    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 104th Congress]
    [104th Congress]
    [House Document 103-342]
    [Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
    [Pages 218-228]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                     FOR THE PARLIAMENTARY: THE SENATE USES:

                                            [   Postponement to a day beyond
    Postponement indefinite,                [   the session.

                                            [   Postponement to a day within
    Adjournment,                            [   the session.

    [[Page 219]]

                                            [   Postponement indefinite.
    Lying on table,                         [   Lying on the table.

      In their eighth rule, therefore, which declares that while a question
    is before the Senate no motion shall be received, unless it be for the
    previous question, or to postpone, commit, or amend the main question,
    the term postponement must be understood according to their broad use of
    it, and not in its parliamentary sense. Their rule, then, establishes as
    privileged questions the previous question, postponement, commitment,
    and amendment.

      The House of Representatives governs these motions by clause 4 of rule
    XVI.

    [[Page 220]]

    1. Previous question and postpone

    Sec. 448. Obsolete provision as to priority of
    privileged motions.

      But it may  be asked: Have these questions any privilege among
    themselves? or are they so equal that the common principle of the
    ``first moved first put'' takes place among them? This will need
    explanation. Their competitions may be as follows:

                        commit              <3-l  }>

                        amend                   In the first, second, and
    2. Postpone and previous question           third classes, and the first

                        commit                  member of the fourth class,

                        amend                   the rule ``first moved first
    3. Commit and previous question         <3-lput'' takes place.

                        postpone

                        amend
    4. Amend and previous question

                        postpone

                        commit              <3-ln }>

                                            <3-ln }>

    [[Page 221]]

      In the first class, where the previous question is first moved, the
    effect is peculiar; for it not only prevents the after motion to
    postpone or commit from being put to question before it, but also from
    being put after it; for if the previous question be decided
    affirmatively, to wit, that the main question shall now be put, it would
    of course be against the decision to postpone or commit; and if it be
    decided negatively, to wit, that the main question shall not now be put,
    this puts the House out of possession of the main question, and
    consequently there is nothing before them to postpone or commit. So that
    neither voting for nor against the previous question will enable the
    advocates for postponing or committing to get at their object. Whether
    it may be amended shall be examined hereafter.

      While clause 4 of rule XVI now governs the priority of motions, these
    provisions of the Manual remain of interest because of the parliamentary
    theory they present.

    Sec. 449. General principles of priority of
    motions.

      Second class.  If postponement be decided affirmatively, the proposition is
    removed from before the House, and consequently there is no ground for
    the previous question, commitment or amendment; but if decided
    negatively (that it shall not be postponed), the main question may then
    be suppressed by the previous question, or may be committed, or amended.

      The previous question is used now for bringing a vote on the main
    question and not for suppressing it.

      The third class is subject to the same observations as the second.

      The fourth class. Amendment of the main question first moved, and
    afterwards the previous question, the question of amendment shall be
    first put.

      In present practice of the House the question on the previous question
    would be put first, and being decided affirmatively would force a vote
    on the amendment and then on the main question.

    [[Page 222]]
    ment, if the House had it not in their power to postpone the whole
    subject.
      Amendment and postponement competing, postponement is first put, as
    the equivalent proposition to adjourn the main question would be in
    Parliament. The reason is that the question for amendment is not
    suppressed by postponing or adjourning the main question, but remains
    before the House whenever the main question is resumed; and it might be
    that the occasion for other urgent business might go by, and be lost by
    length of debate on the amend

      Amendment and commitment. The question for committing, though last
    moved shall be first put; because, in truth, it facilitates and
    befriends the motion to amend. Scobell is express: ``On motion to amend
    a bill, anyone may notwithstanding move to commit it, and the question
    for commitment shall be first put.'' Scob., 46.

      These principles of priority of privileged motions are recognized in
    the House of Representatives, and are provided for by clause 4 of rule
    XVI.

    Sec. 450. Applications of the previous question to
    debatable secondary and privileged motions.

