<DOC>
[Cannon's Precedents -- Volume VI]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:cannon_ccix.wais]

 
                            Chapter CCIX.

                         THE CALL OF THE HOUSE.

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

   1. House may under all circumstances compel the attendance of 
     absent Members. Sections 678-680.
   2. Motions in order during a call. Sections 681, 682.
   3. Procedure during a call. Section 683.
   4. Arrest of Members. Sections 684-688.
   5. Dispensing with proceedings under call. Section 689.
   6. The later rule combining the vote with a call. Sections 690-
     701.
   7. Arrest of Members and Speaker's warrant. Section 702.
   8. Motions and procedure under later rule. Sections 703-705.
   9. Application to vote on seconding a motion. Sections 706-707.

  678. When a quorum fails on a yea-and-nay vote the call of the House 
is automatic under the rule, and the Speaker directs the roll to be 
called without motion from the floor.
  On December 19, 1921,\2\ the House was considering a resolution 
reported by Mr. Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, from the Committee on 
Rules, providing for the consideration of the anti-lynching bill. The 
result of a vote by yeas and nays on ordering the previous question was 
announced by the Speaker as follows:

  On this vote the yeas are 169, the nays 37, and present 5-211 Members 
present, not a quorum. The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the 
Sergeant at Arms will notify the absent Members, and the Chair will 
issue his warrant to the Sergeant at Arms to bring in the absent 
Members. The Clerk will call the roll.

  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, inquired \3\ if it was a de novo 
vote or if the number voting would be added to the number voting on the 
previous roll call.
  The Speaker \4\ replied that it was an automatic vote, as provided by 
rule on the failure of a quorum, and was, therefore, a new vote.
  679. When a vote by yeas and nays shows no quorum the Chair takes 
cognizance of the fact, and, unless the House adjourns, orders a call 
under the rule without suggestion from the floor.
  In the absence of the Sergeant at Arms, the duties of his office are 
discharged by sworn deputies, and the Speaker issues directions as if 
he were present in person.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Supplementary to Chapter LXXXVI.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 556.
  \3\ Record, p. 558.
  \4\ Frederick H. Gillett of Massachusetts, Speaker.
                                                             Sec. 680
  On December 20, 1921,\1\ Mr. Andrew J. Volstead, of Minnesota, moved 
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union for the consideration of the anti-lynching bill.
  The question being taken by yeas and nays, the Speaker announced:

  On this vote the yeas axe 174, the nays 7, present 2, a total of 183, 
not a quorum. The Chair takes note of the fact that a quorum is not 
present. The Doorkeeper win close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will 
bring in absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.

  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, made the point of order that, 
under the rule, the Speaker was without authority to order a roll call 
and direct that absentees be brought in, without action by the House.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair overrules the point of order. Section 4 of the rule says:
  ``Whenever a quorum fails to vote on any question, and a quorum is 
not present and objection is made for that cause, unless the House 
shall adjourn there shall be a call of the House, and the Sergeant at 
Arms shall forthwith proceed to bring in absent Members',--
  A quorum has failed to vote, and it is clear that a quorum is not 
present. It is the duty of the Chair on a roll call to take note of the 
fact that a quorum does not respond, and the Chair has the right 
immediately to order another roll call. Of course this whole rule was 
adopted for the purpose of preventing obstruction. A glance will show 
whether there is now an attempt at obstruction or not. It is clear that 
there is, and the Chair has the right, following the purpose of the 
rule, to take note of the fact that a quorum is not present and for 
that cause to order a call of the House, and that the doors shall be 
closed, and that the Sergeant at Arms shall bring in absent Members.

  Mr. Garrett raised the further point of order that the Sergeant at 
Arms was absent and no sworn deputies were in the city, and that it 
would be necessary for the House to proceed to the selection of a 
Sergeant at Arms before absentees could be apprehended.
  The Speaker held: \3\

  The Chair knows that the Sergeant at Arms is at present attending the 
funeral of a Member of the House, but the Chair does not suppose that 
necessarily means that the office of the Sergeant at Arms here is 
vacant or defunct. The Chair thinks that the going away of one 
individual officer on the duty of the House does not necessarily mean 
that that whole office is ineffective. The Chair is informed that there 
is a sworn Deputy Sergeant at Arms here. The Doorkeeper will close the 
doors, the Sergeant at Arms will bring in absent Members, and the Clerk 
will call the roll.

  680. On the failure of a quorum no business is in order and no motion 
will be entertained except for a call of the House or to adjourn.
  The lack of a quorum being disclosed, in the absence of any motion 
the Speaker will issue warrants to bring in absent Members.
  The Speaker declines to entertain unanimous consent requests in the 
absence of a quorum.
  On February 23, 1921 \4\ during the consideration of the Post Office 
appropriation bill with Senate amendments, a quorum failed to respond 
on a yea-and-nay
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 602.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ Record, p. 603.
  \4\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3722.
Sec. 681
vote on a motion by Mr. Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, to recede and 
concur in Senate amendment No. 12.
  Thereupon Mr. Madden asked unanimous consent that when the House 
adjourned it adjourn to meet at 11 o'clock the following day.
  The Speaker \1\ declined to entertain the request in the absence of a 
quorum.
  Mr. Otis Wingo, of Arkansas, proposed that a recess be taken until an 
hour certain.
  The Speaker stated that no motion was in order but for a call of the 
House or to adjourn, and that in the absence of any motion the Chair 
would issue warrants to bring in absent Members.
  681. A quorum is not required on motions incidental to a call of the 
House.
  A motion directing the Speaker to issue warrant for arrest of 
absentees may be entertained during proceedings to secure the 
attendance of a quorum.
  The House having agreed to a motion directing the issuance of a 
warrant for arrest of absentees during proceedings to secure a quorum, 
the Speaker disregarded the direction and declined to sign the warrant.
  An appeal from the decision of the Chair is in order during a call of 
the House.
  Instance wherein the House designated a minority employee as 
Assistant Sergeant at Arms.
  On March 18, 1910,\2\ Mr. George W. Norris, of Nebraska, offered as 
privileged, a resolution (H. Res. 502) amending the rules. Mr. John 
Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that the resolution 
was not privileged. Pending the Speaker's decision on the point of 
order, it developed that a quorum was not present and, on motion of Mr. 
Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, a call of the House was ordered. The 
Sergeant at Arms was long delayed in bringing in absentees, and Mr. 
Thomas W. Hardwick, of Georgia, moved that:

  ``The House appoint Mr. Joseph Sinnott as Assistant Sergeant at Arms, 
with such force as he may employ to assist him, to execute the mandate 
of this House previously made in this case and force attendance of the 
absent Members.''

  The Speaker pro tempore \3\ said:

  The Chair would call attention to the fact that this is not 
concerning a call of the House. This is a clear out-and-out proposition 
to increase the officers of the House. Now, it seems to the Chair that 
the error of the position assumed by the gentleman from Georgia is that 
he gives to less than a quorum the power that belongs to a quorum of 
the House. Now, under the constitutional provision, which was cited, 
the House enacted section 2 of Rule XV and prescribed the manner in 
which Members should be compelled to attend upon a call of the House, 
and specifically provide that it must be by order of a majority of 
those present; to be sent for and arrested, wherever they may be found, 
by officers to be appointed by the Sergeant-at-Arms for that purpose. 
There is no doubt about the power of the House to call to the bar of 
the House the Sergeant-at-Arms, or to discharge the Sergeant-at-Arms, 
for that matter, when the House is in
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 3398.
  \3\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Speaker pro tempore.
                                                             Sec. 682
possession of its powers, having a quorum; but it is not in the power 
of less than a quorum to add to the officers of the House, especially 
in view of the fact that the rules specifically provide how this power 
of the House shall be exercised. Now, the Chair would like to suggest 
to those gentlemen who have been here a number of years, the older 
Members of the House, that this is no unusual experience. It has always 
been found impossible, so far as the Chair's recollection goes, to 
obtain a quorum upon a call of the House at a very late hour, 
especially after midnight, and the Chair thinks it is not in order to 
entertain the motion.

  From this decision Mr. Hardwick appealed, and, the question being 
submitted to the House, the decision of the Chair was overruled.
  Thereupon Mr. Hardwick moved that a warrant for the arrest of 
absentees issue in the name of the Speaker and be delivered to the 
Assistant Sergeant at Arms appointed under the motion just agreed to.
  The Speaker pro tempore held that the motion was not in order in the 
absence of a quorum, and, on appeal, that decision was overruled by the 
House.
  Subsequently, Mr. Albert S. Burleson, of Texas, inquired:

  With due respect to the Speaker, I desire to propound this query: Has 
the Speaker signed the warrants to be intrusted to Joe Sinnott, as 
ordered by the House?

  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The Speaker has no knowledge of Joe Sinnott, and the Speaker desires 
to say nothing further until a quorum of the House appears. The Speaker 
is under the constraint that he is bound by a rule of the House 
adopted, when it had a quorum; and acting in this ministerial capacity, 
will be bound by that rule, and not by a request of the gentleman or a 
request of less than a quorum.

  682. With the exception of the motion to adjourn, no motion is in 
order in the absence of a quorum except in furtherance of the effort to 
secure a quorum, and since a motion to withhold pay of absentees would 
not contribute to this result, such motion can not be entertained.
  On February 18, 1911,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House, engaged in 
the consideration of bills on the Private Calendar, rose and reported 
the lack of a quorum. During the ensuing proceedings to secure a 
quorum, Mr. Thetus W. Sims, of Tennessee, moved:

  ``That the Sergeant at Arms be instructed to execute the provision of 
the law requiring the salaries of Members of the House to be deducted 
for all such days as they are absent, except for sickness of themselves 
or of members of their family, and that it be executed for this day and 
the rest of the session.''

  The Speaker pro tempore \3\ ruled:

  The Chair desires to rule upon the motion of the gentleman from 
Tennessee. The House is now without a quorum. We are in the midst of a 
call of the House. The only motion which can be entertained in the 
absence of a quorum is the motion to adjourn, or some motion which has 
for its manifest, plain purpose merely the bringing in of Members, so 
as to compel attendance and secure a quorum. Such a motion has been 
adopted, and the order of the House is now in process of execution. The 
Chair is of opinion that a motion to enforce a penalty against absent 
Members by deducting something from their salaries at the end of the 
month would not help to secure a quorum this evening, although it might 
insure more faithful attendance in future,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \2\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2868.
  \3\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Speaker pro tempore.
Sec. 683
and that the motion is of such nature that it can not be entertained at 
this time, when no quorum is present.

  683. A motion for a call of the House is not debatable.
  On October 14, 1913,\1\ before the Journal had been read, Mr. James 
R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that a quorum was not 
present. A quorum not being present, Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of 
Alabama, moved a call of the House.
  Mr. Mann inquired if the motion was debatable.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair would hold, as a matter of ordinary common sense, that it 
is not debatable. It is one of the those motions that is intended to 
expedite business like a motion for the previous question. It is on all 
fours with a motion to table, with a motion for the previous question, 
and those other motions that are intended to expedite business. It is a 
summary process.

