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


                           Chapter CCLIX.\1\
 
                       THE VOTE BY YEAS AND NAYS.

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

   1.  Provision of the Constitution. Section 3107.
   2.  Order for yeas and nays pending at adjournment. Section 
     3108
   3.  Not in order on a vote seconding a motion. Section 3109.
   4.  General decisions as to demanding. Sections 3110-3120.
   5.  Rule prescribing the manner of roll call. Section 3121.
   6.  Roll of yeas and nays as distinguished from roll for 
     organization. Section 3122.
   7.  Recapitulation. Sections 3123-3130.
   8.  Interruption of roll call. Sections 3131-3133.
   9.  Right to vote at close of roll call. Sections 3134-3152.
   10.  Failure of signal bells. Sections 3153-3157.
   11.  Ordering of signal bells. Sections 3158.
   12.  Changes and corrections in vote of Member. Sections 3159, 
     3160.
   13.  Wrong announcement of result is corrected at any time. 
     Sections 3161, 3162.

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

  3107. The right to demand the yeas and nays is a constitutional 
privilege which may not be denied or abridged and may not be ruled out 
as dilatory.--On February,\2\ the House was considering a Senate 
amendment to the Indian appropriation bill still in disagreement 
between the two Houses.
  Mr. Charles C. Carlin, of Virginia, moved to postpone further 
consideration of the Senate amendment until the next legislative day.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, demanded the yeas and nays.
  Mr. Leonidas F. Livingston, of Georgia, made the point of order that 
the request for yeas and nays was made for obstructive purposes and was 
dilatory.
  The Speaker \3\ held:

  The demand for the yeas and nays is a constitutional privilege that 
no rule or anything else can dispense with, and has never been ruled as 
dilatory. The gentleman from Illinois demands the yeas and nays.

  3108. The House having adjourned after ordering the yeas and nays and 
before they could be taken, the order stands when the bill is again 
taken up for consideration.--On February 21, 1919,\4\ the Speaker \5\ 
announced that when the House adjourned on the preceding day the 
question was pending on the passage
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Supplementary to Chapter CXXIX.
  \2\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2797.
  \3\ Joseph G. Cannon, Illinois, Speaker.
  \4\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 3937.
  \5\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 3109
of the bill (H. R. 16020) making deficiency appropriations for 
railroads under Government control, and on which the yeas and nays had 
been ordered.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, suggested that the order for the yeas 
and nays be vacated.
  Mr. Swagar Sherley, of Kentucky, having objected, the Speaker said:

  The question is on the passage of the bill. The yeas and nays were 
ordered, and the Clerk will call the roll.

  3109. The constitutional right to demand the yeas and nays does not 
exist as to the vote to second a motion when such second is required by 
the rules.--On March 3, 1927,\1\ Mr. M. Clyde Kelly, of Pennsylvania, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H. R. 4475) to provide 
for steel cars in the Railway Post Office Service.
  Mr. Albert Johnson, of Washington, having demanded a second, and the 
vote being taken by tellers, the yeas were 37 and the nays were 74.
  Mr. Kelly demanded the yeas and nays.
  The Speaker \2\ read section 6032 of Hinds' Precedents relating to a 
similar point of order and held that on the question of seconding a 
motion--

the Chair thinks that the right to demand the yeas and nays does not 
exist. It is simply a question of whether the yeas and nays can be 
demanded as a right. The Chair thinks not.

  3110. The yeas and nays may be demanded even after the pronouncement 
of a vote if the House has not passed to other business.
  The constitutional provision for ordering the yeas and nays has 
always been construed liberally in favor of the demand by and any 
Member.
  On March 2, 1910,\3\ while the House had under considerations the 
bill (H. R. 15814) providing for the purchase or erection of embassy, 
legation, and consular buildings abroad, Mr. Robert B. Macon, of 
Arkansas, moved to strike out the enacting clause.
  Mr. Frank O. Lowden, of Illinois, moved that the House adjourn.
  The vote being taken on the motion to adjourn, the House divided and 
the Speaker \4\ announced:

  Upon this question the ayes are 62 and the noes are 88 and the House 
refuses to adjourn.