      We have  hitherto considered the
    case of two or more of the privileged questions contending for privilege
    between themselves, when both are moved on the original or main
    question; but now let us suppose one of them to be moved, not on the
    original primary question, but on the secondary one, e.g.:

      Suppose a motion to postpone, commit, or amend the main question, and
    that it be moved to suppress that motion by putting a previous question
    on it. This is not allowed, because it would embarrass questions too
    much to allow them to be piled on one another several stories high; and
    the same result may be had in a more simple way--by deciding against the
    postponement, commitment, or amendment. 2. Hats., 81, 2, 3, 4.

    [[Page 223]]
    an immediate vote, makes obsolete the parliamentary rule. For as the
    motions to postpone, commit, and amend, are all debatable, the modern
    previous question of course applies to them (clause 1 of rule XVII).

      While the general principle that one secondary or privileged motion
    should not be applied to another is generally recognized in the House of
    Representatives, yet the entire change in the nature of the previous
    question (V, 5445) from a means of postponing a matter to a means of
    compelling

    Sec. 451. Motion to postpone not applicable to other
    secondary motions.

      Suppose a  motion for the previous question, or commitment or
    amendment of the main question, and that it be then moved to postpone
    the motion for the previous question, or for commitment or amendment of
    the main question. 1. It would be absurd to postpone the previous
    question, commitment, or amendment, alone, and thus separate the
    appendage from its principal; yet it must be postponed separately from
    its original, if at all; because the eighth rule of the Senate says that
    when a main question is before the House no motion shall be received but
    to commit, amend, or pre-question the original question, which is the
    parliamentary doctrine also. Therefore the motion to postpone the
    secondary motion for the previous question, or for committing or
    amending, can not be received. 2. This is a piling of questions one on
    another; which, to avoid embarrassment, is not allowed. 3. The same
    result may be had more simply by voting against the previous question,
    commitment, or amendment.

      Suppose a commitment moved of a motion for the previous question, or
    to postpone or amend. The first, second, and third reasons, before
    stated, all hold against this.

    [[Page 224]]

      The principles of this paragraph are in harmony with the practice of
    the House of Representatives, which provides further that a motion to
    suspend the rules may not be postponed (V, 5322).

    Sec. 452. The motion to amend not applicable to the
    previous question.

      Suppose an  amendment moved to a motion for the previous
    question. Answer: The previous question can not be amended.
    Parliamentary usage, as well as the ninth rule of the Senate, has fixed
    its form to be, ``Shall the main question be now put?''--i.e., at this
    instant; and as the present instant is but one, it can admit of no
    modification. To change it to to-morrow, or any other moment, is without
    example and without utility. * * *

      Although the nature of the previous question has entirely changed, yet
    the principle of the parliamentary law applies to the new form.

    Sec. 453. Motion to amend applicable to
    motions to postpone or refer.

      * * * But suppose a  motion to amend a motion for
    postponement, as to one day instead of another, or to a special instead
    of an indefinite time. The useful character of amendment gives it a
    privilege of attaching itself to a secondary and privileged motion; that
    is, we may amend a postponement of a main question. So, we may amend a
    commitment of a main question, as by adding, for example, ``with
    instructions to inquire,'' &c. * * *

      This principle is recognized in the practice of the House of
    Representatives (V, 5521).

    [[Page 225]]
    where, and usage has drawn it after the amendment to the amendment. The
    same result must be sought by deciding against the amendment to the
    amendment, and then moving it again as it was wished to be amended. In
    this form it becomes only an amendment to an amendment.

    Sec. 454. Amendment in the third degree not in
    order.

      * * * In like  manner, if an amendment be moved to an amendment, it is
    admitted; but it would not be admitted in another degree, to wit, to
    amend an amendment to an amendment of a main question. This would lead
    to too much embarrassment. The line must be drawn some

      This rule of the parliamentary law is considered fundamental in the
    House of Representatives (rule XIX).

    [[Page 226]]
    he should vote in the affirmative, every question for more would be
    precluded; but at that extreme which would unite few, and then to
    advance or recede till you get to a number which will unite a bare
    majority. 3 Grey, 376, 384, 385. ``The fair question in this case is not
    that to which, and more, all will agree, but whether there shall be
    addition to the question.'' 1 Grey, 365.

    Sec. 455. Filling blanks; and amendment to
    numbers.