  684. The former practice of presenting Members at the bar during a 
call of the House is obsolete, and Members now report to the Clerk and 
are recorded without being formally excused unless brought in under 
compulsion.
  Form of resolution for directing the Sergeant at Arms to arrest 
absent Members.
  On March 18, 1910,\3\ in the course of dilatory proceedings attending 
the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 502) to amend the rules, a 
call of the House was ordered. A quorum failing to respond, Mr. Oscar 
Underwood, of Alabama, proposed:

  Mr. Speaker, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be instructed to arrest 
absentees and bring them to the bar of the House.

  The Speaker \4\ said:

  The order usually adopted is:
  ``Ordered, That the Sergeant at Arms take into custody and bring to 
the bar of the House such of its Members as are absent without leave.''

  The motion was agreed to, and subsequently Mr. Ollie M. James, of 
Kentucky, inquired:

  Is it not the duty of the Sergeant at Arms, under this call, to 
report to the House as he arrests Members, and to present them at the 
bar of the House and call the attention of the Speaker to the fact?

  The Speaker pro tempore said:

  Under the practice of the House under its present rules, Members are 
not arrested and compelled to come to the bar of the House so as to be 
excused. They report to the Clerk of the House as they come in, and 
their presence is noted.

  Later Mr. William Hughes, of New Jersey, submitted:

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that the call of the House to-
day has proceeded further than the call of the House has ever proceeded 
in recent times. An order has been made author-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 5653.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-first Congress. Record. p. 3390.
  \4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
                                                             Sec. 685
izing the Sergeant at Arms to arrest absent Members and bring them 
before the bar of the House. The Sergeant at Arms is not presenting any 
Member before the bar of the House. The Clerk continues the call and 
allows Members when they come in to answer to the roll, and no further 
proceedings are taken under the call. I ask, What proceedings have been 
taken under the order? Five Members have come in, but no one has been 
presented before the bar of the House.

  The Speaker pro tempore \1\ said:

  The Chair will say that the old practice of the House of bringing 
Members in and having them presented at the bar of the House and being 
excused was abolished by the adoption of the new rule, which allows 
Members to come in and vote or answer to their names without being 
formally excused. The Chair recollects that the old practice was to 
bring Members in and present them at the bar of the House, and they had 
to be excused, but under the new practice they are entitled to vote if 
there be a question pending, and if there be no question pending they 
are entitled to have their names recorded by the Clerk as they come in, 
and are not required to be formally excused. The Chair presumes that if 
a Member comes in under compulsion in custody of the Sergeant at Arms 
it would probably be necessary that he should be excused.

  685. A proposition to arrest Members absent without leave is in order 
during proceedings to secure a quorum.
  On February 17, 1911,\2\ a quorum having failed to respond on a call 
of the House, ordered following a report by the Committee of the Whole 
House of lack of a quorum for the consideration of the omnibus claims 
bill, Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, moved that the Sergeant at 
Arms arrest absentees.
  The Speaker pro tempore \3\ said:

  The gentleman from Alabama moves that the Sergeant at Arms arrest 
absentees and bring them to the bar of the House. The Chair thinks that 
motion is in order even in the absence of a quorum, as its manifest 
purpose is to secure the presence of a quorum. The question is on the 
notion.

  The motion was agreed to, and the Speaker pro tempore announced:

  The Sergeant at Arms will be directed to arrest absent Members, as 
directed by order of the House, and present them at the bar of the 
House.

  Obstruction to consideration of the measure continued, and on 
February 19,\4\ a quorum failed to respond on a call of the House, 
ordered after the Committee of the Whole in consideration of the same 
measure had again risen without a quorum. Thereupon, Mr. J. Thomas 
Heflin, of Alabama, offered the following resolution:

  Ordered, That the Sergeant at Arms take into custody and bring to the 
bar of the House such of its Members as are absent without leave.

  The Speaker pro tempore said:

  The Chair thinks that motion is in order at this time. The question 
is on agreeing to the motion offered by the gentleman from Alabama.

  The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.
  686. Instance wherein the House ordered the arrest of absentees 
during proceedings to secure a quorum.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Speaker pro tempore.
  \2\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2805.
  \3\ Marlin E. Olmsted. of Pennsylvania. Speaker pro tempore.
  \4\ Record, p. 2896.
Sec. 687
  Form of resolution for the arrest of Members absent without leave.
  A resolution authorizing the Sergeant at Arms to arrest absentees is 
not debatable.
  A request for unanimous consent is not entertained in the absence of 
a quorum.
  On September 30, 1918,\1\ during a filibuster, a quorum failing to 
answer on a call of the House and later on a motion to adjourn, Mr. 
Thetus W. Sims, of Tennessee, offered the following resolution:

  Resolved, That the Sergeant at Arms take into custody and bring to 
the bar of the House such of its Members as are now absent without 
leave of the House.

  Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, asked to be recognized. The 
Speaker \2\ held that the resolution was not debatable.
  Mr. Frank C. Reavis, of Nebraska, asked unanimous consent to address 
the House for 3 minutes. The Speaker declined to entertain the request, 
and held that no business was in order except a motion to adjourn or in 
furtherance of an effort to secure the attendance of a quorum.
  687. A motion to require the Sergeant at Arms to report at the bar of 
the House on progress in securing a quorum is in order during a call of 
the House.
  Interrogation of an officer, required to answer at the bar of the 
House, must be authorized by motion and is limited to subjects 
specified in that motion.
  Instance in which the Sergeant at Arms was summoned to the bar of the 
House and required to report progress in the discharge of the duties of 
his office.
  On March 18, 1910,\3\ during prolonged delay in securing a quorum 
under a call of the House, Mr. Ollie M. James, of Kentucky, offered the 
following motion:

  Mr. Speaker, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be called before the 
bar of the House, that we may ascertain what progress and efforts he 
has made to obtain a quorum in this House to transact the public 
business, if any.

  The Speaker pro tempore \4\ said:

  The Chair thinks it would be within the power of the parties present, 
although not a quorum to ascertain from the Sergeant at Arms what 
progress he has made. The gentleman from Kentucky moves that the 
Sergeant at Arms be required to come to the bar of the House and report 
what progress he has made, if any.

  The motion was agreed to, and Mr. Albert S. Burleson, of Texas, 
moved:

  That Mr. Bell, of Georgia, and Mr. Garner, of Texas, be requested to 
notify the Sergeant at Arms of the action of the House and ask the 
Sergeant at Arms to report to the House what progress he has made.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 10956.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 3393.
  \4\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Speaker pro tempore.
                                                             Sec. 688
  The question on agreeing to the motion offered by Mr. Burleson was 
then taken and, being decided in the affirmative, Mr. Bell and Mr. 
Garner appeared with the Sergeant at Arms at the bar of the House.
  Mr. Bell said:

  Mr. Speaker, this is the Sergeant at Arms before the bar of the 
House.

  The Speaker pro tempore directed:

  The Chair will request the reading clerk of the House to inform the 
Sergeant at Arms of the action of the House.

  The Clerk read:

  The House has directed the Sergeant at Arms to report what progress 
he has made or what action he has taken, if any, to bring in absent 
Members.

  The Sergeant at Arms reported in detail.
  Mr. Gilbert N. Haugen, of Iowa, proposed to further question the 
Sergeant at Arms, when the Speaker pro tempore ruled:

  The Chair thinks any question to be propounded to the Sergeant at 
Arms must be authorized by the House and not propounded by an 
individual Member.

  Whereupon, Mr. William W. Rucker, of Missouri, moved that Mr. Haugen 
be permitted to interrogate the Sergeant at Arms.
  The motion was agreed to, and Mr. Haugen submitted further 
interrogatories, which were answered by the Sergeant at Arms.
  Mr. James expressed a wish to propound additional questions and, on 
motion of Mr. Haugen, the House authorized Mr. James to further 
inquire.
  At the conclusion of Mr. James's examination the Sergeant at Arms 
retired without ceremony.
  688. Motions incidental to a call of the House are not debatable.
  Under a call of the House warrants for the arrest of Members may be 
issued by the Speaker pro tempore.
  On October 7, 1913,\1\ immediately upon the reading and approval of 
the Journal, Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order 
that no quorum was present, and, on motion of Mr. Frank Clark, of 
Florida, a call of the House was ordered.
  A quorum having failed to respond, Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of 
Georgia, moved that the Speaker pro tempore issue a warrant for the 
arrest of Members.
  Mr. Mann made the point of order that the Speaker pro tempore was 
without authority to sign such warrant.
  The Speaker pro tempore \2\ ruled:

  In the opinion of the Chair the Speaker pro tempore has the same 
authority as the Speaker himself would have in securing a quorum. That 
matter was raised once in the Forty-fourth Congress, and upon a point 
of order being made the Speaker pro tempore, Mr. Sunset Cox, of New 
York, ruled that the Speaker pro tempore had such power.

  Mr. Bartlett, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked if the motion was 
debatable.
  The Speaker pro tempore held that it was not debatable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-third Congress Record p. 5498.
  \2\ Swagar Sherley, of Kentucky, Speaker pro tempore.
Sec. 689
  689. A motion to dispense with further proceedings under a call of 
the House was not entertained in the absence of a quorum.
  The lack of a quorum precludes the consideration of a request for 
unanimous consent.
  On March 18, 1910,\1\ a call of the House was ordered pending the 
Speaker's decision on a point of order against the privilege of a 
resolution amending the rules.
  At the conclusion of the second roll call, the Speaker announced that 
35 Members were needed to make a quorum.
  Mr. Irvine L. Lenroot, of Wisconsin, moved to dispense with further 
proceedings under the call of the House.
  The Speaker pro tempore \2\ held:

  Before the motion to dispense with further proceedings under the call 
can be entertained there must have been disclosed the presence of a 
quorum on the call of the House. In other words, you can not vacate 
your call until you have succeeded in getting a quorum. Then upon a 
motion the further proceedings under the call may be dispensed with 
without a quorum.

  In response to a request by Mr. William A. Ashbrook, of Ohio, for 
permission to address the House, the Speaker pro tempore ruled:

  The Chair would say to the gentleman that unanimous consent can no 
more be given than can a motion to proceed to any other business.