  Mr. Lowden demanded the yeas and nays.
  Mr. Ollie M. James, of Kentucky, made the point of order that the 
result of the vote having been announced the request for the yeas and 
nays came too late.
  The Speaker overrule the point of order and said:

  The Chair will read from the Manual:
  ``The yeas and nays may be demanded while the Speaker is announcing 
the result of a division, while a vote by tellers is being taken, and 
even after the announcement of the vote, if the House has not passed to 
other business.''
  Now, the matter of unanimous consent, the change of reference which 
the Chair submitted to the House, the Chair would not consider as 
``other business,'' because the whole thing was
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 5606.
  \2\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2648.
  \4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3111
done by unanimous consent and as a matter of convenience to fix the 
calendar. The Chair is of opinion that the gentleman is in time with 
his demand for the yeas and nays.
  The gentleman from Kentucky will recollect until the vote was 
announced the House could not tell what the vote was.
  This is viva voce and there may be a further division, and if it is 
not demanded of course a further division can not be had; but this is a 
constitutional provision, and the Chair and all previous Speakers have 
always construed it liberally, as the Chair read from the Manual.
  Section 6040 of Hinds' Precedents reads as follows:
  ``The yeas and nays may be demanded even after the announcement of a 
vote if the House has not passed to other business.''
  There are a number of other precedents to the same effect. This 
ruling was by Speaker Cobb, of Georgia. The Chair thinks the demand for 
the yeas and nays is in time.

  3111. In ascertaining whether one-fifth of those present support a 
demand for the yeas and nays the Speaker counts the entire number 
present and not merely those who rise to be counted.--On February 20, 
1915,\1\ Mr. Swagar Sherley, of Kentucky, moved that the House resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
for the consideration of the fortifications appropriation bill.
  Pending that motion Mr. Augustus P. Gardner, of Massachusetts, moved 
that the House adjourn.
  Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, asked for the yeas and nays on 
the motion to adjourn.
  The Speaker \2\ announced:

  The gentleman from Alabama asks for the yeas and nays on the motion 
to adjourn. All in favor of the motion will rise and stand until they 
are counted. [After counting.] Thirty-three gentlemen have risen in the 
affirmative, not a sufficient number.

  Upon request of Mr. William C. Adamson, of Georgia, the Speaker 
decided to call for those opposed to taking the vote by yeas and nays, 
and announced:

  Those opposed to taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and 
stand until they are counted. [After counting.] There does not seem to 
be anyone rising. Thirty-three gentlemen rose in the affirmative, not a 
sufficient number.

  Mr. John N. Garner, of Texas, made the point of order that 33 having 
risen in the affirmative and none in the negative, the constitutional 
requirements had been complied with and the yeas and nays were ordered.
  The Speaker held:

  The rule of the House is ``one-fifth of those present.'' The Chair 
will count to see how many there are here. [After counting.] Sixty-
three Members are present, and 33 voted to take this vote by the yeas 
and nays. That is a sufficient number, and the Clerk will call the 
roll.

  3112. In passing on a demand for the yeas and nays the Speaker need 
determine only whether one-fifth of those present sustain the demand.
  The count of the Speaker in ascertaining whether one-fifth of those 
present support a demand for the yeas and nays is not subject to 
verification, and a request for a rising vote of those opposed to the 
demand is not in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 4240.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 3113
  On December 15, 1919,\1\ immediately following the reading of the 
Journal, Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made the point of order that 
there was not a quorum present.
  The Speaker having sustained the point of order, Mr. Frank W. 
Mondell, of Wyoming, moved a call of the House.
  The motion was agreed to and the roll was called, when 303 Members 
answered to their names, a quorum.
  Mr. Mondell moved to dispense with further proceedings under the 
call.
  Mr. Blanton demanded the yeas and nays.
  The Speaker having submitted the question to the House announced that 
45 Members had arisen, not a sufficient number, and the yeas and nays 
were refused.
  Mr. Blanton said:

  I ask for the other side.

  The Speaker \2\ replied:

  There is no other side. The question is whether the demand is 
seconded by one-fifth of the Members present. The Chair can arrive at 
it by counting the Members. The Chair suggests that it does not follow 
that all Members present would vote. It very frequently happens that 
Members do not rise. The Chair will count.

  3113. On January 30, 1924,\3\ while the bill (S. 794) to equip the 
penitentiary at Leavenworth for the manufacture of Government supplies 
was under consideration in the House Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, 
moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary, and on 
that motion demanded the yeas and nays.
  The Speaker on submitting the demand to the House announced that 41 
Members had arisen, not a sufficient number, and the yeas and nays were 
refused.
  Mr. Blanton requested that the Speaker call for a rising vote of 
those opposed to ordering the yeas and nays.
  The Speaker \4\ rules:

  No; it is not necessary. Two hundred and eighty-eight Members are 
present; there was not a sufficient number, and the yeas and nays are 
refused.

