[Hinds' Precedents, Volume 5]
[Chapter 113 - References in Debate To Committees, the President or the Other House]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
REFERENCES IN DEBATE TO COMMITTEES, THE PRESIDENT OR THE OTHER HOUSE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Proceedings of committee not to be discussed unless
reported. Sections 5080-5085.\1\
2. Discussion as to the President. Sections 5086-5094.
3. References to proceedings and debate in the other House.
Sections 5095-5106.\2\
4. Quotations from record of debate in the other House.
Sections 5107-5113.
5. Proper and improper references to the other House. Sections
5114-5120.\3\
6. Expressions offensive to Members of the other House.
Sections 5121-5130.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
5080. It is not in order in debate to refer to the proceedings of a
committee unless the committee have formally reported their proceedings
to the House.--On February 19, 1840,\4\ the House was considering the
report of the Committee on Elections in the New Jersey contested cases,
when Mr. David Petrikin, of Pennsylvania, submitted the following as a
question of order:
That neither the chairman of a committee, nor any other member of the
committee or of the House, can be permitted to allude, on the floor, to
anything which has taken place in committee, or in any way relate, in
debate, what was done by said committee or by the individual members of
that committee, except it is done by a written report made to the
House, by authority of a majority of the committee.\5\
The Chair decided generally that the point of order was well taken.
The debate proceeding, Mr. Millard Fillmore, of New York, made
allusions to the proceedings in the Committee on Elections, and, while
reading a resolution which had been adopted in that committee, was
called to order by the Speaker \6\ on the ground that a Member had no
right to read papers containing the proceedings of the committee (not
reported by the committee), although the amendment under consideration
proposed to print their proceedings.
Mr. Fillmore then took his seat.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Instance wherein the proceedings of a committee were reported and
discussed. (Sec. 817 of Vol. 1.)
\2\ See also section 6406 of this volume.
\3\ See also section 7017 of this volume.
\4\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 418, 423;
Globe, p. 213.
\5\ Committees have frequently submitted the journals of their
proceedings as parts of their reports. A notable instance is afforded
in the report of the committee which investigated the United States
Bank, and later the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War. (See
secs. 1731-1733 of Vol. III of this work.)
\6\ Robert M. T. Hunter, of Virginia, Speaker.
Sec. 5081
Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, appealed from the decision
of the Chair, in its calling of Mr. Fillmore to order, on the ground
that the proposition of the Committee on Elections to authorize that
committee to have papers printed necessarily brought all such papers
before the House. Furthermore, any Member of the House had the right to
call for the reading of papers which it was proposed to print. The
rules were already too rigid for the rights of Members.
Mr. Petrikin maintained that a committee was a distinct body of
individuals and that it was entirely out of order to read papers and
arraign its proceedings before the House. Mr. John Pope, of Kentucky,
thought they should not discuss any papers and proceedings of a
committee until they were reported to the House. Mr. Linn Banks,\1\ of
Virginia, spoke of the importance of the precedent. He favored
preserving the rights of the minority, but this case involved rather
the integrity of committee proceedings. If it were allowable to go into
committee and drag forth their records to be commented on in the House,
jealousy would be engendered and the usefulness of committees impaired.
The consequences of reversing the settled practice of the House should
be looked to rather than the particular case before them.
The decision of the Chair was sustained by a vote of 98 yeas to 84
nays.
5081. On January 23, 1850,\2\ the House was considering a resolution
reported from the Committee on Elections, authorizing the taking of
testimony by the parties to the contest from the First Congressional
district of Iowa.
During the debate Mr. George Ashmun, of Massachusetts, and William S.
Ashe, of North Carolina, were proceeding to discuss and refer to
certain matters which had occurred before the Committee on Elections,
but which had not been reported upon to the House.
Mr. Frederick P. Stanton, of Tennessee, raised the point of order
that it was not in order in the House to refer to matters that had
transpired before the committee and not been reported upon to the
House.
The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order, and decided that such
reference was not in order except when the committee made its report.
It had always been regarded as improper in the House to refer to
proceedings that had taken place in committee.
Mr. Robert C. Schenck, of Ohio, having appealed, the decision of the
Chair was sustained.
There being still further discussion as to whether or not the
committee had in its possession certain official returns, the Speaker
interposed and said that the debate showed the correctness of the rule,
which had always been recognized, that matters which had occurred
before a committee ought not to be referred to in the House until these
matters had been reported upon and came regularly before the House.
5082. On May 26, 1906,\4\ the diplomatic and consular appropriation
bill was under consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mr. Banks, before his election to Congress, had served twenty
successive years as speaker of the Virginia house of delegates. His
biographer says: ``An office for which he was so peculiarly qualified
that he was selected to fill it in all the mutations of party.''
\2\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 393; Globe, p.
214.
\3\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
\4\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 7468.
Sec. 5083
when Mr. William W. Rucker, of Missouri, having the floor in general
debate, spoke as follows in regard to proceedings as to a certain bill
in the Committee on Election of President, Vice-President, and
Representatives in Congress:
Believing that H.R. 19078 would give practical and substantial
publicity and therefore merit public approval, I sought earnestly to
secure its favorable report. When the committee agreed to take a final
vote on this bill at noon on May 12, I confess I was elated. At the
time fixed, Mr. Watkins, one of the minority members, moved ``that
following the special order heretofore made, the hour of 12 o'clock
meridian having arrived, the committee report favorably H. R. 19078 as
amended.''
The roll was called, and those voting in favor of reporting the bill,
H. R. 19078 were Messrs. Rucker, Gillespie, Hardwick, Ellerbe, and
Watkins--5.
Those voting in the negative were Messrs. Gaines, of West Virginia,
Sulloway, Hermann, Norris, Brooks, of Colorado, Dunwell, Campbell, of
Ohio, and Burke, of Pennsylvania--8.
Mr. Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, raised a question of order as
to the propriety of relating the proceedings of the committee on the
floor.
The Chairman,\1\ referring to section 713 of Parliamentary
Precedents, held that it was not in order in the House to refer to the
proceedings of a committee, or to read from the records thereof, except
by the authority of the committee.
5083. On February 25, 1903,\2\ the House was considering the
conference report on the bill (S. 4825) to provide for a union railroad
station in the District of Columbia, etc., when Mr. Thetus W. Sims, of
Tennessee, proceeded in debate to speak of the actions of members in
the District of Columbia Committee when the bill was pending there.
Mr. Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, raised a question of order.
The Speaker \3\ said:
The point of order is well taken, and there never was a better
illustration of it than we have now. The Chair is not speaking alone of
the gentleman, but this morning we have had evidence of that very
difficulty. Allusion has been made to what occurred in the committee.
That is something with which the House has nothing to do. It has to do
only with the results.
On February 26, 1903,\4\ during consideration of the contested-
election case of Wagoner v. Butler, Mr. Marlin E. Olmsted said in
debate:
Now, when we came to the meeting of the committee, the minority sat
with us until the day was fixed for the final disposition of the case
by the committee. The ranking member of the minority, Monday evening of
this week, asked me my views, and I told him very frankly that I had
concluded, speaking for myself, as to what result ought to be brought
about, but could not say until the committee met what the other members
would do. The minority members of the committee absented themselves
from the meeting held the next morning to consider the case judicially.
Not only that, but one of them, by an attempt to pair with a Republican
member, sought to break a quorum.
Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, having raised a question of
order, the Speaker \3\ held that the reference was not in order.
5084. Even where the action of a committee is called in question its
records may not be produced in the House.--On December 18, 1890,\5\ Mr.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Charles Curtis, of Kansas, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2655.
\3\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\4\ Record, p. 2716.
\5\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 67; Record, p.
647.