  690. The rule whereby a quorum is obtained and the vote taken on the 
pending proposition by one roll call.
  The process of arresting absent Members under a call of the House.
  Form and history of section 4 of Rule XV.
  Section 4 of Rule XV provides:

  Whenever a quorum fails to vote on any question, and a quorum is not 
present and objection is made for that cause, unless the House shall 
adjourn there shall be a call of the House, and the Sergeant-at-Arms 
shall forthwith proceed to bring in absent Members, and the yeas and 
nays on the pending question shall at the same time be considered as 
ordered. The Clerk shall call the roll, and each Member as he answers 
to his name may vote on the pending question, and, after the roll call 
is completed, each Member arrested shall be brought by the Sergeant-at-
Arms before the House, whereupon he shall be noted as present, 
discharged from arrest, and given an opportunity to vote and his vote 
shall be recorded. If those voting on the question and those who are 
present decline to vote shall together make a majority of the House, 
the Speaker shall declare that a quorum is constituted, and the pending 
question shall be decided as the majority of those voting shall appear. 
And thereupon further proceedings under the call shall be considered as 
dispensed with. At any time after the roll call has been completed, the 
Speaker may entertain a motion to adjourn, if seconded by a majority of 
those present, to be ascertained by actual count by the Speaker; and if 
the House adjourns, all proceedings under this section shall be 
vacated.

  This rule was adopted on January 23, 1896.\3\ In its original form it 
included a provision that it should not apply to sessions on Friday 
nights.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 3394.
  \2\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Speaker pro tempore.
  \3\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 923-938; see 
section 3041 of this work.
                                                             Sec. 691
  This provision was rendered obsolete by the adoption March 8, 
1900,\1\ of the standing order modifying section 2 of Rule XXVI by 
making in order the consideration of private pension bills on the 
second and fourth Fridays in each month instead of on Friday evening 
sessions as formerly. This standing order was readopted by each 
succeeding Congress until superseded by the adoption of section 6 of 
Rule XXIV in the revision of 1911.
  691. When lack of a quorum develops while the House is dividing, the 
call of the House is automatic under the rule and no motion is 
required.
  On January 26, 1916,\2\ Mr. James F. Byrnes, of South Carolina, moved 
that the House adjourn. On a division, the yeas were 29, nays 169, and 
Mr. Byrnes made a point of no quorum.
  Mr. Edward Keating, of Colorado, moved a call of the House.
  Mr. Charles R. Crisp, of Georgia, made the point of order that the 
House was dividing and under the rule no motion was necessary.
  The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order and directed that the 
doors be closed, absentees brought in, and the roll called.
  692. The rule providing for an automatic call of the House does not 
apply unless the House is dividing and, if the point of no quorum is 
made before the question is put, may not be invoked.
  On June 28, 1913,\4\ the House was considering the bill (H.R. 32) 
providing an additional circuit judge for the eastern district of 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Henry D. Clayton, of Alabama, moved that the House concur in 
Senate amendment No. 1.
  The Speaker \3\ stated the motion but before he could put the 
question was interrupted by a discussion of preferential motions, 
during which Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, made the point of no 
quorum.
  On motion of Mr. Clayton, a call of the House was ordered.
  Mr. A. Mitchell Palmer, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order 
that, under the rule, the vote was on the pending motion to concur.
  The Speaker said:

  No; the gentleman from Pennsylvania is mistaken as to his facts. What 
happened is this, that the Chair started to put the question, but never 
did put the question, because as soon as he rose and stated that the 
question was on the motion of the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Clayton, 
to concur in this amendments he got no further, and then the gentleman 
from Alabama rose and asked something about unanimous consent that 
debate close. That is the condition it was in, and there is no question 
about what the call of the House is on. The call of the House is to 
ascertain whether we can muster a quorum.

  693. On May 21, 1917,\5\ Mr. Claude Kitchin, of North Carolina, moved 
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union for the consideration of the war revenue bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 329; see section 
3281 of this work.
  \2\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1606.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 2288.
  \5\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2661.
Sec. 694
  The Speaker \1\ announced the motion but had not put the question, 
when Mr. Simeon D. Fess, of Ohio, made a point of no quorum.
  Mr. Kitchin moved a call of the House.
  Mr. John N. Garner, of Texas, made the point of order that, under the 
rule, a call of the House was automatic.
  The Speaker held that the House was not dividing, and put the 
question on ordering a call of the House.
  694. A quorum has not failed to vote until both the yeas and nays 
have been taken, and a call of the House is not ordered until this 
stage is reached.
  On January 30, 1920,\2\ Mr. James W. Good, of Iowa, moved that the 
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union for the consideration of the deficiency appropriation 
bill.
  The Speaker \3\ said:

  The gentleman from Iowa moves that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further 
consideration of the deficiency bill. As many as are in favor of the 
motion will say aye.

  The ayes responded, but before the noes could be taken Mr. William S. 
Vare, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that a quorum was not 
present.
  A quorum not being present, the Speaker directed a call of the House, 
under the rule, when Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, submitted that 
the House was not dividing and the rule could not apply until both the 
yeas and nays had been taken.
  The Speaker said:

  The rule does not say anything about dividing, although that is the 
phrase used. The rule says whenever a quorum fails to vote on any 
question and a quorum is not present. The Chair thinks that under that, 
technically, he would have to decide that a vote had been taken and 
that a quorum did not vote. If the point of no quorum is made before 
the vote is taken, strictly the Chair could not decide that a quorum 
had not voted. The Chair therefore rules that this is not an automatic 
call.

  695. In order to invoke the rule for an automatic call of the House, 
the absence of a quorum must be demonstrated.
  On May 26, 1921,\4\ following the approval of the Journal, the 
Speaker announced:

  When the House adjourned last evening the previous question had been 
ordered on the deficiency bill, and a separate vote has been demanded 
on certain amendments. The Clerk will report the first amendment on 
which a separate vote is demanded.