  3114. In ascertaining whether one-fifth of the Members present 
support a demand for the yeas and nays the Speaker is not required to 
take a rising vote of those opposing but counts all present.
  On a demand for the yeas and nays it is not in order to request a 
rising vote in the negative and the count of the Chair is not subject 
to verification.
  On March 1, 1929,\5\ the House divided on the question of agreeing to 
the conference report on the bill (H. R. 349) amending the 
naturalization law.
  A demand for the yeas and nays having been refused, Mr. Charles R. 
Crisp, of Georgia, as a parliamentary inquiry, inquired:

  As the Speaker well knows, the Constitution of the United States 
provides that one-fifth of the Members present have the right to have 
the yeas and nays. There has not been a rollcall or
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 597.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 1714.
  \4\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \5\ Second session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 4951.
                                                            Sec. 3115
any count of the House, so far as I know, since we convened at 8 
o'clock. On a request here for the yeas and nays, 52 rose. The Chair 
stated that that was not one-fifth of those present, and when the other 
side was asked to be counted to see if 52 was one-fifth of those 
present, the Chair did not count, and, therefore, I appeal to the 
Speaker. Under the Constitution, one-fifth of those present in the 
House being entitled to the yeas and nays, I asked the Speaker to 
ascertain if 52 is not one-fifth of those present in the House.

  The Speaker \1\ responded:

  The present occupant of the chair announced not very long ago, after 
having carefully counted, that 287 Members were present. The Chair 
assumes there are still 287 Members present. So there was not a 
sufficient number.
  The Chair has before him this precedent: \2\
  ``Such count (meaning such count as the present occupant of the chair 
made long since) is not subject to verification and a request for a 
rising vote of those opposed to the demand is not in order.''
  Now, if the gentleman makes the point of order there is not a quorum 
present, the Chair will be delighted to count.

  3115. In passing on a demand for the yeas and nays the Speaker need 
determine only whether one-fifth of those present sustain the demand.
  While the count of the Speaker in determining whether a requisite 
number of Members has sustained a demand for the yeas and nays is not 
subject to verification, and a call for those opposed may not be 
demanded as a matter of right, in exceptional instances requests for 
tellers have been entertained.
  The integrity of the Speaker in counting a vote has never been 
questioned in the House.
  On March 7, 1914,\3\ the Speaker,\4\ having asked and secured 
unanimous consent to address the House, requested the Clerk to read the 
following excerpt from an article appearing in a Washington newspaper:

  Application of commission and manager forms of government to states 
and even of the Nation was advocated last night by Charles Zueblin, 
former professor of sociology at the University of Chicago. His address 
was delivered under the auspices of the Congressional Union.
  ``The House of Representatives,'' he said, ``is too unwieldy to 
accomplish anything, and will never grow less so. The situation is such 
that any majority Member must go to Representative Underwood or Speaker 
Clark to find out what he himself thinks.''
  As an instance of control by the minority Doctor Zueblin cited the 
vote in the House on the report of the Mulhall investigation, asserting 
that the Speaker announced the number voting for a roll call was 23, 
whereas 50 men, he said, have signed a statement that they rose to 
their feet. ``I am not blaming all this on the Speaker,'' said Mr. 
Zueblin. ``He is only one of the ring up there.''

  At the conclusion of the reading the Speaker said:

  I am now serving my twentieth year in the House, and never yet rose 
to a question of personal privilege and would not do so now, if it were 
simply a personal question involved, but the words of Professor Zueblin 
of Winchester, Mass., as reported in the Washington Post, go far beyond 
that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Nicholas Longworth, Speaker.
  \2\ Sec. 3112 of this work.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-third Congress,
  \4\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker. Record, p. 4470.
Sec. 3116
His words involve the integrity of the proceedings of the House as well 
as the courage, intelligence, patriotism, vigilance, and fidelity of at 
least 165 Members, for that many were here in the Hall by actual count. 
This is too serious a thing to permit to go unchallenged. What this man 
wanted his hearers to believe, though he did not say so in so many 
words, is this: That on the demand by Mr. MacDonald of Michigan, for 
the yeas and nays, on the motion of Mr. Garrett, of Tennessee, to refer 
the matter to the Committee on the Judiciary, 50 Members rose in the 
affirmative and that I reported only 23, and that 165 Members sat here 
dumb and made no protest against my action. It is absolutely 
unthinkable that any Speaker would do such a brazen, outrageous, and 
corrupt thing, and it is equally incredible if any Speaker should be so 
unworthy of his high responsibility as to do such a thing, that 165 
Members should be so forgetful of their duty to themselves, their 
constituents, their country, and the cause of representative government 
as to sit mute and motionless. All any Member had to do to expose such 
a performance on my part, if there had been any such performance, was 
either to raise the point of no quorum, which would have been well 
taken, because there were only 165 Members present, while it takes 218 
to constitute a quorum, or any Member could have demanded tellers.
  The custom of the Chair, is, if there is a very large vote on each 
side, to count by fives, and in the shuffling around that takes place 
in the House, if there is anything like a full vote, it would not be 
anything strange if he was out of plumb 5 or 6, or even 10 votes. But 
when a few gentlemen stand up and try to get the yeas and nays, or do 
anything else which they have a right to do, the Chair counts with the 
greatest accuracy possible.

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

  Mr. Speaker, it would be an error which ought not to be permitted to 
go forth for the people to believe that the Speaker has the power to 
defraud the House by a wrong count. If there had been 50 gentlemen who 
rose at that time, it would have been an easy matter to have asked for 
tellers on that proposition, and thus take the count out of the hands 
of the Speaker and place it in the hands of two gentlemen representing 
each side of the proposition. We frequently resort to tellers, not 
because we doubt the count of the Speaker or of the Chair, but because 
we wish to have gentlemen pass between the tellers so everyone can see 
them, and give those who do not happen to be in the Hall when the first 
vote was taken on a division an opportunity of voting.
  It is undoubtedly true that many persons throughout the country 
believe that at least in some of the State legislatures the speaker 
exercises the gavel to do what they call ``gaveling things through'' 
regardless of the vote. I have served in this House for quite a number 
of years, and I never yet have seen any Speaker attempt to override the 
House by the exercise of autocratic power in refusing a fair count or a 
fair vote. In many places, especially in conventions outside or 
congresses outside of legislative bodies, people take advantage of 
certain situations to declare that the demand for a division or the 
demand for a roll call comes too late. That is seldom exercised in the 
House of Representatives. Here the Speaker attempts to preserve the 
rights of every Member to have an actual count of the real vote, and no 
Speaker would be permitted to remain as Speaker 48 hours who attempted 
to defraud the House of its right to a square vote upon a proposition.

  3116. On November 16, 1921,\1\ the House was considering the bill (S. 
843) providing for relief in contracts connected with the prosecution 
of the war.
  The question being on the passage of the bill, Mr. Eugene Black, of 
Texas, demanded the yeas and nays.
  The Speaker on submitting the request to the House announced that 48 
Members had risen to sustain the request, not a sufficient number, and 
the yeas and nays were refused.
  Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, asked for tellers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 7816.
                                                            Sec. 3117
  Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, made the point of order that the 
Speaker's count was not subject to verification and the demand for 
tellers was not in order.
  After debate the Speaker pro tempore \1\ ruled:

  In the judgment of the Chair a sufficient number not having arisen to 
support the demand for the yea and nay vote, if a sufficient number 
arises in support of the demand for tellers, the Chair's count is 
subject to verification by the House, if it so desires, and the Chair 
overrules the point of order. As many as are in favor of seconding the 
demand for tellers on the question of ordering the yeas and nays will 
rise. The Chair will count all gentlemen standing. (After counting.) 
Sixty-seven gentlemen have risen, a sufficient number:

  Tellers were ordered.
  3117. On June 3, 1926,\2\ Mr. S. Wallace Dempsey, of New York, moved 
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union for the consideration of the river and harbor 
bill.
  The question being submitted to the House, on a division, the yeas 
were 230 and the nays were 55.
  Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, demanded the yeas and nays.
  The Speaker \3\ announced:

  The gentleman from Michigan asks for the yeas and nays. Forty-four 
gentlemen have arisen, not a sufficient number.

