6758
been rarely quoted in the House.'' \1\ This statement, although
sanctioned by high authority, is extreme. Many fundamental principles
are set forth in the Manual, and while there is much that is obsolete
there is also much of use at the present time, as these pages bear
witness.
6758. Before rules are adopted the House is governed by general
parliamentary law, but the Speakers have been inclined to give weight
to the precedents of the House in modifying the usual constructions of
that law.
Before the adoption of rules the motion to commit has been admitted
after the ordering of the previous question.
On December 12, 1887,\2\ before rules had been adopted by the House,
a resolution was presented relating to the certificate of election of
Owen G. Chase, claiming to be elected a Delegate from the Territory of
Cimarron.
Mr. Ransom W. Dunham, of Illinois, rising to a parliamentary inquiry,
asked how the resolution could be in order.
The Speaker \3\ replied:
Under the general parliamentary law of the country,\4\ which permits
the introduction of a proposition whenever a gentleman is recognized
for that purpose. It is for the House, of course, to say what it will
do with the proposition. It may refer it to a committee, lay it upon
the table, or refuse to pass upon it in any shape.
Again, on the same day, the previous question was ordered on a
resolution of inquiry relating to the examination of a certain harbor,
which had been presented.
Mr. James H. Blount, of Georgia, having proposed a motion to refer
the resolution, the Speaker said:
The practice of the House heretofore decided by the Chair will
prevail in ordinary legislative proceedings, and the gentleman's motion
to refer to the committee is in order, notwithstanding the previous
question has been ordered.
6759. On December 19, 1887,\5\ before the adoption of rules by the
House, Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, had the floor, when the
Speaker informed him that his time had expired.
Mr. John H. Rogers, of Arkansas, rising to a parliamentary inquiry,
asked under what rule there was a limitation as to time for debate.
The Speaker \3\ replied:
The Chair has frequently decided that in the absence of a resolution
adopting the rules of the House formally the proceedings of the House
are governed by the general parliamentary law, of which the practice of
the House \6\ constitutes a part--in fact, the principal part.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 202.
\2\ First session Fiftieth Congress, Record, pp. 39 and 41.
\3\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\4\ On March 24, 1880 (second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record,
p. 1835), Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, afterwards Speaker), and Mr. J.
S. C. Blackburn, of Kentucky, discussed the status of a standard
American work on parliamentary law, the former holding that it treated
largely of English precedents and was not a sure guide for American
procedure. The latter urged that the work was authority.
\5\ First session Fiftieth Congress, Record, p. 109.
\6\ On December 19, 1881 (first session Forty-seventh Congress,
Record, pp. 210, 211) , before the House had adopted rules, Mr. Speaker
Keifer intimated his belief that ``by immemorial usage or practice, the
Speaker of each Congress has recognized the rules of the last House as
governing until otherwise ordered.'' Mr. John H. Reagan, of Texas,
dissented from this view. The code of rules in the preceding Congress
had contained a rule favoring the Speaker's view. (See sections 6743-
6755 of this volume.)
Sec. 6760
6760. On December 16, 1889,\1\ the House was in Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union considering a deficiency
appropriation bill.
Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, having offered an amendment, Mr.
David B. Henderson, of Iowa, made the point of order that it was not
germane and therefore not in order.
Mr. Bland called attention to the fact that the House had not adopted
rules.
The Chairman \2\ said:
The Chair is aware of the common parliamentary law, and while
inclined to think, under a strict construction of that law, the
amendment would be germane and in order, because amendments have been
introduced which changed the entire character of a proposition, the
Speaker of the last House decided that common parliamentary law is the
law as made up in a large degree by the practice of the House of
Representatives. Under the practice of the House of Representatives for
years all amendments to a proposition must be germane to that
proposition; and if the ruling of the Speaker was correct, of which the
Chair has no doubt, then this amendment is not in order; and the Chair
so holds.
6761. Before the adoption of rules the House proceeds under general
parliamentary law, founded on Jefferson's Manual and modified by the
practice of American legislative assemblies, especially of the House of
Representatives.\3\--In 1855,\4\ prior to the organization of the House
by the election of Speaker, or the adoption of rules, the Clerk \5\
referred for authority to the parliamentary law as given in the Manual.
Another instance occurred on December 26.
6762. During the protracted struggle over the election of a Speaker
in the Thirty-sixth Congress,\6\ the House was conducted under general
parliamentary law, of which Jefferson's Manual was accepted as the
basis.
6763. On December 9, 1885,\7\ at the beginning of the Congress, and
before the adoption of rules, Mr. Nathaniel J. Hammond, of Georgia,
proposed the following resolution, which, after debate at length, was
agreed to:
Resolved, That pending the consideration of proposed rules, and until
this House shall determine the rules of its proceedings, the House be
governed by Jefferson's Manual as modified by the parliamentary
practice of the House of Representatives.
The rules of the preceding House had contained the clause making them
the rules of succeeding Houses until changed. In the debate it was very
generally held that one House could not in this way bind its successor.