Sec. 5085
John M. Farquhar, of New York, moved, under section 5 of Rule XXIV,\1\
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill of the Senate
(S. 3738) to place the American merchant marine engaged in the foreign
trade upon an equality with that of other nations and the substitute
therefor offered by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, made the point of order that
the committee had not authorized this report to be considered at this
time or authorized this motion to be made.
After debate, Mr. Farquhar having proposed to read the minutes of the
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries with respect to its action
on the bill, the Speaker \2\ held that it was not in order for the
minutes of a committee to be produced in the House and made public, but
further held that Mr. Farquhar, as the chairman or the authorized organ
of the committee, was at liberty to make a statement of fact in regard
to any action taken by the committee in regard to the bill.
Mr. Farquhar thereupon made a statement to the effect that the
committee had authorized him to ask for a special order for the
consideration of the bill.
The Speaker ruled, upon the statement so made, that Mr. Farquhar had
not been authorized to make the motion.
5085. On January 23, 1891,\3\ the House was considering a question of
privilege raised by Mr. George W. Cooper, of Indiana, as to the alleged
failure of the Committee on Charges against the Commissioner of
Pensions to report, and in the course of his remarks Mr. Cooper stated
that the Committee, on the 11th of September last, had directed its
chairman to report to the House for proper reference under the rules,
which instructions had not been complied with. This fact he proposed to
establish by reading from the minutes of the committee.
The Speaker \2\ ruled that it was not in order to read the minutes or
quote from the record of the committee.
5086. The law of Parliament, evidently inapplicable to the House of
Representatives, forbids the Member from speaking ``irreverently or
seditiously against the King.''--Chapter XVII of Jefferson's Manual
provides:
In Parliament to speak irreverently or seditiously against the King
is against order.\4\ (Smyth's Comw., L. 2, c. 3; 2 Hats., 170.)
5087. It is in order in debate to refer to the President of the
United States or his opinions, either with approval or criticism,
provided that
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 3134 of Vol. IV of this work.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 174; Record, pp.
1787, 1788.
\4\ This is given merely to show the usage of Parliament and is
evidently inapplicable in a government like that of the United States,
wherein the Congress is an independent, coordinate power in the
Government and not even in theory dependent in any degree on the
Executive will. While under the English constitution the Parliament is
really the governing power of the nation, yet the House of Commons is
summoned on the writ of the King, and the speaker after his election
goes through the form of receiving the royal approbation. The Member of
the House of Representatives is evidently restrained only by the
ordinary rules of decorum in debate and his own sense of propriety in
his references to the President of the United States.
Sec. 5088
such references be relevant to the subject under discussion and
otherwise conformable to the rules of the House.--On January 5,
1809,\1\ the House was considering the bill ``to enforce and make more
effectual an act entitled `An act laying an embargo on all ships and
vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, and the several
acts supplementary thereto,' '' During the debate Mr. John G. Jackson,
of Virginia, suggested that Mr. James Elliot, of Vermont, in debating
the merits of the bill had departed from decorum and order by
introducing into the discussion insinuations against the Executive of
the United States for not communicating to this House, in due time,
certain information alleged to have been received from our minister
plenipotentiary at Paris, antecedent to March 22, 1808.
The Speaker \2\ thereupon decided that the said insinuations were not
in order and irrelevant to the question under consideration of the
House.
Mr. Barent Gardenier, of New York, having appealed, the decision of
the Chair was sustained, yeas 71, nays 28.
5088. On December 7, 1809, Mr. Ezekiel Bacon, of Massachusetts,
proposed a rule against a Member using ``opprobrious or vilifying
language with respect to any Member, or call into question the
integrity of his motives, or those of either branch of the Government
in relation to the discharge of his official duties, except on a motion
for impeachment, or for other interposition of the constitutional power
of this House--or apply to either indecorous or reproachful
expressions--it shall be deemed a breach of the orders of this House.''
This rule was not adopted.\3\
5089. On February 5, 1827,\4\ on a motion to refer a message of the
President, Mr. John Forsyth, of Georgia, said that he could not, as a
Representative of Georgia, consent to sit and quietly hear the charges
brought forward in this communication against the authorities of that
State. They had done nothing which violated the Constitution of their
country. He would say this in the face of the Executive.
A Member having called Mr. Forsyth to order, the Speaker \5\ decided
that he was not out of order.
5090. On July 5, 1832,\6\ the House was considering a joint
resolution from the Senate authorizing a request that the President of
the United States appoint a public fast day.
In the course of the debate, Mr. Tristam Burges, of Rhode Island,
referring to a letter from the President of the United States relating
to the appointment of a fast day, which had been read in a previous
debate on this resolution and which had been published in the
newspapers, was called to order for such reference by Mr. Lewis
Williams, of North Carolina. Mr. Williams urged that it was not
consistent with the usages of the House to refer to any opinion of the
President, unless officially communicated with a view to influence the
action of the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Tenth Congress, Journal, p. 445 (Gales and Seaton
ed.); Annals, p. 994.
\2\ Joseph B. Varnum, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Eleventh Congress, Journal, pp. 121, 124 (Gales
and Seaton ed.); Annal, pp. 702, 706.
\4\ Second session Nineteenth Congress, Debates, p. 935.
\5\ John W. Taylor, of New York, Speaker.
\6\ First session Twenty-second Congress, Journal, p. 1095; Debates,
p. 3866.
Sec. 5091
The Speaker pro tempore \1\ decided that he could not so limit the
debate as to exclude such reference as the gentleman from Rhode Island
had made to the letter of the President, which had appeared in the
public papers. He had often heard letters quoted in the House over the
signature of individuals, and the practice had never been declared out
of order.
Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, appealed from this decision.
On July 9,\2\ when the question was resumed, the Speaker,\3\ in
stating the appeal, said that his own opinion concurred with that of
the gentleman occupying the chair in his absence. Had the question of
order been raised when the letter was first introduced, he should
probably have allowed it to be read. As it was the question of order
seemed to have been raised too late.
In the debate on the appeal Mr. Adams characterized as extremely
dangerous the practice of allowing a letter from the President \4\ to
be read for the purpose of influencing the decision of the House on a
pending question. The practice of the British Parliament was firmly
established to the contrary. The President was in constant official
intercourse with the House; but it should not be permitted to use his
private letters, conversations, rumors of his opinions, to influence
the House. Mr. William Stanberry, of Ohio, recalled a precedent of a
former Congress, when Mr. Speaker Macon had called Mr. Burwell to order
for using the name of the President.
On the other hand, it was urged by Mr. Richard Coulter, of
Pennsylvania, that there was a great distinction between a King of
England, from his position naturally antagonistic to the Commons, and a
President of the United States, an officer of the people.
Mr. Adams finally withdrew his appeal.
5091. On December 9, 1868,\5\ during the discussion of the message
of the President, Mr. Elihu B. Washburne, of Illinois, said of the
message:
I wish to take the earliest opportunity to enter my emphatic protest
against it, and to denounce it as a disgrace to the country and to the
Chief Magistrate who has sent this message.
Mr. Fernando Wood, of New York, made the point of order that such
reference to the message was unparliamentary.
The Speaker \6\ said:
The gentleman from New York raises the point that it is not in order
for the gentleman from Illinois to characterize the message of the
President of the United States in the language he has. This being a
country of free speech, the Chair thinks that Members who have been
elected to represent the people of the United States have the right to
criticize the official conduct of those who are clothed with public
trust, provided that it is done in language not indecorous or
personally offensive--a right exercised in this message in referring to
Congress.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James K. Polk, of Tennessee, Speaker pro tempore.
\2\ Journal, p. 1110; Debates, pp. 3867-3878.
\3\ Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, Speaker.
\4\ This letter was in reply to an application for the appointment of
a fast day made by the Synod of the Reformed Dutch Church.