  Mr. Cramton asked for tellers.
  Mr. John McDuffie, of Alabama, submitted a parliamentary inquiry as 
to the propriety of demanding tellers on the Speaker's count.
  The Speaker decided that tellers might be ordered and directed that 
the vote be taken by tellers.
  3118. On March 21, 1928,\4\ the House resumed consideration of the 
bill (H. R. 8141) authorizing additional employees for the Federal 
Power Commission, on which the previous question had been ordered on 
the previous day.
  The Speaker having put the question on agreeing to the amendment to 
the bill reported by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union, Mr. James S. Parker demanded the yeas and nays.
  After counting, the Speaker \3\ announced that 60 Members had arisen, 
not a sufficient number.
  Mr. Parker requested that the number of Members announced as 
supporting the demand for the yeas and nays be verified by tellers.
  Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, questioned the right to demand a 
verification of the Speaker's count by tellers.
  The Speaker overruled the point of order and submitted the request 
for tellers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Speaker pro tempore.
  \2\ First session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 10636.
  \3\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 5111.
Sec. 3119
  3119. A Member failing to respond when his name is called may not be 
recorded as voting, even by unanimous consent.--On July 17, 1919,\1\ 
Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, submitted the following request:

  Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a request for unanimous consent. The 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Parrish, was called out while we were taking 
the vote on the passage of the sundry civil bill, but is now present. 
Inasmuch as there is no opposition to the bill, I ask unanimous consent 
that he may be recorded in the affirmative.

  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair thinks that can not be done by unanimous consent.

  3120. In counting to ascertain the presence of a quorum or whether a 
sufficient number have voted to order yeas and nays, the Chair counts 
all Members visible, including those in lobbies and cloakrooms.--On 
June 10, 1921,\3\ Mr. Oscar E. Bland, of Indiana, moved to recommit the 
bill (H. R. 6611) to establish a Veterans' Bureau in the Treasury 
Department to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce with 
instructions.
  The question being taken, Mr. Bland, demanded the yeas and nays. The 
demand being put, the Speaker pro tempore \4\ announced that 44 Members 
had arisen, not a sufficient number, and the yeas and nays were 
refused.
  Mr. Bland submitted that 44 constituted one-fifth of the Members 
present, and asked that those present be counted.
  The Speaker pro tempore proceeded to count, when Mr. Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, asked that members retiring from the Hall be counted.
  The Speaker pro tempore said:

  Under the precedents the House is not considered as limited merely to 
the Hall of the House, but also includes the cloak rooms and the lobby 
adjacent to the Chamber. The Chair included in his count 193 members on 
the floor of the Chamber, 11 who had left the Chamber after the demand 
for the other side had been made--a sufficient number, and the Clerk 
will call the roll.

  3121. The Clerk in calling the roll calls Members by surnames only, 
omitting the prefix ``Mr.''--Formerly the Clerk in calling the roll 
called the full names of Members. In 1879,\5\ in the interest of 
brevity, the House adopted a recommendation reported by the Committee 
on Rules directing that Members be called by surnames with the prefix 
``Mr.'' The increase in the membership of the House in the Sixty-second 
Congress rendered imperative further economy of time in calling the 
roll, and by common consent the prefix ``Mr.'' was dropped and Members 
are called by surnames only.
  In the Senate with its smaller membership the practice of using the 
prefix ``Mr.'' still obtains.
  3122. Members who have not taken the oath of office are not entitled 
to vote.--On May 9, 1913,\6\ the House was considering the resolution 
(H. Res. 99)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2775.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2426.
  \4\ William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, Speaker pro tempore.
  \5\ First session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 471, 1017.
  \6\ First session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 1457.
                                                            Sec. 3123
directing the Sergeant at Arms to take in custody one Charles C. 
Glover, when finding itself without a quorum a call of the House was 
ordered.
  In response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. James R. Mann, of 
Illinois, the Speaker held that 216 Members constituted a quorum.
  Mr. Mann submitted that the membership consisted of 434 Members and 
therefore 218 Members were required to constitute a quorum.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  Four hundred and thirty-five Members constitute the whole membership 
of the House; but one is dead and three have never been sworn in. The 
Chair does not know whether their names are carried on the roll or not. 
They ought not to be. This matter was in a good deal of doubt for a 
long time until Speaker Henderson rendered a very elaborate written 
opinion in which he defined what constitutes a quorum as being one more 
than a majority of Members elect sworn in and living who have neither 
resigned nor been expelled.