      [In filling  a blank with a sum, the largest sum shall be first put to the
    question, by the thirteenth rule of the Senate, contrary to the rule of
    Parliament, which privileges the smallest sum and longest time. 5 Grey,
    179; 2 Hats., 8, 83; 3 Hats., 132, 133.] And this is considered to be
    not in the form of an amendment to the question, but as alternative or
    successive originals. In all cases of time or number, we must consider
    whether the larger comprehends the lesser, as in a question to what day
    a postponement shall be, the number of a committee, amount of a fine,
    term of an imprisonment, term of irredeemability of a loan, or the
    terminus in quem in any other case; then the question must begin a
    maximo. Or whether the lesser includes the greater, as in questions on
    the limitation of the rate of interest, on what day the session shall be
    closed by adjournment, on what day the next shall commence, when an act
    shall commence or the terminus a quo in any other case where the
    question must begin a minimo; the object being not to begin at that
    extreme which, and more, being within every man's wish, no one could
    negative it, and yet, if

      The thirteenth rule of the Senate has been dropped. The House of
    Representatives has no rule on the subject other than this provision of
    the parliamentary law. It is very rare for the House to fill blanks for
    numbers. When a number in pending text is to be changed by amendment,
    the practice of the House permits to be pending: the alternative number
    proposed in the amendment to the text; a second alternative number as an
    amendment to the amendment; a third as a substitute; and a fourth as an
    amendment to the substitute. Thus, if the pending text itself states a
    number, then five alternative numbers may be pending simultaneously.
    With respect to a concurrent resolution on the budget (which is
    considered as read and open to amendment at any point and to which
    amendments must be mathematically consistent under clause 8 of rule
    XXIII), adoption of a perfecting amendment changing several figures
    precludes further amendment merely changing those figures, but does not
    preclude more comprehensive amendments changing other portions of the
    resolution which have not been amended as well (Apr. 27, 1977, p.
    12485).

    Sec. 456. Priority of amendments over motions to
    strike out or agree.

      Another  exception to the rule of priority is when a
    motion has been made to strike out, or agree to, a paragraph. Motions to
    amend it are to be put to the question before a vote is taken on
    striking out or agreeing to the whole paragraph.

    [[Page 227]]

      In the House of Representatives the principle that a text should be
    perfected before a question is taken on striking it out, and that an
    amendment should be perfected before agreeing to it, is well
    established. But in considering bills, even by paragraphs, the House
    does not agree to the paragraphs severally; but after amending one
    passes to the next, and the question on agreeing is taken only on the
    whole bill by the several votes on engrossment and passage.

    Sec. 457. Incidental questions, like points of
    order, which intervene during consideration of the main question.

      But there  are
    several questions which, being incidental to every one, will take place
    of every one, privileged or not; to wit, a question of order arising out
    of any other question must be decided before that question. 2 Hats., 88.

      This principle governs the procedure of the House of Representatives,
    but a question of order arising after a motion for the previous question
    must be decided without debate (clause 3 of rule XVII).

    Sec. 458. Matters of privilege as intervening
    questions.

      A matter of  privilege arising out of any question, or from a quarrel
    between two Members, or any other cause, supersedes the consideration of
    the original question, and must be first disposed of. 2 Hats., 88.

    Sec. 459. Intervention of questions relating to reading of
    papers.

      Rule IX of the House of Representatives and the practice thereunder,
    confirm and amplify the principles of this provision of the
    parliamentary law.
       Reading papers relative to the question before the House.
    This question must be put before the principal one. 2 Hats., 88.

      This provision formerly applied in the House of Representatives to the
    reading of papers other than those on which the House was to vote. That
    was under an earlier form of rule XXX, which now applies only to the use
    of exhibits in debate. For a history of the former rule on reading
    papers and an explanation of the earlier practice, see Secs. 916-
    917, infra.

    [[Page 228]]

    Sec. 460. Withdrawal of motions.

      Leave asked  to withdraw a
    motion. The rule of Parliament being that a motion made and seconded is
    in the possession of the House, and can not be withdrawn without leave,
    the very terms of the rule imply that leave may be given, and,
    consequently, may be asked and put to the question.

      The House of Representatives does not vote on the withdrawal of
    motions, but provides by clause 2 of rule XVI and clause 5 of rule XXIII
    the conditions under which a Member may of his own right withdraw a
    motion.