\5\ Third session Fortieth Congress, Globe, pp. 33, 34.
\6\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
Sec. 5092
5092. A reference in debate to the probable action of the President
of the United States was held to involve no breach of order.--On March
28, 1902,\1\ while the Committee of the Whole House was considering the
bill (H. R. 3379) ``to correct the military record of Calvin A. Rice,''
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, said in debate:
To say that the House can not control an officer or cause to be
removed a charge of desertion or correct the military record of one of
its old soldiers. The only way that Congress can direct it is by the
enactment of a law, and you can not enact a law without giving the
President the right to sign the bill or to veto it, and the President's
right is a coordinate right with that of Congress. He has the same
right to veto that we have to propose, and when we know that he will
reject a certain form it seems to me the policy of wisdom and proper
legislation to propose a form which he will agree to, when there is, in
my opinion, no great difference in the substance.
Mr. William B. Shattuc, of Ohio, made the point of order that it was
not proper to refer to the probable action of the President with a view
to influencing the action of this House.
The Chairman \2\ overruled the point of order, saying that he had not
observed any breach of propriety in this regard.
5093. In debating a proposition to impeach the President of the
United States a wide latitude was permitted to a Member in preferring
charges.--On January 14, 1867,\3\ the Speaker announced as the business
next in order the resolution submitted on Monday last by Mr. John R.
Kelso, of Missouri, in regard to the impeachment of the President, the
pending question being on the demand for the previous question.
Mr. Kelso having withdrawn the demand, Mr. Benjamin F. Loan, of
Missouri, proceeded to debate the resolution; when Mr. Robert S. Hale,
of New York, called him to order for the following words spoken in
debate, viz:
The crime was committed. The way was made clear for the succession.
An assassin's bullet, wielded and directed by rebel hand and paid by
rebel gold, made Andrew Johnson President of the United States of
America. The price that he was to pay for his promotion was treachery
to the Republic and fidelity to the party of treason and rebellion.
Mr. Hale gave as his reasons for his point of order, that the
President of the United States could not be put on trial before the
House except by solemn form of impeachment, and that under a resolution
declaring simply the duty of the House to inaugurate such proceedings
as would lead to the impeachment, these charges could not be made.
The Speaker \4\ stated that inasmuch as the Constitution authorizes
the removal from office of the President ``on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors,'' and also provides that articles of impeachment must be
found by the House, and as the pending resolution contained a general
charge against the President of crimes and misdemeanors, for which it
was declared he should be impeached, it was competent in the discussion
of the resolution for the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Benjamin F.
Loan) to specify any of such charges. He therefore overruled the point
of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 3371.
\2\ Adin B. Capron, of Rhode Island, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Thirty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 163; Globe, p.
444.
\4\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
Sec. 5094
Mr. Henry D. Washburn, of Indiana, appealed from this decision. The
appeal was laid on the table.
5094. Mr. Speaker Colfax held that a Member, in debating a
proposition to impeach the President, should abstain from language
personally offensive.--On March 7, 1867,\1\ during consideration of a
resolution directing an investigation of the conduct of Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States, with a view to his impeachment, Mr.
James M. Ashley, of Ohio, having the floor, said:
They [the nation] demand that the loathing incubus which has blotted
our country's history with its foulest blot shall be removed. In the
name of loyalty betrayed, of law violated, of the Constitution trampled
upon, the nation demands the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.
The Speaker,\2\ interposing, said:
The gentleman from Ohio knows there is a large license allowed in
debate in regard to impeachment, but the Chair is of opinion the
gentleman is proceeding beyond that. * * * The gentleman must abstain
from language which will be regarded as personally offensive. He has
the right under the Constitution to charge crimes and misdemeanors.
5095. It is a breach of order in debate to refer to debate or votes
on the same subject in the other House.
Neither House may exercise any authority over a Member or officer of
the other, but may complain to the other House.
It is the duty of the House, and particularly of the Speaker, to
suppress in debate expressions which may give ground of complaint to
the other House.
Jefferson's Manual, in Section XVII, provides:
It is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been said on the
same subject in the other House, or the particular votes or majorities
on it there, because the opinion of each House should be left to its
own independency, not to be influenced by the proceedings of the other;
and the quoting them might beget reflections leading to a
misunderstanding between the two Houses. (8 Grey, 22.)
Neither House can exercise any authority over a Member or officer of
the other, but should complain to the House of which he is, and leave
the punishment to them. Where the complaint is of words disrespectfully
spoken by a Member of another House, it is difficult to obtain
punishment, because of the rules supposed necessary to be observed (as
to the immediate noting down of words), for the security of Members.\3\
Therefore it is the duty of the House, and more particularly of the
Speaker, to interfere immediately, and not to permit expressions to go
unnoticed which may give a ground of complaint to the other House, and
introduce proceedings and mutual accusations between the two Houses,
which can hardly be terminated without difficulty and disorder. (3
Hats., 51.)
5096. On June 10, 1886,\4\ in the Senate a discussion occurred as to
whether or not it was in order, when a private bill was under
consideration, to refer to a report or read a report on the same
subject made in the other branch. The subject was referred to the
Committee on Rules.
The committee does not appear to have reported.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 19.
\2\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
\3\ It should be observed that while this was true of Parliament, it
is not applicable to Congress, which publishes daily a verbatim report
of its proceedings.
\4\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 5493.
Sec. 5097
5097. On June 25, 1902,\1\ the House was considering the Senate
amendments to the army appropriation bill, when, in debate, Mr. James
Hay, of Virginia, referred to a statement said to have been made by
Senator Cockrell in relation to the pending bill.
The Speaker 2 interrupting Mr. Hay, said:
The Chair will call the attention of the gentleman from Virginia to
the parliamentary rule that Members of the other House cannot be named
in debate. * * * The Chair will state to the gentleman that when a
Member uses the name of a Member of the other House the Chair will
promptly call him to order. The Chair knows that the gentleman will be
glad to comply with the rule.
5098. Interpretation of the rule prohibiting reference in debate to
what has been said on the subject in the other House.--On May 27,
1902,\3\ the Senate was discussing a message of the House conveying
certain instructions to the committee of conference appointed by the
House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the army
appropriation bill.
In the course of the debate Mr. Jacob H. Gallinger, of New Hampshire,
said:
Mr. President, if you will go back to the debates in the House you
will find that a very distinguished Member of that body used these
words:
``Now, let the House----''
Thereupon Mr. Edmund W. Pettus, of Alabama, raised the question of
order that the Senator was discussing what occurred in the other House,
and about that the Senate knew officially only what had been
transmitted in the message.
The Presiding Officer \4\ said:
If the Chair may be permitted, there is no formal rule of the Senate
relating to the point of order just raised by the Senator from Alabama
[Mr. Pettus]. There is, however, in Jefferson's Manual a parliamentary
suggestion that it is a breach of order in debate to notice what has
been said on the same subject in the other House, or to refer to the
particular vote or majority on it there. The Chair understands the
entire effect of the rule to be that reference should not be made to
what has been said on the same subject in the other House--and the
Chair supposes that refers to the present session--or to notice the
votes or majorities on it in the other House. * * * The Chair does not
think that Jefferson's Manual prevents a Senator from discussing action
which has been taken in the other House.
5099. It is permissible in debate to refer to proceedings of the
other House, provided such reference be within the prohibitions of the
rules.--On March 18, 1880,\5\ the House was in Committee of the Whole
on the state of the Union, and during the debate Mr. Charles O'Neill,
of Pennsylvania, referred to secret sessions of the Senate, stating
that the appointment of a certain official was confirmed unanimously,
and giving as his authority for knowing this the fact that Members of
the House knew of all that occurred in executive sessions of the Senate
relative to confirmations.
Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, made the point of order that
the gentleman had no right to refer to proceedings of the Senate, and
especially to proceedings of the Senate in executive session, which
were secret.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 7389.
\2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\3\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 5957.
\4\ Orville H. Platt, of Connecticut, President pro tempore.
\5\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1681.
Sec. 5100
The Chairman \1\ ruled:
The Chair does not understand there is any rule of the House or any
rule of parliamentary law which prevents the gentleman from referring
to proceedings at the other end of the Capitol; although he is
prevented from criticising or calling in question the proceedings there
or alluding by name to the gentlemen who participated in those
proceedings. The proceedings of the other branch are constantly alluded
to in this House.
5100. In the Senate a reference to methods of procedure in the House,
made for the purpose of influencing the action of the Senate, was ruled
out of order.--In the Senate on May 8, 1884,\2\ a bill relating to the
shipping interests was about to be sent to the House, and a question
arose whether or not it should be accompanied by a request for a
conference. In the course of his remarks, Mr. William P. Frye, of
Maine, said:
If this bill goes over without a request for a conference, the point
of order is made to it promptly; no bill can possibly pass the Senate
that some Member of the House will not be opposed----
At this point the President pro tempore interposed and said that
``any allusion to the proceedings of the House of Representatives is
not in order.''
Thereupon Mr. Frye proceeded:
Then I will suppose a case. A point of order may be made against it
in another place. If the point of order should be made against it in
another place, that might carry it to the Committee of the Whole, and
if it did carry it to the Committee of the Whole it could be buried so
that it would not be reached in the next four----
The President pro tempore \3\ again interrupted:
The Chair must interrupt the Senator from Maine. The Chair thinks
that that does not bring his observation within the rule.
5101. It is not in order in debate to refer to the actual or probable
action of the Senate.--On January 22, 1834,\4\ in discussing a
disagreement between the two Houses on an appropriation bill, Mr.
Samuel A. Foot, of Connecticut, said:
The gentleman from Tennessee supposes that the Senate will recede,
but the record of their proceedings in regard to the matter does not
encourage the supposition. Look at the vote on the question----
The Chair \5\ interposed, and sated that it was not in order to
refer to a vote of the Senate.
5102. On April 18, 1828,\6\ in the Senate, Vice-President Calhoun
called a Senator to order for stating--
that it was a fact, well known to him, in common with the country at
large, that the other House had, without a division, rejected a
resolution of inquiry into the expediency of repealing the duty.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John G. Carlisle, Kentucky, Chairman.
\2\ First session Forty-eight Congress, Record, p. 3976.
\3\ George F. Edmunds, of Vermont, President pro tempore.
\4\ First session Twenty-third Congress, Debates, p. 2494.
\5\ Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, Speaker.
\6\ First session Twentieth Congress, Debates, p. 670.
Sec. 5103
5103. On January 16, 1807,\1\ Mr. John Randolph, of Virginia, while
speaking in relation to the alleged ``Burr conspiracy,'' said:
Sir, this subject offers strong arguments, in addition to numerous
reasons presented during the present session of Congress, to justify
the policy avowed by certain gentlemen during the last session, so
highly condemned; and if I am correctly informed, the other branch of
the Legislature are now acting on that policy so condemned and
despised.
The Speaker \2\ here said that it was not in order to allude to the
proceedings of the Senate.
5104. On January 31, 1826,\3\ during consideration of a resolution
relating to the proposed Congress at Panama, Mr. James C. Mitchell, of
Tennessee, having the floor in debate, referred to measures under
consideration in the Senate, stating that the subject before the House
was also before the Senate.
The Speaker \4\ decided that it was not in order to reflect upon the
proceedings of the other branch.
5105. On January 22, 1836,\5\ while discussing a proposed
investigation into the failure of the fortifications appropriation bill
to become a law at the last session of the preceding Congress, Mr. John
Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, said in debate:
I have offered the resolution for the appointment of a committee with
instructions to inquire into and report the facts relating to the loss
of this bill, principally in consequence of what has occurred in
another place on this same subject, in which not only the facts stated
by the President in this part of his message have been denied to be
true----
The Speaker,\6\ interrupting Mr. Adams, said that allusions to the
proceedings of the Senate were not in order. It was indispensable that
this rule should be observed, in order to preserve harmony between the
two branches of the Legislature.
5106. It is not in order in debate to criticise words spoken in the
Senate, even by one not a member of that body and during an impeachment
trial.--On May 6, 1868,\7\ Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania,
having the floor for a personal explanation, made certain criticisms of
words spoken during the impeachment trial by Mr. Nelson, one of the
counsel for the President and not a member of either branch of
Congress.
A question of order was raised and it was urged that as the remarks
of Mr. Nelson had been made in the presence of the two Houses, and as
he was not a member of the Senate but counsel for the President, it was
in order to refer to them in the House.
The Speaker \8\ held:
The Chair would state to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that
parliamentary rules prohibit unfavorable discussion in regard to what
transpires in the other chamber--the Senate Chamber. * * * The Senate
are sitting under their constitutional power as a court to try the
pending impeachment. It is the Senate of the United States with a
presiding officer called in, because the President himself
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Ninth Congress, Annals, p. 335.
\2\ Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina, Speaker.
\3\ First session Nineteenth Congress, Journal, p. 794; Debates, p.
1208.
\4\ John W. Taylor, of New York, Speaker.
\5\ First session Twenty-fourth Congress, Debates, p. 2264.
\6\ James K. Polk, of Tennessee, Speaker.
\7\ Second session Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 2366.
\8\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
Sec. 5107
is on trial. But as was held by the managers during the trial, and
correctly in the opinion of the Chair, it is ``still the Senate of the
United States,'' though engaged in trying the President.
5107. A Member may not, in debate in the House, read the record of
speeches or votes of Senators in such connection of comment or
criticism as might be expected to lead to recriminations.
Discussion as to the extent to which the proceedings of one House may
be read in the other.
On May 4, 1896,\1\ Mr. Charles A. Boutelle, of Maine, called up the
naval appropriation bill, which had been returned from the Senate with
amendments, and proceeded to quote the utterances of certain Senators
in the Senate, and to say that if it were parliamentary he might
contrast these with the votes of the same Senators, which he proceeded
to specify.
Mr. Lemuel E. Quigg, of New York, made the point of order that the
gentleman's remarks were obnoxious to the rule.
During the debate, Mr. Galusha A. Grow,\2\ of Pennsylvania, said:
Mr. Speaker, if I am correct in my view, the Members of one House can
not refer to proceedings pending between the two Houses in a way of
comment. Proceedings, however, of either House as printed in the Record
become history, and any Member may refer to them as history, but
without commenting upon them or discussing the reasons why a Member of
the other body uttered certain sentiments at one time and certain other
sentiments at another. The record is history and may be referred to;
but comments upon it are, I think, excluded by parliamentary law.
The Speaker \3\ in ruling quoted the provisions of Jefferson's
Manual,\4\ and said:
If the Chair understood the remarks of the gentleman from Maine, they
were, in addition to the reading of matters in the Record, criticisms
with regard to the personal action of Members of the other House and in
regard to their votes. * * * The thing to be kept in mind by the House
and by gentlemen in addressing this body, not for our own sakes
particularly, but for the sake of orderly proceedings in public bodies,
is that principle which is laid down in this manual--the principle that
there should be in such bodies no such criticism or reference to the
members of another and a coordinate body as would be liable to lead to
recriminations or disputes.
The reason for this is simple and plain on reflection. It is that all
legislation, in order to become law, must receive the sanction of both
Houses. Anything, therefore, which means misunderstanding between the
two Houses--like criticism of the person or manner by the Members of
either branch of those of the other--would be likely to create friction
and have a very bad effect upon public legislation. At least that is
the theory on which the rule and the construction of the rule to which
attention is called is based. And I think everybody will see the
soundness and wisdom of it.