  3123. Under the more recent practice recapitulation of a vote may be 
had either before or after the announcement of the result of the vote.
  A Member may change his vote at any time before its announcement--
  On June 1, 1920,\2\ a yea-and-nay vote was had on agreeing to the 
resolution (H. Res. 324) to amend the rules of the House in connection 
with the establishment of a national budget.
  Prior to the announcement of the result of the vote a recapitulation 
was ordered.
  Mr. Charles Pope Caldwell, of New York, as a parliamentary inquiry 
desired to know if it would be in order for a Member to change his vote 
on recapitulation.
  The Speaker \3\ held that it would be in order for members to change 
their votes at any time prior to announcement.
  3124. Under the more recent practice recapitulation of a vote may be 
had either before or after the announcement of the result of the vote.
  A Member may not change his vote on recapitulation if the result of 
the vote has been announced prior to recapitulation.
  On May 29, 1920,\4\ the Speaker in announcing the result of the vote 
on an appeal taken by Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, from a 
decision of the Chair, said:

  On this vote the yeas are 192 and the nays 189. The result is so 
close that the Chair thinks there ought to be a recapitulation. The 
Chair will ask the Clerk to recapitulate the vote.

  The vote having been recapitulated, Mr. Warren Gard, of Ohio, asked 
if the vote of Mr. Peter E. Costello, of Philadelphia, had been 
recorded, and being informed that it had not, said:

  Mr. Speaker, the arrangement I had with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania I do not think contemplated the roll call which has just 
been had.

  The Speaker \3\ said:

  The Chair thinks that it would be too late to change the vote in any 
event.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 8108.
  \3\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7924.
Sec. 3125
  3125. Under the more recent practice recapitulation of a vote may be 
had either before or after the announcement of the result of the vote.
  Errors in the record of votes are corrected on recapitulation at the 
close of the reading of the votes in the affirmative, in the negative, 
and those answering present, respectively.
  On March 1, 1919,\1\ the House was considering the contested-election 
case of Britt against Weaver.
  The question being taken by yeas and nays on agreeing to a substitute 
proposed by Mr. Cassius C. Dowell, of Iowa, for the resolution reported 
by the Committee on Elections, the Speaker \2\ announced that there 
were 180 yeas and 177 nays.
  Subsequent to the announcement of the vote Mr. James R. Mann, of 
Illinois, demanded a recapitulation.
  The Speaker directed the Clerk to recapitulate the vote, and the 
names of those voting in the affirmative having been called, Mr. 
Leonidas Dyer, of Missouri, asked when it would be in order to correct 
a vote inaccurately reported.
  The Speaker said:

  Now or never.

  Mr. Dyer thereupon called attention to an error in the Record of 
those voting in the affirmative.
  The Clerk then read the list of Members voting in the negative.
  Mr. Richard N. Elliott, of Indiana, having addressed the Speaker, was 
recognized to make a correction.
  The list of names of those answering ``present'' was then read by the 
Clerk, and Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, called attention to 
inaccuracies, which were corrected.
  3126. The motion that a vote be recapitulated is not privileged.
  A Member may not, as a right, demand the recapitulation of a yea-and-
nay vote, but if the vote is close the Speaker usually orders it.
  Discovery of error in the count of a vote subsequent to the 
announcement of the vote, even on another day, vitiates the 
proceedings.
  On March 1, 1909,\3\ the yeas and nays being ordered on the question 
of agreeing to the resolution (H. Res. 607) amending the rules, the 
yeas were 168, nays 163, answering present 2, and the Speaker \4\ 
announced that the resolution was agreed to.
  Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, moved that the vote be 
recapitulated.
  The Speaker declined to entertain the motion.
  Mr. Champ Clark, of Missouri, requested a recapitulation of the vote.
  The Speaker held:

  There is no necessity for a recapitulation. The gentleman has no 
right to demand a recapitulation of the vote. But if the gentleman from 
Missouri has reason to believe that a recapitulation of the roll may 
show a different result that would change the vote, the Chair will take 
that statement into consideration, it being discretionary with the 
Chair, as is shown by all the precedents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session, Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4802.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session, Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 3572.
  \4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3127
  But the Chair, in the discretion of the Chair, will order a 
recapitulation of the vote, although if it should appear to-morrow that 
there was an error that would change the result all the proceeding 
would fall.

  The Chair will read:

  ``A Member may not, as a right, demand the recapitulation of a yea-
and-nay vote, but if the vote be close the Speaker usually orders it.
  ``The usage as to a recapitulation of a yea-and-nay vote does not 
permit it to be done after the announcement of the result except by 
unanimous consent. There is no rule or practice requiring a 
recapitulation of the names of those who appeared on a call of the 
House after their names have been called.''
  There is the matter in a nutshell, and now the Chair, sooner than 
have a shadow cast upon the use of the discretion that is lodged in the 
Chair under the rules of the House and the uniform practices of the 
House, will direct the Clerk to recapitulate the vote.