There was considerable discussion as to what would be the general
parliamentary law binding the House in the absence of rules. Mr. Thomas
B. Reed, of Maine (afterwards Speaker), said: ``I believe that in this
country an assembly like this, coming together without special rules,
would necessarily be remitted to the common parliamentary law, or what
I should perhaps more properly call the common legislative law, of the
country, the foundation of which is to be found in Jefferson's Manual,
and which has been modified by the general action of American
legislative assemblies, especially by the action of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, pp. 192, 193.
\2\ Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, Chairman.
\3\ See section 5452 of this volume for the opinion of Mr. Speaker
White as to the general parliamentary law governing the House before
the adoption of rules.
\4\ First session Thirty-fourth Congress, Globe, pp. 82, 85.
\5\ James W. Forney, Clerk.
\6\ First session Thirty-sixth Congress, Globe, pp. 19, 21, 25, etc.
\7\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 144-150; Journal,
p. 82.
Sec. 6764
this legislative assembly.'' This seemed to voice the general opinion
as to the law in existence before the adoption of rules.\1\
6764. A motion which in effect rescinded a rule of the House, having
been offered without objection and agreed to by the House, was held to
be in force as against the rule.--On February 10, 1899,\2\ a Friday,
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, moved that general debate on the
sundry civil appropriation bill be closed in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union with the legislative day. This motion
was admitted without objection and was agreed to by the House.
As the hour of 5 p. m. approached the Committee of the Whole rose;
and in the House Mr. William H. Moody, of Massachusetts, as a
parliamentary inquiry, asked whether or not general debate on the
sundry civil bill would be in order when the House should assemble
after the recess for the evening session.\3\
The Speaker \4\ said that the expression used in fixing the time when
the general debate should end was ``the legislative day.'' Therefore he
thought that under the vote of the House general debate would be in
order at the evening session.
Thereupon, at the request of Mr. Cannon and by unanimous consent, it
was ordered that general debate should close at once, the purpose of
the vote not having been to continue the debate in the evening.
6765. The validity of a law passed by a preceding Congress which
proposes to govern the House as to its rules or its organization is
doubtful.--On February 19, 1841,\5\ the Senate, in the course of the
discussion of the election of a Public Printer, was the scene of a
debate which, besides going into the history of the early arrangements
for the printing, brought up again the point as to whether the inherent
right of either House to elect its own officers might be modified or
limited by law.
6766. On December 4, 1871,\6\ Mr. Speaker Blaine said:
The Chair desires to submit to the House a question which somewhat
embarrassed him. The law reorganizing the government of the District of
Columbia provided that the Delegate from the District of Columbia
should be a member of the Committee for the District of Columbia. The
Chair is governed by the rules of the House, which are made under the
express provision of the Constitution of the United States giving to
each House the right to make its own rules; and the rules of the House
provide that the Committee for the District of Columbia shall consist
of nine Members of the House. Looking at the duties laid on the Chair
by the rule he has referred to under the Constitution, he did not feel
at liberty to constitute the Committee for the District of Columbia of
ten Members; and it becomes necessary, as between the law which seems
to change the rule of the House, and between the rule of the House as
it stands, for the House to determine what course shall be taken.
The question was referred to the Committee on Rules, and that
committee on December 13, reported a rule making places for Delegates
on the committees for the District of Columbia and Territories, the
first rule giving them committee places. That rule was adopted by the
House after debate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ At the beginning of the Fifty-first Congress rules were not
adopted for several weeks, and during that time Mr. Reed, as Speaker,
administered the House under general parliamentary law.
\2\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 1691, 1712.
\3\ The rule gave Friday evening to pension legislation. (Sec. 3281
of Vol. IV.)
\4\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\5\ Second session Twenty-sixth Congress, Globe, pp. 188-193.
\6\ Second session Forty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 16, 67: Globe,
pp. 11, 117.
Sec. 6767
6767. A law passed by the then existing Congress was recognized by
the House as of binding force in matters of procedure.--On January 31,
1877,\1\ while proceedings were pending under ``An act to provide for
and regulate the counting of votes for President and Vice-President,
and the decision of questions arising thereon, for the term commencing
March 4, A. D. 1877,'' approved January 29, 1877, Mr. G. Wiley Wells,
of Mississippi, moved that when the House adjourn, it adjourn until
Friday next.
Mr. Samuel S. Cox, of New York, made the point of order that the
motion of Mr. Wells was not in order, being in violation of a law of
Congress.\2\
The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order, refusing to entertain
the motion.
6768. On the calendar day of February 5, 1877,\4\ pending the
consideration of a resolution relating to the electoral count, Mr.
William J. O'Brien, of Maryland, made the point of order that the House
must now proceed to the regular order of business, viz., the call of
States and Territories for bills on leave and joint resolutions, as on
the regular legislative day of Monday.
The Speaker \3\ overruled the point of order, on the ground that the
House could not perform an act forbidden by law; that the House having
agreed with the Senate to pass a bill,\5\ which had become a law
forbidding an adjournment pending the counting of the electoral vote
for President and Vice-President, the legislative day of Thursday,
February 1, must continue, so far as the business of the House was
concerned, until otherwise ordered, and that consequently a motion to
adjourn not being in order, the call of States and Territories being
Monday's business, was not in order.\6\
6769. A proposition to impose upon an officer of the House duties in
addition to those prescribed by the rules is in effect an amendment of
the rules and should be acted on in the way prescribed for such
amendment. (Speaker overruled.)--On February 4, 1850,\7\ Mr. John L.