The Chair has the impression that the rule certainly goes as far as
stated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, a former Speaker of this
House [Mr. Grow], and possibly it goes even further under the usages of
the House. So far as my personal recollection is concerned, my
impression is that allusion to the acts, and especially to the motives,
of Members, or the criticism of Members of the other House, is not
permissible here, nor is a criticism of us permitted over there, and
the purpose of it is that we may avoid unnecessary ill feeling between
the two bodies in the interest of the country and the advancement of
legislation. Because where criticism is made of a man where he can not
reply it is more irritating than criticism of a man where he can reply.
And so the motive for establishing a proper rule to govern our
relations with the other body is even stronger than it is for
establishing proper relations among ourselves. Now, I have no doubt
that the gentleman from Maine will proceed in order. But I think that
the remark which came to the attention of the Chair was not strictly in
order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 4801, 4802;
Journal, pp. 451-452.
\2\ Speaker of the Thirty-seventh Congress, 1861-1863.
\3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\4\ See section 5095.
Sec. 5108
5108. On June 1, 1897,\1\ Mr. Jerry Simpson, of Kansas, having the
floor, was proceeding to read from the Congressional Record of the 29th
instant, a speech made by a Senator and alleged by Mr. Simpson to be an
attack upon the House.
The Speaker \2\ called the gentleman from Kansas to order, saying:
The Chair rules that it is not in order in one branch of a
legislative body to refer to or comment upon a debate in the other
branch, because such references necessarily lead to disputes, and would
interfere with the harmony which ought always to exist between the two
branches. The Chair hopes the gentleman will not pursue that line of
discussion.
5109. On January 25, 1899,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union were considering the bill (H. R. 11022) for the
reorganization of the Army of the United States, Mr. John J. Lentz, of
Ohio, having the floor. In the course of his remarks Mr. Lentz
proceeded to read from the Record of a debate in the Senate on the 7th
of the preceding April, quoting from the speech made by a certain
Senator at that time and commenting thereon.
The Chairman \4\ called him to order, saying:
The gentleman will be in order. It is not in order to comment in the
House upon what has been said in the Senate. * * * It is not in order
to allude to it or read it in the House. * * * It has been held time
and again that it could not be done in the House, and that no Member of
either House can comment upon what has taken place in the other. * * *
The Chair makes the point of order. The rule makes it the duty of the
Chair, when a Member is out of order, to call his attention to it. * *
* Under a general rule of parliamentary law found in the Manual. The
Chair will read for the information of the gentleman from Ohio:
``It is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been said on
the same subject in the other House, or the particular votes or
majorities on it there; because the opinion of each House should be
left to its own independency, not to be influenced by the proceedings
of the other.''
There is more upon the same subject, but that is sufficient.
The gentleman from Ohio states that the gentleman from Iowa made
certain assertions with regard to his allusions to the President, and
he proposes to disprove that statement, and prove that others were made
in the Senate, by reading from the proceedings of the Senate. Now, that
is referring to the proceedings in the Senate. Not only that, but it is
reading the record of the proceedings in the Senate upon that matter.
Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, made the point that the rule
precluded only reference to what had been said on the ``same subject,''
and did not apply to ``ancient history.''
The Chairman said:
It can not be done in that way. The rule is to prevent the reading of
what any Senator has said, and to prevent a misunderstanding between
the two Houses, or to quote from any Member of the House. * * * The
subject-matter, and the matter, the gentleman states, is to disprove
what was said by the gentleman from Iowa, and is right on that subject-
matter. * * * This is not new. It has been ruled on a good many times
during the time that the gentleman from Missouri and the Chair have
been Members of the House. * * * The object of the rule is to prevent
misunderstanding between the two Houses. * * * The Chair is very clear
that the gentleman from Ohio can not read from that speech under the
rules of the House. * * * The gentleman from Ohio himself stated that
he read from what a certain Senator said in the Senate, and did it for
the purpose of disproving the remarks of the gentleman from Iowa. In
fact, he said the gentleman from Ohio had been the only man who had
made any such reflection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 1393.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\3\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, Appendix, pp. 38, 39.
\4\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 5110
5110. On June 18, 1879,\1\ the army appropriation bill was under
consideration in the Senate, when Mr. James B. Beck, of Kentucky,
proceeded to quote from a speech made on this same bill in the House by
Mr. James A. Garfield, of Ohio.
Mr. Matt. S. Carpenter, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that
this was not in order.
The Presiding Officer \2\ said:
In the opinion of the present occupant of the chair the point of
order is well taken. The Chair thinks that the Senator from Kentucky
ought not to allude by name to language used by a Member of the other
branch during the present Congress.\3\
5111. On the calendar day of Sunday, March 3, 1901,\4\ but the
legislative day of March 1, the House was considering a joint
resolution to provide for the appointment of a commission to visit
Porto Rico, the Philippines, and Cuba, and Mr. Henry A. Cooper, of
Wisconsin, having the floor in debate, proceeded to read the following
remarks of Senator John C. Spooner, in the Senate:
I should say that we will not be ready to legislate for the
Philippines until we shall have sent a joint committee from both Houses
over there to investigate thoroughly the situation there, the people,
the form of government which would be adapted to them. That we have not
done.
Mr. Teller. Are we likely to do it?
Mr. Spooner. I hope we will do it.
Mr. Teller. When?
Mr. Spooner. I hope we will provide for it before this session comes
to an end.
Mr. Teller. I see no signs of it.
Mr. Spooner. I have intended to propose a resolution of that kind,
and I shall endeavor to do so.
Mr. Hale. It ought to be done.
Mr. Spooner. Of course it ought to be done. Congress ought to know
the exact situation in the Philippines in every aspect, and it seems to
me to be one of the first duties of Congress to provide itself with
information upon which can be adopted a reasonable and sensible
legislative policy of some kind as to government in the Philippines.
The Speaker \5\ said:
The Chair feels it to be his duty to state to the gentleman from
Wisconsin that this treatment of the action of the Senate in discussion
is beyond the realm of parliamentary law. * * * That is exactly what is
prohibited. Each House must have its own freedom of debate.
5112. The quotation of personal views of a Senator, not uttered in
the Senate, was held to be in order in the House.--On April 10,
1900,\6\ the House was considering a bill relating to the Sioux City
and Pacific Railroad, and Mr. John C. Bell, of Colorado, had the floor.
In the course of his remarks, Mr. Bell sent to the desk to have read as
a part of his remarks a letter from a Senator of the United States,
giving individual views of the latter upon the question presented by
the bill.
Mr. H. Henry Powers, of Vermont, made a point of order against the
presentation of the views of a Member of the other body.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2106.
\2\ William W. Eaton, of Connecticut.
\3\ On August 4, 1890, the extent to which it is allowable in debate
to refer to the proceedings of the other body was the subject of debate
in the Senate. (First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 8077.)
\4\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3568,
\5\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\6\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 3977, 3978.
Sec. 5113
Mr. Bell having stated that the letter had no connection with the
Senator's action in the Senate, but was a personal letter sent in
response to an inquiry, the Speaker \1\ held:
The gentleman may proceed, on his statement that this language was
not uttered in the Senate.
5113. A Member of the House was permitted to read in debate a speech
made in the Senate by one no longer a member of that body.--On February
8, 1831,\2\ during debate in the House over the mission to Russia, Mr.
Thomas T. Bouldin, of Virginia, in the course of debate, animadverted
on a recent ruling whereby a Member of the House had been held to be in
order when he read a speech made in the Senate, and proclaimed that
such a speech could be made by no gentleman.
The Speaker \3\ explained that if the Senator who made that speech
were still a Member of the Senate the matter would not be in order.