  Mr. Blanton submitted, as a parliamentary inquiry, that a division 
was had on the first pending amendment and the point of no quorum was 
made on that division prior to adjournment on the preceding day and, 
therefore, under the rule, an automatic call of the House was 
indicated.
  The Speaker \3\ said:

  The reason why there would be an automatic call is that there is no 
quorum present. Because there was no quorum at the time it would not 
follow that there was no quorum now. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2255.
  \3\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 1796.
                                                             Sec. 696
  696. Lack of a quorum developing while a demand for the yeas and nays 
was pending, the demand for yeas and nays, is disregarded and the vote 
is taken under the rule.
  On June 1, 1921,\1\ Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, moved to recommit the 
bill (H. R. 6567) relating to the consolidation of telephone companies 
to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, with instructions.
  Mr. Paul B. Johnson, of Mississippi, demanded the yeas and nays and, 
pending that demand, made the point that a quorum was not present.
  The Speaker pro tempore, having ascertained and announced that a 
quorum was not present, put the question on ordering the yeas and nays.
  Mr. Otis Wingo, of Arkansas, made the point of order that the House 
was dividing and, under the rule, the vote recurred on the pending 
motion to recommit.
  The Speaker pro tempore \2\ said:

  The Chair will state the parliamentary status. The House divided on 
the motion to recommit. The Chair announced that the vote showed that 
the motion was lost. The gentleman from Mississippi thereupon demanded 
that the vote be taken by the yeas and nays, and pending that made the 
point of no quorum. The Chair desires to follow the long line of 
practice of the House, realizing that it is in the interest of 
expedition in roll calls to vote automatically on the question on which 
the House was dividing at the time the point of no quorum was made. The 
Chair therefore reverses the decision which he made a moment ago and 
holds that the vote will be taken automatically on the motion to 
recommit. The Door-keeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms 
will notify absentees, and the Clerk will call the roll. The question 
is on the motion to recommit.

  697. A roll call recurs under the rule on failure of a quorum on a 
viva voce vote.
  On March 8, 1922,\3\ when the question was taken by viva voce vote on 
the final passage of the bill (H.R. 4382) to apply the reclamation law 
to drainage districts, Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, inquired if a 
point of no quorum, made before a division was demanded on the 
question, would precipitate an automatic roll call under the rule.
  The Speaker \4\ said:

  That is a point which the Chair has never settled. The Chair thinks 
it would come.


  Mr. Little, of Kansas, said:

  Then, Mr. Speaker, I shall not ask for a division, but I make the 
point of order that there is no quorum present.

  Thereupon the Speaker directed a call of the House under the rule.
  698. A Member who had risen and was demanding recognition is not 
precluded from making the point of no quorum by the fact that the 
Speaker had in the meantime declared the result and recognized him for 
a parliamentary inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 1994.
  \2\ William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, Speaker pro tempore.
  \3\ Second session, Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 3585.
  \4\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 699
  On June 14, 1922,\1\ Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of Pennsylvania, moved 
the previous question on the bill (H.R. 11939) relating to State 
taxation of national banks, and all amendments thereto, to final 
passage.
  The previous question was ordered, whereupon Mr. Edward Voigt, of 
Wisconsin, who had been demanding recognition, inquired if the action 
of the House in ordering the previous question prevented debate on 
pending amendments. On being told that it did, Mr. Voigt made the point 
of no quorum on the vote ordering the previous question.
  Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that 
after the result of the vote had been declared and a parliamentary 
inquiry had intervened the point of no quorum came too late and the 
rule for an automatic call of the House did not apply.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The gentleman from Wisconsin was on his feet. The Chair thinks that 
he would have a right to claim that the previous question had not been 
ordered; that he would have a right to demand a division. Very 
frequently the Chair states the result of a vote and then a gentleman 
rises, and the Chair never insists that the vote has been completed. It 
seems to the Chair to be fair play to the House to hold that the 
gentleman had a right to demand a division and a roll call on the 
question. It is clear that there is no quorum present. The Doorkeeper 
will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will bring in absentees, and 
the Clerk will call the roll. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.

  699. The Speaker may, without suggestion from the floor, take note of 
the failure of a quorum to vote on the pending question, and on his own 
initiative direct a call of the House under the rule.
  On April 7, 1908,\3\ Mr. Washington Gardner, of Michigan, moved that 
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union for the consideration of the District appropriation 
bill.
  On division the yeas were 100 and the nays were 75.
  Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, made a point of no quorum and 
immediately withdrew it before ascertainment by the Speaker.
  Whereupon the Speaker \4\ said:

  The Chair will make the point of order, and take notice that there is 
no quorum present. The doors will be closed, the Sergeant at Arms will 
notify absent Members, the yeas and nays are ordered under the rule. 
The Clerk will call the roll.

  700. While a quorum is not required to adjourn, a point of no quorum 
on a negative vote on adjournment, if sustained, precipitates a call of 
the House under the rule.
  On August 25, 1919,\5\ on a motion to adjourn, the House voted in the 
negative, yeas 38, nays, 58.
  Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made the point that a quorum had not 
voted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session, Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 8736.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 4482.
  \4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4306.
                                                             Sec. 701
  Mr. Claude Kitchin, of North Carolina, made the point of order that a 
quorum was not required on the motion to adjourn.
  The Speaker \1\ held:

  The Chair thinks that the sequence of events was this: The gentleman 
from Texas moved to adjourn. The House voted down the motion to 
adjourn, and the Chair so put it. Then the gentleman made a point of no 
quorum.
  Now, the only question is whether that point of no quorum was made on 
the division or subsequent to that. The Chair is inclined to think it 
was made on the division, and that the vote would come on the motion to 
adjourn. Obviously no quorum is present, and it is an automatic call of 
the House. As many as are in favor of the motion to adjourn will, when 
their names are called, answer ``yea''; those opposed will answer 
``nay.'' The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will 
notify the absentees, and the Clerk will call the roll.