Robinson, of Indiana, offered the following preamble and resolution:
Whereas this House, by resolution, has postponed the election of
Doorkeeper until the last day of March, 1851: Therefore,
Resolved, That said office being vacant it is competent and proper to
provide for the discharge of the duties of said office by devolving the
same upon some other officer of this House.
Resolved further, That Adam J. Glossbrenner, the Sergeant-at-Arms of
this House, be, and he is hereby, ex officio authorized to perform the
duties of Doorkeeper of this House until the day fixed for the election
of said officer.
Mr. Albert G. Brown, of Mississippi, moved that the resolution be
laid upon the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 348, 349;
Record, p. 1156.
\2\ Act of January 29, 1877 (19 Stat. L., p. 229), which provided
that during the proceedings of the electoral count the joint meeting
should not dissolve until the conclusion of the count and that the
recesses of either House should be limited as to time.
\3\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
\4\ Second session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 381; Record,
pp. 1266-1271.
\5\ Act of January 29, 1877 (19 Stat. L., p. 229).
\6\ It will be observed that this law had been passed by this House,
so the question as to the right of Congress to bind by law a succeeding
House in a matter relating to its procedure, did not arise.
\7\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 456; Globe, p.
277.
Sec. 6770
Mr. Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, raised the point of order that
the duties of the Sergeant-at-Arms were prescribed by the sixty-seventh
rule \1\ of the House, and that, as the resolution proposed to impose
additional duties on that officer, it was virtuallv an amendment to the
rules of the House, which could not be rescinded or changed without one
day's notice being given of the motion therefor.\2\
The Speaker \3\ overruled the question of order raised by Mr.
Stephens and decided the resolution to be in order.
From this decision of the Chair Mr. Stephens appealed; and the
question was stated, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the
judgment of the House? And being put, it was decided in the negative,
yeas 94, navs 101.
So the decision of the Chair was not sustained and the resolution was
declared out of order.
6770. Subjects relating to the rules are referred to the Committee on
Rules, which has high privilege for its reports.--Rule XI \4\ of the
House provides
In section 53:
All proposed action touching the rules, joint rules, and order of
business shall be referred to the Committee on Rules.
In section 61:
The following-named committees shall have leave to report at any time
on the matters herein stated, viz: The Committee on Rules, on rules,
joint rules, and order of business; * * *
It shall always be in order to call up for consideration a report
from the Committee on Rules, and, pending the consideration thereof,
the Speaker may entertain one motion that the House adjourn; but after
the result is announced he shall not entertain any other dilatory
motion until the said report shall have been fully disposed of.
6771. The Committee on Rules may report a resolution for the
consideration of a bill, even though the effect be to discharge a
committee and bring before the House a bill not yet reported.--On
February 4, 1895,\5\ Mr. Thomas C. Catchings, of Mississippi, from the
Committee on Rules, reported a resolution for the consideration of the
bill of the House, No. 8445.
Mr. Thaddeus M. Mahon, of Pennsylvania, made the point that the bill,
not having been reported from the Committee on War Claims, it was not
in order for the Committee on Rules to report a resolution for its
consideration in the House.
The Speaker \6\ overruled the point of order, holding that the
Committee on Rules had jurisdiction to report a resolution fixing the
order of business and the manner of considering a measure, even though
the effect of its adoption would be to discharge a committee from a
matter pending before it, thereby changing the existing rule relative
to the consideration of business. It was for the House to determine
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Now Rule IV.
\2\ The old one hundred and thirty-sixth rule provided: ``No standing
rule or order of the House shall be rescinded or changed without one
day's notice being given of the motion therefor.'' The rule is
different now. (See sec. 6790 of this volume.)
\3\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
\4\ For full form and history of these rules see sections 4321 and
4621 of Volume IV of this work.
\5\ Third session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 104.
\6\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
Sec. 6772
whether this change in the mode of consideration should be made, as
recommended by the committee.
6772. It was established in practice, even when a rule suggested
otherwise, that a proposition to change the rules, in order to be
agreed to by majority vote, should be referred to and reported by the
Committee on Rules.--On June 4, 1879,\1\ the Speaker \2\ stated the
regular order of business to be the motion to lay upon the table the
appeal of Mr. Omar D. Conger, of Michigan, from the decision of the
Chair on the last preceding Wednesday in relation to the right of Mr.
William M. Springer, of Illinois, to submit as an independent motion an
amendment to the rules.
The Speaker had overruled the point of order on the ground that Air.
Springer had been recognized for the purpose stated by him, but that,
objection being made, the resolution must lie over one day under the
rule.
Mr. Conger withdrew the appeal, and the resolution was thereupon
read, as follows:
That rule 51 be amended by adding thereto the following:
``And any pending measure reported, but not disposed of, shall be
regarded as unfinished business, and shall be in order after the
morning hour of any day when such business would be in order.''
It was then ordered that the same lie over one day under the rule.