5114. While the Senate may be referred to properly in debate it is
not in order to discuss its functions or criticise its acts.--On March
22, 1869,\4\ the House was considering a resolution relating to the
adjournment of the Congress sine die, when Mr. William Lawrence, of
Ohio, having the floor, urged that the Congress should stay in session
long enough for Congress to exercise legislative power over an Indian
treaty then pending in the Senate, and proceeded to speak of the action
of the Senate in regard to treaties.
Messrs. John F. Farnsworth, of Illinois, and Horace Maynard, of
Tennessee, objected to the remarks of the gentleman.
The Speaker \5\ said:
So far as the language is a reflection on the Senate it is not in
order; so far as it is an attempt to show why Congress should remain in
session, it is in order. * * * The Chair is compelled to remind the
gentleman from Ohio that this course of argument is not parliamentary,
and not in order. It involves a reflection on what may be done and what
has been done by the Senate.
5115. On February 2, 1826,\6\ the House was considering a resolution
calling on the President of the United States for copies of the
invitations given to this Government to send ministers to the Congress
at Panama.
Mr. Silas Wood, of New York, having the floor, used in debate these
words:
The President, and none but the President, is the organ of
communication with foreign powers. He plans the treaties; he nominates
the men who are to negotiate them; and the only right of the Senate on
the subject is to refuse to consent to their appointment on the ground
of unfitness, etc.
The Speaker \7\ called Mr. Wood to order, explaining later that he
did so not expressly to pronounce him out of order, but to suggest to
him the inexpediency of discussing the relative powers of this House
and of the Senate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Twenty-first Congress, Debates, p. 640.
\3\ Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, Speaker.
\4\ First session Forty-first Congress, Globe, p. 201.
\5\ James G. Blaine, of Maine, Speaker.
\6\ First session Nineteenth Congress, Debates, pp. 1238, 1240.
\7\ John W. Taylor, of New York, Speaker.
Sec. 5116
5116. On February 4, 1869,\1\ during debate, Mr. Sidney W. Clarke, of
Kansas, said:
To my mind the abuse of the treaty-making power at the other end of
the Capitol is one of the reasons why this system--
The Speaker \2\ here interposed, saying:
The remark is clearly out of order. The Manual and Digest both speak
in reprobation of any remarks reflecting upon the other branch of
Congress.
5117. On February 7, 1835,\3\ the House was considering certain
resolutions reported from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and
relating to the relations of the United States with France, when Mr.
John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, having the floor in debate, said:
Might not the House come to a like conclusion, and dodge the
question, as the Senate had done?
The Speaker \4\ called Mr. Adams to order, and reminded him that it
was not permitted to speak disrespectfully of any act of the other
branch of the Legislature.
5118. On March 1, 1899,\5\ the House was considering the bill (S.
5260) for the reimbursement to States for war expenses.
During the debate Mr. Eugene F. Loud, of California, said:
The fact that it has passed the Senate does not give it much
standing.
The Speaker \6\ said:
Gentlemen in the House must not comment on the proceedings of any
other body. * * *It is not permissible in the House to comment upon the
action of another body.
On the same day, during the consideration of the bill (S. 5578) for
the reorganization of the Army, Mr. George W. Steele, of Indiana,
during debate, said:
Mr. Speaker, the House recently passed what it considered to be a
sensible Army reorganization bill and sent it to the Senate of the
United States. That body carefully considered the measure sent to it,
and one Senator was led to say in the course of his remarks that the
House bill as amended--a bill entirely different from this--
Mr. Freeman Knowles, of South Dakota, made the point of order that it
was not in order to repeat what had been said in the other body.
The Speaker said:
It is not in order to comment on what is said in the Senate.
Mr. Steele, continuing, said:
That the bill that was amended by the Military Committee of the
Senate was right as between God and man. And the press of the country
informs us that another Senator said: ``You will take the bill now
under consideration or no bill, or we will have an extraordinary
session.'' Now, the question is, Shall one man in this country hold us
up?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 882.
\2\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Twenty-third Congress, Debates, p. 1233.
\4\ John Bell, of Tennessee, Speaker.
\5\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 2669, 2685.
\6\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
Sec. 5119
The Speaker said:
The Chair hopes the gentleman will not allude to what has taken place
in the other body. * * * The comity between two legislative bodies
requires that anything that would have a tendency to lead to irritation
between the two should be suppressed.
5119. On March 1, 1901,\1\ during consideration of the Senate
amendments to the Army appropriation bill, Mr. William P. Hepburn, of
Iowa, having the floor in debate, said:
All through the weeks past we have heard declarations, loud,
vigorous, and continuing, that this bill, with its political amendments
relating to Cuba and the Philippines--the sum of all infamies, as we
were told here and in the other Chamber--could not pass; that there
were Senators there that had the power to put a veto upon it; that they
intended to exercise that power. All the newspapers have been replete
with their declarations of the endurance they would manifest, and the
certainty that they in the end would prevent, by the methods we all
know they command, the passage of this objectionable bill--
At this point the Speaker \2\ said:
It is the duty of the Chair to remind the gentleman from Iowa that
commenting upon the action of Members of the other House is entirely
out of order.
5120. On the calendar day of March 3, 1901,\3\ but the legislative
day of March 1, the House was considering the Senate amendments to the
sundry civil appropriation bill, when Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of
Illinois, having the floor in debate, said:
Then they bring two propositions that never passed Congress, one for
Buffalo and one for Charleston, S. C. Three separate amendments? No;
one amendment that you can not divide, so that when the preferential
motion comes, it must come to recede and concur with the Senate. What
for? For the purpose of placing it, or claiming to place it, in the
hands of one Senator, so that he can, under the Senate rules, hold it
up.
Mr. Theodore F. Kluttz, of North Carolina, made a point of order
against this reference to a Senator.
The Speaker \3\ said:
The Chair is of the opinion that the gentleman ought not to allude to
the proceedings and votes of the other body. * * * The Chair sustains
the point of order.\4\
5121. It is not in order in debate to refer to a Senator in terms of
personal criticism.--On January 24, 1906,\5\ the House was considering
a resolution from the Committee on Rules, relating to the consideration
of the bill (H. R. 12707) providing Statehood for the Territories of
Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona, when Mr. J. Adam Bede, of Minnesota,
replying to Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, said:
The gentleman speaks of the Senators from New York. Most people are
trying to forget them. [Great and long-continued laughter.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3383.
\2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3576.
\4\ On March 5, 1903 (extraordinary session of Senate Fifty-eighth
Congress, Record, pp. 3-12), in the Senate, a question was raised as to
a speech made in the House on March 4 (legislative day of February 26)
by Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, and alleged to contain
reflections on the Senate. The parliamentary law was discussed somewhat
in this connection.
\5\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 1502.
Sec. 5122
The Speaker \1\ interposed, saying:
The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman from Minnesota does know,
or ought to know, that his remark is against the rule of the House and
is against all parliamentary usage.
5122. On March 3, 1887,\2\ Mr. George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts, in
the Senate, referred to the Speaker of the House, making what was a
virtual arraignment of his course as Speaker. This arraignment was very
thinly veiled, but upon a point of order being made, the President pro
tempore decided that the language was within the usage.
5123. A Member whose motives have been impugned in the Senate may
refer to proceedings in that body sufficiently to explain his own
motives; but may not under the rights of privilege bring into
discussion the whole merits of the controversy.--On August 3, 1892,\3\
Mr. Jerry Simpson, of Kansas, presented, as involving a question of
personal privilege, certain remarks reflecting on himself made in the
Senate and printed in the Congressional Record, as follows:
I am not personally acquainted with the writer of that communication
and know nothing of his character, but it is addressed to Mr. Simpson,
who has the honor of representing one of the districts of Kansas in
Congress, and he is probably some political follower of his. Why this
communication, which indulges in falsehood and in malicious
insinuations as to one of the most honorable and faithful officers in
the public service, should have been given to the public and to the
press for publication I can not comprehend.