  701. If a quorum fails to vote on the pending question and objection 
is made, an automatic roll call is still required after a motion to 
adjourn has been offered and rejected by a quorum vote.
  On June 3, 1926,\2\ Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, offered a 
motion to reconsider the vote by which the House had passed the bill 
(H.R. 11329) for relief of certain counties in the States of Oregon and 
Washington.
  Mr. Nicholas J. Sinnott, of Oregon, moved to lay the motion on the 
table, and the question being taken, Mr. John C. Schafer, of Wisconsin, 
objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not present.
  Pending the automatic roll call, under the rule, Mr. Martin B. 
Madden, of Illinois, made a motion to adjourn.
  The vote being taken the Speaker announced that the motion was 
rejected by a vote of 45 yeas and 271 nays, and a quorum was present.
  Mr. Cramton submitted that notwithstanding the development of a 
quorum on the motion to adjourn, the vote recurred under the rule on 
the original motion pending at the time the motion to adjourn was made.
  The Speaker \3\ acquiesced and said:

  The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Oregon to lay the 
motion of the gentleman from Michigan to reconsider on the table, upon 
which there is an automatic call.
  The Chair does not think that the development of a quorum on a 
subsequent vote would avoid a call of the House.
  The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Oregon to lay the 
motion to reconsider on the table. A quorum not having developed at 
that time, the automatic call must be had.

  702. Under the rule for a call of the House, the Speaker issues 
warrants for arrest of absentees without further authorization from the 
House.
  On July 26, 1921, \4\ during dilatory proceedings attending the 
consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 151) to pay expenses of the 
Committee on Reorganization from the contingent fund, a quorum failed 
to vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 10633.
  \3\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4328.
Sec. 703
  The Speaker \1\ announced that he had issued his warrant for the 
arrest of absent Members.
  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, made the point of order that the 
Speaker was not authorized to issue such warrant of his own initiative 
and the Speaker had never at any time issued his warrant for arrest of 
Members except by authority of a resolution passed by the House.
  The Speaker overruled the point of order and held that under the rule 
the Speaker was empowered to issue his warrant on an automatic call of 
the House without further authorization and cited an opinion \2\ to 
that effect rendered by Mr. Speaker Cannon in the Fifty-ninth Congress.
  703. Interpretation and discussion of the rule providing for an 
automatic call of the House on the failure of a quorum to vote.
  The rule providing an automatic roll call on the failure of a quorum 
to vote applies to votes by yeas and nays as well as to those taken by 
tellers, division, or viva voce, but not on motions incidental to lack 
of a quorum.
  The Speaker orders the doors closed only when a call of the House is 
in progress.
  On February 14, 1917,\3\ the House finding itself without a quorum 
during the consideration of the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 335) for 
the appointment of a Board of Managers for the National Home for 
Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, Mr. Ashton C. Shallenberger, of Nebraska, 
moved a call of the House, and on that motion demanded the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays, were ordered, and the Speaker, in putting the 
question, said:

  The question is on ordering a call of the House. The Doorkeeper will 
look the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will notify the absentees, and the 
Clerk will call the roll.

  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, said:

  I make the point of order that it is not in order to order the doors 
to be closed until a call of the House has been ordered. The rule is 
not applicable to the case. That is the new rule, that when objection 
is made that no quorum votes and no quorum is present there shall be a 
call of the House and so forth. That is not the rule under which we are 
operating at present. There is demanded a roll call, but not on the 
point of no quorum. I simply called attention to the fact that the 
Speaker ordered the doors closed. I do not think it is in order to 
order the doors closed until a call of the House has been ordered.

  The Speaker \4\ sustained the point of order that the doors should be 
closed only on a call of the House.
  Mr. John N. Garner, of Texas, took issue with Mr. Mann's assumption 
that the rule providing for an automatic call of the House did not 
apply, and made the point of order that a quorum having failed to vote 
on the pending question it was the duty of the Speaker to direct a call 
of the House.
  Mr. Garner said:

  The Chair himself raised the objection that there was not a quorum 
present. The Chair himself has objected, and that comes within the rule 
and requires an automatic roll call.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \2\ Section 3043 of this work.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-fourth congress, Record, p. 3314.
  \4\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
                                                             Sec. 704
  In reply, Mr. Charles R. Crisp, of Georgia, said:

  Mr. Speaker, I must agree that the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Mann, 
is correct in the position which he takes in this matter. When I 
addressed the Chair a moment ago it was for the purpose of calling 
attention to the fact that when the yeas and nays disclosed the absence 
of a quorum the Speaker must take cognizance of it, and nothing could 
be done. Now, it seems to me this matter is very plain. Under the rules 
there are two provisions for a call of the House. Under the old rules 
there was only one provision for a call, and that was the provision 
that 15 Members in the absence of a quorum could send out and bring in 
a quorum. The House has since adopted a rule known as the automatic 
call, and, in my opinion, that means that when the House is dividing by 
a viva voce vote or by tellers or otherwise, except by yeas and nays, 
and the want of a quorum is disclosed, and the point is made, then the 
automatic call applies, and the Speaker should order the doors closed 
and direct the Sergeant at Arms to notify the absentees and order the 
yeas and nays on the question.