6773. On February 15, 1887,\3\ a question arose on this point when
the bill to pension the widow of Gen. John A. Logan was before the
House, and after long debate the Speaker \4\ gave an elaborate
opinion.\5\
The Chair has already decided in accordance with the practice which
has prevailed in the House for a great many years, and in accordance,
also, with several previous decisions on the subject, that a gentleman
upon the floor has the right, under clause I of Rule XXVIII,\6\ at any
time when the House was not engaged in the consideration of other
matters, to give notice of a motion to amend the rules and that this
might be in the technical form of a notice or in the form of a
resolution, the latter having precisely the same effect as a notice,
and that it would lie over under the rule. This is the whole right
conferred upon such propositions by clause I of Rule XXVIII; and it
will be observed that even this right is not given in express terms,
but exists only by implication. The rule reads:
``No standing rule or order of the House shall be rescinded or
changed without one day's notice of the motion therefor.''
Under that it has been held that, inasmuch as this was the only
method by which a proposition to amend the rules of the House could be
introduced, it conferred upon a Member the right to give the notice and
have it lie over one day.
Since that time, however--at the beginning of the present session of
Congress--clause 1 of Rule XXIV \7\ was so amended as to include simple
resolutions of the House among the others which might be introduced on
Monday on the call of States and Territories, and it was contended
yesterday that this abrogated or rescinded clause 1 of Rule XXIV: but
the Chair decided then, and the Chair still thinks decided correctly,
that this amendment to the rule at the beginning of the Forty-ninth
Congress, instead of abrogating or rescinding clause I of Rule XXIV,
was cumulative and provided an additional method
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Forty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 437.
\2\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 1784, 1785.
\4\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\5\ During this debate the origin of the f unctions of the Committee
on Rules was considered at some length. (See Record, p. 1781.)
\6\ The clause relating to this notice has since been dropped.
\7\ This rule also has been changed, and resolutions and bills,
instead of being introduced on the call, are filed at the Clerk's desk.
Sec. 6773
for the introduction of such propositions. Instead of taking away the
method already provided for it added another.
But the question now presented is quite a different one. All the
right conferred by implication by clause I of Rule XXVIII has been
exercised in the case now before the Chair; and if the proposition
hereafter has any further privilege, it must be found either in some
other rule of the House or in the nature of the subject to which the
proposition relates. No other rule of the House conferring such a
privilege has been cited in debate, and the Chair is not aware of the
existence of any. But it is said by gentlemen on the floor that,
inasmuch as the House has the power, under the Constitution, to make
rules for the government of its own proceedings, propositions to make
or to amend these rules must be privileged for the same reason that
propositions in relation to the right of a Member to a seat on the
floor and propositions relating to bills disapproved and returned by
the President are privileged. The power of the House to make rules is
conferred by the Constitution in the following terms:
``Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its
Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-
thirds, expel a Member.''
This power is plenary, and the Chair thinks that the power of the
House to make rules prescribing the methods which shall be pursued in
changing its rules is just as absolute as its power to make rules to
govern its proceedings in ordinary matters of legislation. To hold that
the House may make rules binding upon its presiding officer and binding
upon itself for the government of its proceedings in ordinary matters
of legislation, but can not make rules prescribing the methods by which
it shall change its rules. would certainly result in a very great and
material abridgment of the power conferred by the Constitution. The
House has made rules not only for the government of its proceedings in
matters of legislation but also for the government of its proceeding
when it comes to change its own rules or to consider propositions to
change its rules.
It is provided, first, in Rule XXVIII, that such a proposition may be
introduced by notice, and, second, in the amendment to clause I of Rule
XXIV, that it may be introduced upon the call of the States and
Territories on Mondays. It is provided in clause 43 of Rule XI that
``all proposed action''--there is no exception made--``touching the
rules and joint rules shall be referred to the Committee on Rules.'' It
may be not improper to repeat here that clause 1 of Rule XXVIII, as has
been already stated by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Hammond], has
been in operation more than eighty years, and the Chair has not been
able to find a single instance where it has been decided that a
proposition brought before the House under that clause had any further
privilege; but in every case, so far as the Chair has been able to find
a decision upon the subject, it has been held that when the proposition
came before the House it was here subject to all the other rules of the
House. And it may also be remarked that for a long time after the
organization of Congress bills could be introduced only upon notice,
but it was never decided, or even contended, that when so introduced
they became privileged. The giving of the notice was a matter of right,
but it conferred no privilege upon the bill itself when introduced.