  3127. On June 27, 1918,\1\ the pending question was on agreeing to 
the conference report on the post-office appropriation bill.
  The vote being taken by yeas and nays, the yeas were 149 and the nays 
were 150, and the Speaker \2\ announced that the conference report was 
rejected.
  Mr. Robert Y. Thomas, jr., of Kentucky, offered a motion that the 
roll be again called by way of recapitulation.
  The Speaker refused recognition and said:

  You can not do that.

  3128. Recapitulation of a vote is within the discretion of the 
Speaker and may not be demanded as a matter of right.
  The Speaker declined to entertain an appeal from his decision 
refusing recapitulation of a vote.
  On February 28, 1919,\3\ the question being taken on agreeing to the 
conference report on the bill (S. 1419) to regulate the construction of 
dams across navigable waters, the Speaker announced there were on the 
roll call 263 yeas and 65 nays, and the conference report was agreed 
to.
  Mr. William E. Mason, of Illinois, requested a recapitulation of the 
vote.
  The Speaker \2\ held:

  A verification of the vote rests entirely in the judgment of the 
Speaker. If it were a close vote, so close that mistakes enough might 
have been made to change it, the Chair would have no hesitancy in 
granting that request, but the Chair declines to order a verification 
of the vote.

  Mr. Mason having appealed from the decision of the Chair the Speaker 
declined recognition for the purpose and said:

  The gentleman from Illinois appeals from the decision of the Chair. 
The gentleman from Illinois has no right to appeal from the decision of 
the Chair on that particular point, as it is a matter that is entirely 
within the discretion of the Speaker.

  3129. On July 13, 1932,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union reported the bill H. R. 12946, the relief bill, to 
relieve destitution and expedite
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 8388.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \3\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4641.
  \4\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 15231.
Sec. 3130
employment, to broaden the lending powers of the Reconstruction Finance 
Corporation and to create employment by providing for a public works 
program with amendments, and with favorable recommendation.
  Mr. Willis C. Hawley, of Oregon, having demanded a separate vote on 
the amendment providing for publicity of loans made by the 
Reconstruction Finance Corporation, and the yeas and nays being 
ordered, there were 170 yeas and 169 nays.
  Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, requested a recapitulation of the 
vote.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The gentleman from New York asks for a recapitulation of the vote. 
That question is entirely within the discretion of the Chair. The Chair 
believes, however, in the interest of fairness and correctness the vote 
ought to be recapitulated. Therefore he will order a recapitulation of 
the vote.

  3130. On January 26, 1921,\2\ at the conclusion of a yea-and-nay vote 
on agreeing to an amendment to the agricultural appropriation bill 
providing for congressional distribution of valuable seeds, the Speaker 
\3\ announced that the yeas were 141 and the nays were 142, and the 
amendment was rejected.
  By direction of the Speaker the vote was recapitulated, when Mr. 
Leonidas C. Dyer, of Missouri, stated that he had voted in the negative 
and desired to change his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  The Speaker ruled.

  The Chair does not think so, after the vote has been announced. The 
recapitulation, of course, is simply for the purpose of verifying the 
vote, and the Chair does not think it could be used as an engine for 
changing the vote.

  3131. A roll call may not be interrupted even by a point of order.--
On Friday, February 17, 1911,\4\ Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, moved 
to dispense with the proceedings in order on that day on the Private 
Calendar.
  The question being taken, the yeas were 38, and the nays were 120, 
when Mr. Mann made the point of order that there was not a quorum 
present.
  The Speaker pro tempore,\5\ after counting, announced that a quorum 
was not present and directed a call of the House under the rule.
  During the roll call Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, requested 
recognition to present a point of order and said:

  Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that this roll call is not in 
order. I venture to call the attention of the Chair to section 2968, 
volume 4, of Hinds' Precedents. It read thus:
  ``When a Committee of the Whole rises and reports the lack of a 
quorum, the sitting of the committee is resumed upon the appearance of 
a quorum.''
  Now, I understand the situation to be this: The Committee of the 
Whole rose and reported to the House the lack of a quorum.