  In response to an inquiry by Mr. Garner as to the distinction in the 
application of the rule on the failure of a quorum on a vote by tellers 
or viva voce and on a yea and nay vote, Mr. Crisp continued:

  I think there is a difference. I think the yea and nay is the last 
method of taking a vote on any question that may come before the House, 
and it is the best way of ascertaining a quorum. I think the intent of 
the House when they adopted the rule was that if on viva voce, rising 
vote, or on tellers there was not a quorum, instead of having to order 
a call of the House, the automatic rule should apply and the yeas and 
nays be ordered on the pending question.

  The Speaker rendered no formal decision, as the roll call was already 
in progress.
  Subsequently, addressing the House by unanimous consent, Mr. Crisp 
said:

  Mr. Speaker, earlier in the evening, when the parliamentary question 
arose as to whether an automatic call of the House obtained, I took the 
position that the automatic call did not apply and agreed with the 
position taken by the learned gentleman from Illinois. I want to say 
now that, so far as I had ever seen any precedent in this House on the 
subject, or any practical application of the rule, the position we then 
took was correct. But upon investigation I find that the gentleman from 
Texas was correct and that I was wrong--that the automatic call did 
apply--and when I am wrong and convinced I have no hesitancy in saying 
so. I desire to call the attention of the Speaker to two precedents on 
this question.

  Mr. Crisp then cited precedents \1\ sustaining this contention, and 
concluded:

  Under these decisions, if they are followed, it is obvious when we 
take a vote by yeas and nays on a motion to order the previous question 
on the passage of a bill and amendments and a quorum failing to vote, 
then the automatic rule applies, and a call of the House follows, and 
Members brought in by the Sergeant at Arms or who come in voluntarily 
should be permitted to cast their vote on ordering the previous 
question on the bill and amendments to passage. I felt, Mr. Speaker, 
that it was due the Chair and due the House and due myself when I 
learned I was in error to frankly say so. I thank the House.

  This revised opinion, however, seems to overlook the fact that the 
motion for a call of the House was pending incidental to lack of a 
quorum, and therefore the rule providing for an automatic roll call was 
not applicable.
  704. On July 26, 1921,\2\ a quorum failed to vote by yeas and nays on 
ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 151) to pay 
half the expense of the Committee on Reorganization from the contingent 
fund.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Sections 3045 and 3052 of this work; first session Fifty-fourth 
Congress, Record, p. 6330.
  \2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4327.
Sec. 705
  The Speaker directed a call of the House under the rule, when Mr. 
Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, submitted a parliamentary inquiry as to 
the integrity of the proceedings.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  It is the same as a division. When a quorum fails to appear on a 
division an automatic roll call follows. Speaker Clark made this same 
ruling. The clerk will call the roll.

  705. During a call of the House a motion to adjourn is seconded by a 
majority ascertained ``by actual count by the Speaker,'' and tellers 
may not be demanded.
  On July 26, 1921,\2\ during a call of the House precipitated by the 
failure of a quorum to vote on ordering the previous question on a 
resolution for the payment of expenses of a joint committee from the 
contingent fund, Mr. Tom Connally, of Texas, moved to adjourn.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The question is, Does a majority of those present second him? As many 
as desire to second the motion to adjourn will rise and be counted. 
[After counting.] Fifty-three gentlemen have risen in the affirmative. 
Those opposed will rise and be counted. [After counting.] One hundred 
and fourteen gentlemen have risen in the negative.

  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, demanded tellers.
  The Speaker ruled:

  The rule says the second is to be ascertained by actual count by the 
Speaker; therefore tellers can not be demanded.

  706. On August 1, 1921 \3\ a quorum failed to vote on a motion by Mr. 
Julius Kahn, of California, to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 
1385) maintaining the corps of cadets at West Point at maximum 
strength.
  Mr. Alben W. Barkley, of Kentucky, moved that the House adjourn.
  The Speaker pro tempore \4\ said:

  That motion is in order, but in this case it must be seconded by a 
majority of the Members present, and that must be determined by a count 
by the Chair. Those in favor of seconding the motion to adjourn will 
rise and stand until counted.

  707. On the failure of a quorum in a vote by tellers on seconding the 
old motion \5\ to discharge a committee the Chair directed a call of 
the House under the rule.
  On January 15, 1912,\6\ a quorum failing to appear on a vote by 
tellers on seconding a motion to discharge the Committee on Invalid 
Pensions from the further consideration of the bill (H. R. 60) to 
increase the pensions of widows, minor children, etc., Mr. Oscar W. 
Underwood, of Alabama, moved a call of the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4328.
  \3\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4504.
  \4\ Horace M. Towner, of Iowa, Speaker pro tempore.
  \5\ This section has been superseded by section 4 of Rule XXVII.
  \6\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 954.
                                                             Sec. 707
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that a call 
of the House was automatic under the rule, and the motion was not in 
order.
  The Speaker pro tempore \1\ said:

  The Chair had an idea that possibly this situation would arise, and 
consequently has been looking the matter up before the question of a 
point of no quorum was made, and of course availed itself of the 
assistance of the aid to the Chair on these parliamentary matters by 
consulting the Clerk at the Speaker's table. From all the Chair was 
able to gather before and since the point was made the Chair thinks 
that this is a vote within the meaning of the automatic rule and that 
section 4 applies. The Chair holds the automatic rule applies, and the 
doors will be closed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Thetus W. Sims, of Tennessee, Speaker pro tempore.