During the first session of the Forty-eighth Congress \1\ the present
occupant of the chair had occasion to decide this very question, and
the Clerk will read what then occurred. The Chair will first state,
however, that on the 23d of January, 1885, Mr. Valentine, then a
Representative from the State of Nebraska, introduced a resolution
providing that on and after a certain day the House should meet at a
certain hour, and that it should be the duty of the Speaker to
recognize gentlemen upon the floor for the presentation of matters for
consideration, which should be considered unless objected to by a
certain number of Members. On the next day the gentleman called up his
resolution, as the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Henderson] has now called
up the resolution upon which the point of order is made; and the Clerk
will read from the Journal what took place:
``Mr. Valentine, as a privileged question, called up the following
resolution submitted by him on yesterday:
```Resolved, That on and after Monday next the regular meetings of
the House during the present session shall be at 11 o'clock each day;
that it shall be in order each day for one hour immediately after the
reading of the Journal for the Speaker to recognize such Member as he
may choose, alternating sides of the House and Members, for the purpose
of asking unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of such
business as such Member may select; but if, after the reading of the
bill or resolution, ten Members object to present consideration the
same shall not be considered: Provided, That if consideration be had,
five minutes shall be given for debate for and five minutes against
such measure if asked by any Member.'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This was during the second session Forty-eighth Congress,
Journal, p. 332; Record, pp. 984-986.
Sec. 6773
``Mr. Randall made the point of order that under clause 43 of Rule XI
the said resolution must be referred to the Committee on Rules; pending
which Mr. Valentine made the further point of order that the said
question of order submitted by Mr. Randall could not now be
entertained, but should have been made on yesterday when the resolution
was presented.
``After debate on said point of order, the Speaker sustained the
first and overruled the second point of order, on the ground that the
resolution, having been presented under authority of and in conformity
with clause 1 of Rule XXVIII, was before the House, subject to all
other rules touching its consideration, and that, as the resolution was
not presented on yesterday for immediate consideration, the point of
order as to such consideration by the Committee on Rules would be in
order at any time before such consideration had been entered upon.
``The said resolution must therefore be referred, under clause 43 of
Rule XI, to the Committee on Rules.''
On the 23d of January, when the resolution was first introduced,
certain proceedings occurred which the Clerk will now read from the
Record:
``Mr. Mills. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that that would
change a rule of the House.
``Mr. McMillin. I demand the regular order.
``The Speaker. The regular order has been demanded heretofore, but
the gentleman from Nebraska stated that he rose to a privileged
question.
``Several Members. That is not a privileged question.
``Mr. Valentine. I admit that it is not privileged for consideration
at this time, but must, under the rule, lie over until to-morrow.
``The Speaker. The Chair thinks that so far as regards the mere
introduction of the resolution, either for the purpose of having it lie
over one day or for the purpose of having it referred to the Committee
on Rules, it is privileged; but not beyond that.
``Mr. Valentine. That is all that I ask for it.''
The Chair will also ask the Clerk to read the ruling made on the next
day.
``The Speaker. Rule XXVIII of the House provides that--
No standing rule or order of the House shall be rescinded or changed
without one day's notice of the motion therefor,' etc.
``The Chair supposes that this notice might be given in two ways. A
Member might rise in his place and state that on the next day, or upon
some succeeding day, he would propose to amend the rules in a certain
way; or he might accomplish the same purpose by presenting to the House
a proposition to amend the rules in a particular way. And the Chair
supposes that the question as to whether or not the point of order can
now be made that this proposition must have its first consideration in
the Committee on Rules depends upon the same consideration, no matter
in which one of those methods the notice might have been originally
given.
``Suppose a gentleman had risen on the floor yesterday and simply
given notice under this rule that on to-day he would propose a motion
to amend the rules, stating the character of the amendment, of course
no question could then have been made that it must have its first
consideration in the Committee on Rules. So it was on yesterday when
the gentleman from Nebraska presented his proposition. It was a mere
notice to the House under Rule XXVIII of a proposition to amend its
rules, and the Chair thinks that the point of order, if it can be made
at all, can properly be made to-day when the subject actually comes
before the House.
``The next question is, whether these rules provide two different
methods for their own amendment; that is to say, whether they provide
two different methods for bringing before the House for actual
consideration a proposition to amend the rules. The Chair thinks not.
The Chair thinks the two rules axe not at all inconsistent with each
other, but they very well stand together.
``A proposition to amend the rules can not be considered by the House
at all until there has been one day's notice given, either on the
floor, as suggested by the Chair, or by the presentation of the
proposition itself; but the giving of that notice in either form does
not seem to dispense with the forty-third clause of Rule XI, which
provides expressly that it shall be referred to the Committee on Rules.
If the Committee on Rules should make a report to the House of a
proposition to amend the standing rules or orders of this body which
had not been referred to them more than one day before the report was
made, the Chair would have no hesitation in saying that the report must
lie one day on the table before it could be considered. But when a
proposition to amend the rules has been made in the House and referred
to the Committee on Rules one day before it is reported on, the Chair
would
Sec. 6774
have no hesitation in holding that it would then come up for
consideration, because all the requirements of both these rules of the
House in such a case have been complied with.
``The Chair thinks that whatever may be the power of the House itself
over its own rules, he is bound by all of them as they stand for the
time being, and that this point of order can be made now and is well
taken.''
The Chair has reviewed not only that decision and the grounds upon
which it was based, but all the other decisions which were accessible,
and still adheres to that interpretation of the rules. The Chair thinks
that no matter how the proposition may in the first instance be
introduced, it must go to the Committee on Rules under the forty-third
clause of Rule XI. The point of order is therefore sustained.
6774. A special order fixing a day for particular business has been
held to be so far in the nature of a change of rules as to permit the
Committee on Rules to report it under its leave to report at any time.