Since its publication I have seen Secretary Noble and conferred with
him. He says that he does not know of the existence of the man who is
spoken of in that communication by the name of Guthrie, and he has no
knowledge of him whatever; knows nothing of his avocation or calling,
and never had any correspondence or conversation with him. To give to
the public a communication of this character, indulging in the
insinuations and accusations that the communication indulges in as to a
capable, honorable, and faithful officer, makes it, in my judgment,
deserving of notice and condemnation. As I stated, he does not know the
existence of this man who is spoken of, and I am thoroughly convinced
that there is no foundation for it in fact; and believing as I do that
it was instigated for political reasons and to slander an honorable and
capable officer, I have felt called upon to denounce it in the Senate
Chamber.
Mr. Edward H. Funston, of Kansas, having made the point of order that
it was not in order in the House to refer to debates and proceedings in
the Senate, and that therefore the remarks made by Senator Perkins on
the floor of the Senate should not be discussed in this House,\4\ the
subject went over until August 5, when the Speaker \5\ overruled the
point of order, holding--
If language has been used reflecting upon the integrity of the
motives or purposes of the gentleman from Kansas, the gentleman must be
entitled to set himself right. Of course that right is limited in this
way: That the rule of the House as to reflections upon members of
another body can not be violated. But it is the right of a
Representative, as the Chair thinks, to set himself right if his
motives have been impugned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 2609.
\3\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 354.
\4\ In the debate reference was made to a ruling of Mr. Speaker
Blaine in a case wherein Mr. James P. Beck, of Kentucky, was attacked
by a Senator (Brownlow) in a speech delivered in the Senate.
\5\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
Sec. 5124
Mr. Simpson proceeded to address the House in reply to the remarks
made in the Senate.
Mr. Funston made the point of order that Mr. Simpson was discussing
the merits of a controversy with the Secretary of the Interior, and
that his remarks were out of order.
The Speaker held:
The right to rise to a question of personal privilege--one of the
highest rights belonging to a Member--is only granted under certain
circumstances. In this case the Chair thought the gentleman ought to
have this right to the extent of being permitted to deny any improper
motives that may have been imputed to him in giving to the public,
through the Congressional Record, a communication from his constituent.
But the Chair does not think that in order to vindicate the gentleman
from Kansas it is necessary for him to demonstrate that all the
statements in the letter were true. It seems to the Chair that the
gentleman might be vindicated by a statement that the letter was from a
gentleman of high character, whom the Member regarded with confidence
and esteem, so that in presenting his letter he presented it as coming
from one of his constituents entitled to credence anywhere. But the
gentleman from Kansas will, of course, see that under the guise of a
question of personal privilege the whole merits of the original matter
can not be opened up for argument.
5124. On July 26, 1882,\1\ Mr. Poindexter Dunn, of Arkansas, having
the floor for a personal explanation, proceeded to have read extracts
from a speech made in the Senate on the previous day by Mr. George G.
Vest, of Missouri, on the subject of the river and harbor bill, in the
course of which occurred this paragraph:
I have no official information of the fact, but I want to say that
some potent influence is at work in the House of Representatives,
subtle--I will not use the word of the Senator from Kansas,
``sinister''--but most extraordinary. I have heard it said, I can not
believe it, but the air is rife with the rumor and the statement that
Members from States upon the banks of the Mississippi River have
protested against the increase made by the Senate.
Mr. Dunn claimed that this was a reflection to which he might reply,
and was proceeding to discuss the respective records of the House and
Senate on the subject when Mr. John A. Kasson, of Iowa, raised a
question of order.
The Speaker \2\ had read the passages in Jefferson's Manual relating
to the subject of references to the other body, and then said:
The Chair thinks that these two rules are very salutary ones; and it
is not for the Chair to go beyond their terms. The difficulty here is
whether or not a Member who thinks himself aggrieved by a statement of
fact with reference to himself may not be allowed to answer, not by way
of recrimination, but by way of stating the fact so as to set himself
right before the House and the country. This is not quite a question of
unfavorable comment upon what is said in the other body, because it is
a personal matter relating to the individual, and not to the general
proceedings of the House. The Chair is inclined to sustain the point of
order; but to the extent indicated will allow the gentleman from
Arkansas, if he desires, to state what he thinks is an answer to the
charge, without making any charge himself of any kind against the
Senate.
5125. A Senator in debate in the Senate having assailed a Member of
the House, the Member was allowed, as a matter of privilege, to explain
to the House his own conduct, but not to assail the Senator in his
capacity as Senator.--On July 25, 1882,\3\ Mr. Samuel H. Miller, of
Pennsylvania, rising to a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 6526, 6527.
\2\ J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, Speaker.
\3\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 1723; Record,
p. 6467.
Sec. 5125
question of personal privilege, sent to the Clerk's desk a copy of the
Record wherein was printed a speech of Senator M. C. Butler, of South
Carolina, in the Senate. This speech referred to a speech made by Mr.
Miller in the House, alleging therein the uttering of falsehoods,
garbling of evidence, perversion of the truth, and falsification of the
record, and concluded as follows:
I have withstood the mastiffs of the radical party in the past, and
can afford to dismiss with this brief notice the yelping of this cur of
low degree. The name of this creature, I believe, is Samuel H. Miller.
Messrs. Aylett H. Buckner, of Missouri, and John G. Carlisle, of
Kentucky, raised the point of order that allusions to what had
transpired in the other House were forbidden by the rules, otherwise
there would be interminable discussions and disputes with Members in
the other end of the Capitol.
After debate the Speaker \1\ said:
The point of order is made that the matter which has been just read
from the Record does not present a question of personal privilege.
These questions axe always very delicate ones for the Chair to
undertake to dispose of. It seems to the Chair, leaving entirely out of
view the question as to the source from whence these remarks came, that
they constitute an attack upon the reputation and the conduct of a
Member of this body, not only individually, but in his representative
capacity. They make an attack upon him or a charge of improper conduct
in debate, and in that view the Chair would be disposed to hold,
although very much inclined against the practice of allowing the time
of the House to be taken up by Members in answering personal attacks
from any source or of any kind, and the Chair thinks a strong case
should be made to present a question of privilege.
The question now is whether or not the gentleman from Pennsylvania
shall be permitted to make an explanation of the matters with which he
is charged by a Senator of the United States. Without undertaking to
open the door at all or to break down the well-established
parliamentary rule that what is said in one body shall not be referred
to or assailed in another--a wise and good rule in the judgment of the
Chair--without undertaking to attack that, or, as the Chair has stated,
to break down that practice, the Chair is inclined to hold that the
gentleman from Pennsylvania may make an explanation of his own conduct
entirely disconnected with any assault upon the Senator. If he in any
respect by remarks of his own assails the Senator whose remarks
appeared in the Record and which have been read, the Chair thinks he
should be promptly called to order. Whatever would be simply in the
nature of a fair explanation of what has been said, or of what he said
upon the floor of the House, would be only just to himself, it would be
just to the House, and perhaps just to the Senator referred to.
In holding thus the Chair thinks it goes to the very verge, as
suggested by the gentleman from Kentucky, and were the Chair to permit
an explanation of this kind to go beyond this, the Houses would be
likely to get into interminable disputations. The rule ought to be
strictly applied in this House, to the end at least that attacks of a
personal character on Senators should not be made and criminations and
recriminations between Members and Senators should not be indulged in.
The present occupant of the Chair was not presiding when the gentleman
from Pennsylvania spoke on the election case. Within the limits
indicated, therefore, the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be permitted
to proceed.
In the course of his explanation Mr. Miller had read the report of
the Attorney General and coroner in the affair called the ``Hamburgh
massacre,'' connecting the name of M. C. Butler with the same.
Mr. Nathaniel J. Hammond, of Georgia, raised the point of order that
the presentation of these statements were not in order.
The Speaker said:
The Chair does not understand the gentleman from Pennsylvania to be
seeking to establish anything against the gentleman from South Carolina
in his capacity as Senator. If the Chair so understood,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, Speaker.
Sec. 5126
it would call the gentleman to order. * * * This is a matter of history
that relates to a period long anterior to the gentleman's election to
the Senate.
5126. On February 15, 1872,\1\ and April 25 of the same year,
questions arose in the Senate as to the extent to which a Senator might
go in replying to attacks made on him in the other House. While it was
contended that a Senator attacked should not be precluded from the
right of defense, the better opinion seemed to be that the
parliamentary law should be adhered to, and that a resolution should be
adopted bringing the matter to the attention of the other House rather
than that the Senator should be allowed to reply. The question was not
conclusively passed on, however.
5127. A Member may not, in the course of debate, read a paper
criticizing a member of the Senate.--On April 26, 1858,\2\ Mr. Francis
E. Spinner, of New York, offered a resolution and preamble relating to
alleged abuses in the administration of the public land office. The
preamble quoted from a newspaper article as follows:
During the second week after the office had opened, an order was
received from Commissioner Hendricks, of Washington, to locate 6,000
acres in the name of Hon. Jesse D. Bright, of Indiana, Of course the
order was complied with out of the regular office hours, and thus the
honorable Senator got a slice of the public land at a single haul,
while the rest of us had to take our turn at the mill as the wheel
turned around, Wonder if the peculiar position that Senator Bright
occupies towards the administration had anything to do with this piece
of party favoritism? Was it any part of the price paid for his support
of the Lecompton constitution?
Mr. Warren Winslow, of North Carolina, objected to the further
reading of the preamble and resolution.
The Speaker \3\ said:
The gentleman from North Carolina raised the question of order that
the paper could not be read in consequence of its reflection upon a
Member of the Senate. The Chair sustains the point of order; and, if
the gentleman had attempted to read it in a speech, the Chair would
have ruled it out of order.
5128. The resignation of a Senator for a public reason was debated in
the House without question.--On July 28, 1846,\4\ find debate proceeded
unchallenged in the House on the subject of the resignation of Senator
Haywood, of North Carolina, who had just resigned because he could not
support the tariff bill presented by his party.
5129. After a speech reflecting on the character of the Senate had
appeared in the Record, a resolution proposing an apology to the Senate
was treated as a matter of privilege.
After examination by a committee a speech reflecting on the character
of the Senate was ordered to be stricken from the Record.
Discussion of the importance of suppressing debate casting
reflections on the other House or its Members.
On September 15, 1890,\5\ Mr. Benjamin A. Enloe, of Tennessee, as a
question of privilege, presented a resolution directing the Clerk to
communicate to the Senate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Forty-second Congress, Globe, pp. 1036, 1037,
2759.
\2\ First session Thirty-fifth Congress, Globe, p. 1812.
\3\ James L. Orr, of South Carolina, Speaker.
\4\ First session Twenty-ninth Congress, Globe, p. 1159.
\5\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 1041, 1044;
Record, pp. 10050, 10100.
Sec. 5129
that the House ``reprobates and condemn'' the utterances of Hon. Robert
P. Kennedy, of Ohio. reflecting on the character and integrity of the
Senate as a body.
A point of order having been raised as to the privilege of the
resolution, the Speaker \1\ said:
There can be no doubt that legislative proceedings dependent upon two
branches--two coordinate branches--would be very much impeded if
personal and improper reflections were allowed in the one body on the
Members of the other. This fact is so plain, so well established and
understood, that it seems unnecessary to say a word in regard to it. It
is founded upon that principle which causes the Members of the House of
Representatives to speak of each other and to address each other in
debate by a phrase rather than by name. It is intended as far as
possible to keep personal feeling out of public legislation, and the
Chair is very glad, not only for the advantage of the relations
existing between the House and Senate, but for the advantage of the
relations of the Members themselves to each other and to the Chair,
that this question should be passed upon in such manner as will make an
impression upon us all. The Chair therefore overrules the point of
order.
After debate, the subject of the resolution was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
On September 24, 1890,\2\ Mr. John W. Stewart, of Vermont, from the
Committee on the Judiciary, reported these resolutions, which were
agreed to in the House by a vote of 151 yeas to 36 nays:
Resolved, That the House, deeming it a high duty that the utmost
courtesy and decorum demanded by parliamentary law and precedent should
mark the mutual relations of the two Houses of Congress, does hereby
express its disapproval of the unparliamentary language used by Hon.
Robert P. Kennedy, a Representative from the State of Ohio, in his
speech delivered on the floor of the House on the 3d day of September,
1890, and published in the Congressional Record of September 14, 1890.
And considering it impracticable to separate the unparliamentary
portions of said speech from such parts thereof as may be
parliamentary: Therefore,
Be it further resolved, That the Public Printer be directed to
exclude from the permanent Congressional Record the entire speech of
Hon. Robert P. Kennedy in the first resolution mentioned.
The report of the committee, which accompanied these resolutions,
declared:
The Constitution assures to Members of the House freedom of debate.
This freedom, however, like that of civil liberty, is held under well-
recognized limitations, marked by rules of procedure and general
parliamentary law, which are founded in reason and experience and are
absolutely essential to the orderly conduct of public business.
The coordinate branches of Congress are independent and at the same
time interdependent--in separate action independent, in joint action
interdependent. This mutual relation is such that unfriendly conditions
between the two bodies must be obstructive of wise legislation and
little short of a public calamity. The rules of both Houses and well
settled principles of parliamentary law alike forbid criticism of
proceedings in either House by a Member of the other. Differences
between the two Houses should be settled in a spirit of respectful
courtesy, and, when (as must frequently occur) irreconcilable, should
be submitted to without recrimination.
Applying these established principles to the speech in question, it
must be regarded in its references to the Senate individually and
generally as a grave infraction of parliamentary law and an abuse of
the privilege of the House. It is in spirit and substance a bitter
arraignment of the Senate for an alleged failure to yield prompt assent
to a measure pending therein which had passed the House. Your committee
are of opinion that neither the wisdom or unwisdom of the Senate in
this regard, nor the methods of its action, nor the motives of
Senators, are proper subjects of remark or criticism by any Member of
the House acting in his official capacity. Such criticism is so
interwoven with the substance of the speech in question that its
excision would seriously mutilate and practically destroy its
integrity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\2\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 10381.
Sec. 5130
5130. It has always been considered the particular duty of the
Speaker to prevent expressions offensive to the Senate or Senators.--On
January 18, 1831,\1\ Mr. William D. Martin, of South Carolina,
obtaining the floor for a personal explanation, called attention to the
following passage in the published report of a speech made on the
preceding Thursday by Mr. Churchill C. Cambreleng, of New York:
I shall not, Mr. Speaker, travel out of my way, and violate a rule of
order, by entering now into that discussion, by examining the
provisions of the Turkish treaty. Whenever I do, Sir, my facts and my
arguments shall be founded on something more substantial than a
newspaper rumor--more unquestionable than the statement of an
unprincipled partisan; more unimpeachable than the evidence of a
perjured Senator.
Mr. Martin said that he had occupied the chair as Speaker pro tempore
when these words were uttered, but had not heard them. Had he heard
them, and not stopped the use of such language in reference to a Member
of the other House, he would have been guilty of gross misconduct as
Presiding Officer. Therefore he made this explanation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Twenty-first Congress, Debates, p. 520.