In 1886 the former custom of permitting the various committees to
propose special orders for the consideration of business reported by
them began to cease, the function being absorbed by the Committee on
Rules.
On July 10, 1886,\1\ Mr. William R. Morrison, of Illinois, as a
privileged question from the Committee on Rules, to which was referred
a resolution fixing a day for the consideration of business reported
from the Committee on Ways and Means, reported the same with the
following amendment in the nature of a substitute therefor:
Resolved, That Tuesday, the 13th day of July, immediately after the
reading of the Journal, be, and is hereby, set apart for the
consideration of such business as may be presented by the Committee on
Ways and Means, not to include any bill raising revenue; and if any
bill shall be under consideration and not disposed of when the House
adjourns on that day the consideration of such bill shall continue from
day to day, immediately after the reading of the Journal, until
disposed of.
Mr. Abram S. Hewitt, of New York, made on this resolution a point of
order:
It is not competent for the Committee on Rules to report in the
nature of a rule a regulation of debate which is intended for a single
day and a single occasion pro hac vice. That is not a rule. The usual
practice of the House has been for the committee which desired a day to
come in with a resolution, submit it to the House, and take the action
of the House upon it under the rules. It seems to me this is a device
by which the Committee on Rules, having power to report at any time,
come into the House and do that which under the rules can only be done
by resolution on the request of the committee from which the
application comes.
After debate the Speaker pro tempore \2\ held:
As the Chair understands, this resolution on being introduced was
referred by the House to the Committee on Rules. It is competent, in
the judgment of the Chair, for the House in this manner to change its
rules, if this involves a change. The adoption of this resolution would
be pro tanto nothing more than a change of the rules; and the proper
method of making such a change under the rules is upon a report from
the Committee on Rules.\3\ Therefore the Chair can see nothing in the
point of order made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hewitt].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 2171; Record, pp.
6759-6760.
\2\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker pro tempore.
\3\ On January 26, 1836 (First session Twenty-fourth Congress,
Journal, p. 238; Debates, pp. 2342-2344), a resolution making a special
order for the consideration of appropriation bills was reported from
the Committee on Foreign Affairs. A point of order was made that it
ought to come from the Committee on Rules, or at least Ways and Means,
which reported the appropriation bills. But Mr. Speaker Polk decided
the resolution in order, although its adoption would require a two-
thirds vote.
In 1892 the Committee on Library reported a special order for the
consideration of business. This was referred to the Committee on Rules.
(Second session Fifty-second Congress, Record, p. 509.)
See also second session Forty-fifth Congress, Journal, pp. 734, 735,
819-820.
Sec. 6775
6775. Instance in 1875 wherein by suspension of the rules a rule was
adopted that the Speaker should entertain no dilatory motions.
In 1875 the function of the Committee on Rules in reporting rules for
special purposes was so little used that there was doubt as to its
validity without a two-thirds vote.
In January, 1875, the passage of the so-called civil rights bill was
obstructed by the minority by repetition of dilatory motions so that no
progress could be made. On February 1, 1875,\1\ on Monday, which under
the rules then existing was the time for introducing bills, a
resolution was offered for reference to the Committee on Rules
providing that dilatory motions should not be entertained.
Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
a resolution of this kind was not in order for reference at this time,
and also that no standing rule or order might be changed without one
day's notice.
The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order.
Later in the same day, on motion of Mr. Benjamin F. Butler, of
Massachusetts, by a vote of yeas 181, nays 90, the rules were suspended
and this resolution was agreed to: \3\
Resolved, That the rules be so far suspended as to allow the
Committee on Rules to report to the House, for consideration and action
at the present time, any new rules or changes of rules said committee
may desire to report; and that during the consideration thereof the
Speaker shall entertain no dilatory motions whatever. * * *
Mr. James A. Garfield, of Ohio, then reported \4\ the rule, which,
after debate was agreed to, yeas 171, nays 85, the Speaker announcing:
To exclude all question of the adoption of this resolution, the Chair
will state that it has been adopted by a two-thirds vote.
Mr. Randall asked if the Chair said it required a two-thirds vote,
and the reply was:
The Chair does not so state.\5\
The civil rights bill was then passed.
6776. It was held as early as 1876 that a proposition to change the
rules might be referred only to the Committee on Rules.--On Monday,
August 7, 1876,\6\ Mr. Beverly B. Douglas, of Virginia, submitted the
following resolution and moved its reference to the Committee on Rules:
Resolved, That the rules be so amended as to allow the committees of
investigation to report at any time during this session.
Mr. Stephen A. Hurlbut, of Illinois, objected to the reception of the
resolution under this call.
The Speaker pro tempore \7\ held that a resolution proposing an
amendment to the rules was in order during the first call on Monday for
reference to the Com-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Forty-third Congress, Record, pp. 880, 881.
\2\ James G. Blaine, of Maine, Speaker.
\3\ Record, pp. 891, 892.
\4\ Record, pp. 892-902.
\5\ Record, p. 902.
\6\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 1395-1401;
Record, pp. 5262, 5263.
\7\ Milton Sayler, of Ohio, Speaker pro tempore.
Sec. 6777
mittee on Rules, and that it was not in order to refer the same to any
other committee except the Committee on Rules.
Mr. Eugene Hale, of Maine, moved the reference of the resolution to
the Committee on Appropriations.
The Speaker pro tempore overruled the motion, holding that under the
rules and practice the resolution must be referred to the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. Hale having appealed, the motion to lay the appeal on the table
failed because a quorum did not vote. After successive roll calls and
calls of the House, Mr. Hale withdrew the appeal and Mr. Douglas
withdrew the original resolution.
6777. An instance of the function of the Committee on Rules in
affording the House a method of suspending the rules by majority
vote.--On February 11, 1903,\1\ the sundry civil appropriation bill was
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union when Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, offered two amendments
for the purpose of providing for the construction of an office building
near the Capitol, and also for an extension of the Capitol building.
Both amendments were ruled out of order.
Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Cannon, the Committee rose, and the
Speaker having taken the chair, Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania,
presented from the Committee on Rules the following resolution, which
was agreed to by the House:
Resolved, That it shall be in order to consider, as an amendment to
the bill (H. R. 17202) making appropriations for sundry civil expenses,
a provision for the acquisition of a site and toward the construction
of a fireproof building for committee rooms, folding room, and other
offices for the House of Representatives, and for the necessary office
rooms for Members thereof, to be used in the discharge of their
official duties.
Then Mr. Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, also from the Committee on
Rules, presented the following, which was likewise agreed to by the
House:
Resolved, That it shall be in order to consider as an amendment to
the bill (H. R. 17202) making appropriations for sundry civil expenses
a proposition to provide for the extension and completion of the
Capitol building.
Then the Committee of the Whole resumed its sitting, and the
amendments which had previously been ruled out were offered again and
agreed to, no point of order being possible.
6778. A resolution changing or construing a standing rule or order is
in order only when presented in the manner prescribed for changing the
rules.--On July 15, 1861,\2\ Mr. Abraham B. Olin, of New York, proposed
the following:
Resolved, That the resolution of this House adopted on Monday, 8th
instant, restricting the business of the present extraordinary session
to questions of immediate national necessity be so construed as to
admit of the consideration only of practical measures of legislation on
the subjects embraced in the message of the President and the reports
of the several heads of Departments, and to exclude all resolutions of
a merely declaratory nature; and that the Speaker be directed to rule
as out of order all matters thus excluded without waiting for the point
of order to be raised thereon.
Mr. William S. Holman, of Indiana, made the point of order that
inasmuch as the resolution changed a standing order of the House it was
out of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 232; Record,
p. 2051.
\2\ First session Thirty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 93; Globe, p.
129.
Sec. 6779
The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order, saying that it gave
construction to the resolution adopted on the previous day, and which
had become a rule of the House.
Mr. Olin having appealed, the appeal was laid on the table.
6779. On January 17, 1839,\2\ Mr. Speaker Polk decided that a
proposed amendment, which, in effect, changed a standing rule of the
House, was in order to be offered and agreed to; but that, should the
amendment be agreed to, the proposition as amended would, in effect,
present a proposition to change the rules, and must therefore be agreed
to by a two-thirds vote.
6780. in 1841 it was held that, as the House had given the Committee
on Rules leave to report at all times, it might report, in part, at
different times.
The first step by which the Committee on Rules became an
instrumentality through which the House may exercise special power for
a particular piece of legislation.
On July 6, 1841,\3\ Mr. William B. Calhoun, of Massachusetts, from
the committee appointed on the 7th of June ``to revise, amend, and
report rules for the government of this House,'' and which committee,
by an order of the House of the 16th ultimo, were directed to ``proceed
to revise and amend the rules, and that they have leave to report at
all times,'' made a further report in part.
Mr. William Medill, of Ohio, objected to receiving the report on the
ground that it was not in order for the committee thus to be making
reports, in part, at different times and ``by piecemeal.''
The Speaker \4\ decided that it was in order for the committee thus
to report in part.\5\
On an appeal, taken by Mr. Medill, the decision of the Chair was
sustained, 127 yeas to 88 nays.
6781. A report from the Committee on Rules, although highly
privileged, is not in order after the House has voted to go into
Committee of the Whole.--On February 28, 1901,\6\ the House had voted
to go into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
to consider the bill (H. R. 5499) relating to the Revenue-Cutter
Service. The Speaker had announced the result of the vote and declared
the motion carried, but had not yet left the chair, when Mr. John
Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, proposed to submit a privileged report from
the Committee on Rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Galusha A. Grow, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
\2\ Third session Twenty-fifth Congress, Journal, p 310; Globe, p.
123.
\3\ First session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 204.
\4\ John White, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\5\ The debate on the appeal (Globe, p. 153) indicates that it had
not hitherto been customary for the Committee on Rules to be a
continuing committee with power to report at different times. Up to
1841 it had been appointed at the beginning of each Congress to report
the rules for the Congress, and after this duty was attended to by a
report its functions practically ceased. The Committee on Rules now has
the right by rule to report at any time.
\6\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 293; Record, p.
3236.
Sec. 6782
Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, made the point of order that the
House had voted to go into Committee of the Whole, and pending that it
was not in order to consider any other business.
After debate the Speaker \1\ said:
The Chair takes this view of it: The Chair has announced that the
motion to go into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union is carried. That, it seems to the Chair, removes the House and
substitutes the committee. While it is true that reports of the
Committee on Rules are of the highest order and take precedence, still
we must be in the House in order to consider them, in the opinion of
the Chair. There is an easy remedy for it. If it is the pleasure of the
committee, it has a right to rise and go back into the House. The Chair
is very clear, however, that the House is in Committee of the Whole and
would not be in a position to entertain a motion to adjourn even, which
is a motion of the highest privilege if made in good faith, and
therefore the Chair sustains the point of order and calls upon the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Grosvenor] to take the chair.
6782. In 1876 the joint rules were abrogated, the action being
accompanied by discussion in both Houses; and subsequent efforts to
restore them have failed.--On January 10, 1876,\2\ Mr. Hannibal Hamlin,
of Maine, made a report in the Senate on a resolution originally
proposed by Mr. George F. Edmunds, of Vermont, relating to the joint
rules of the two Houses. The conclusion of the report was that as the
House expired each two years all rules expired with it, joint rules
included, and that therefore the joint rules which had been in
existence since the foundation of the Government subsisted only by
acquiescence. The committee therefore proposed a concurrent resolution
adopting all the former joint rules, excepting the Twenty-second, which
provided the method of conducting the count of the electoral votes.
This resolution was debated at length on January 17, and was adopted on
January 20.
On August 14 \3\ the Senate, on motion of Mr. Edmunds, adopted a
resolution (the House having sent over a concurrent resolution to
suspend certain joint rules) informing the House that, as the House had
not notified the Senate of the adoption of joint rules this session, as
proposed by the Senate to the House, there were no joint rules in
force.
On December 12, 1876,\4\ the question raised by the action of the
Senate in abrogating the joint rules was discussed at some length in
the House.
6783. On December 4, 1877,\5\ a resolution was offered directing the
enforcement of one of the joint rules. Mr. Speaker Randall said:
The Chair desires to say in this connection that he has always held
the joint rules were in force, and, notwithstanding the Senate have
held otherwise, every day's proceedings between the two Houses are
conducted under a system authorized by the joint rules.
The House thereupon proceeded to pass the resolution of instruction.
6784. On January 8, 1879,\6\ in the Senate, Mr. George F. Edmunds, of
Vermont, proposed a joint rule to revive the old provisions in regard
to bills passed and
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\2\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 309, 431, 517-
520.
\3\ Record, p. 5567.
\4\ Second session Forty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 146-149.
\5\ Second session Forty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 10.
\6\ Third session Forty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 369, 370.
Sec. 6785
presented to the President in the last days of the session. The
proposed rule was not adopted.
6785. On April 1, 1879,\1\ the Senate, after debate, adopted a
resolution authorizing the Committee on Rules of the Senate to take
into consideration the subject of joint rules and confer with the
Committee on Rules of the House. This resolution was, in the House on
June 10, referred to the Committee on Rules. No action resulted.
6786. In 1885-86 \2\ the Senate adopted a code of joint rules and
sent them to the House, where they were referred to the Committee on
Rules, but not acted on. These joint rules included many of the
features of the old joint rules and some new provisions relating to
legislation on appropriation bills and the matter to be included in
conference reports.
6787. In 1889 \3\ the Senate proposed to the House action looking to
the adoption of joint rules, but the resolution was not acted on in the
House.\4\
6788. A concurrent resolution suspending a joint rule is agreed to by
majority vote.--On March 2, 1837,\5\ the House proceeded to the
consideration of the following resolution from the Senate:
Resolved, That the sixteenth joint rule of the two Houses be
suspended so far as to authorize the sending from one House to the
other any bills which passed either House on the 28th ultimo.
Mr. Francis W. Pickens, of South Carolina, raised a question of order
as to whether or not a two-thirds vote was required to concur with the
Senate resolution.
The Speaker \6\ decided that the rule relating to change or
suspension of the rules \7\ applied only to the rules and orders of the
House and not to the joint rules and orders of the two Houses, and that
it was competent for a majority to concur with the Senate in their
resolution.
Mr. Pickens having appealed, the decision of the Speaker was
sustained, yeas 134, nays 43.
6789. On June 20, 1874,\8\ Mr. Speaker Blaine held that a joint rule
was suspended by a majority vote on a concurrent resolution of
suspension from the Senate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Forty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 35, 472; Record,
p. 138.
\2\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Journal, pp. 137, 194;
Record, pp. 131, 184, 307, 413.
\3\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, pp. 126, 188.
\4\ The two Houses now have no joint rules, unless the concurrent
resolution in relation to the enrollment of bills may be considered as
such. (See secs. 3433, 3435, of Vol. IV.)
\5\ Second session Twenty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 573, 574.
\6\ James K. Polk, of Tennessee, Speaker.
\7\ See section 6790 of this volume for past and present forms of
this rule.
\8\ First session Forty-third Congress, Record, p. 5309.