  The Speaker pro tempore ruled:

  The Chair thinks it is not in order to interrupt a roll call for the 
making of a point of order. The Chair thinks it is too late to make 
that point of order after the roll call has been begun, or that
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John N. Garner, of Texas, Speaker.
  \2\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2099.
  \3\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \4\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2809.
  \5\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Speaker pro tempore.
                                                            Sec. 3132
it can not be entertained until after the roll is completed. The Chair 
declines to entertain the point of order in the midst of a roll call. 
The Chair does not pass upon it, but declines to entertain it in the 
midst of a roll call.

  3132. The roll call may not be interrupted for a parliamentary 
inquiry.--On January 26, 1921,\1\ the House was considering the 
agricultural appropriation bill with the question pending on a motion 
to lay on the table a motion to reconsider the vote by which the House 
had rejected an amendment providing for the free distribution of seeds.
  The yeas and nays being ordered, the Clerk was calling the roll when 
Mr. Frank Clark, of Florida, addressed the Speaker and desired to 
submit a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Speaker \2\ in declining to entertain the inquiry said:

  The gentleman can not interrupt the roll call. The gentleman knows 
that during a roll call nothing else is in order. Nobody can make a 
parliamentary inquiry during a roll call.

  3133. A roll call was held not to be subject to interruption by the 
arrival of the hour at which the House and previously agreed to 
recess.--On February 24, 1921,\3\ on motion of Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of 
Wyoming, by unanimous consent, it was ordered that at 6 o'clock p.m. of 
that day the House stand in recess for two hours.
  Subsequently, during the consideration of Senate amendments to the 
post-office appropriation bill, Mr. John Jacob Rogers, of 
Massachusetts, moved to concur in Senate amendment No. 33 providing for 
continuing in force the existing law relating to passports for aliens 
seeking admission to the United States.
  The question being taken on the motion to concur, Mr. William L. 
Igoe, of Missouri, raised the questin of order that there was not a 
quorum present, pending which Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, 
inquired:

  It has already been agreed to that the House will recess at 6 
o'clock. Now an automatic roll call will come. If 6 o'clock should come 
before the roll call is completed, would the roll call be interrupted?

  The Speaker \2\ held:

  The roll call would not be interrupted. The House would not adjourn 
until after the roll call.

  3134. A Member is permitted to vote after the roll call has been 
concluded on a yea-and-nay vote only on the theory that the Clerk 
inadvertently failed to call his name.
  Although a Member may have been present during roll call, unless he 
was listening when his name should have been called he does not qualify 
to vote at the end of the roll.
  On December 12, 1908,\4\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 
11733) punishing conspiracies to intimidate persons in the exercise of 
a right under the Constitution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2100.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3814
  \4\ Second session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 173.
Sec. 3135
  The roll call on the passage of the bill having been concluded Mr. 
Richmond P. Hobson, of Alabama, submitted:

  Mr. Speaker, I was mistaken as to the call. I had voted on the 
previous question, and was under the impression that this was another 
call on that vote. I was ready to vote, but did not hear my name. I was 
giving general attention, but did not expect my name to be called. 
Within two numbers, the name after mine or the next after that, they 
told my the Clerk had just passed my name, and I did not know it. I was 
here, was giving attention, and was anxious to vote.

  The Speaker \1\ ruled:

  The gentleman hardly brings himself within the rule. The meaning of 
the rule is the supposition that the gentleman's name was not called. 
Therefore, under the rule, the gentleman should have been present 
giving attention when his name should have been called, and did not 
hear it. The gentleman says that he was not expecting to vote, but 
others heard his name called, and his attention was called to it one or 
two names further along. The rule forbids the Chair to entertain the 
request, unless the gentleman brings himself within the rule.
  This is the rule:
  ``Upon every roll call the names of the Members shall be called 
alphabetically by surname, except when two or more have the same 
surname, in which case the name of the State shall be added; and if 
there be two such Members from the same State the whole name shall be 
called; and after the roll has been once called, the Clerk shall call 
in their alphabetical order the names of those not voting; and 
thereafter the Speaker shall not entertain a request to record a vote 
or announce a pair unless the Member's name has been noted under clause 
3 of this rule.''
  That is where a quorum fails, and is not this case. The Speaker has 
been accustomed, in the construction of this rule, where it appears 
that a gentleman was present giving attention, expecting to vote, and 
failed to vote because he failed to hear his name called to allow the 
Member's name to be called again. This is as far as the construction of 
the rule had gone, and so far as the Chair knows or is informed, it has 
been the uniform construction of the rule by the Chair. Now, except for 
the construction of the rule by the Chair, the letter of the rule would 
not even cover that case.
  The rule was adopted by the House, and under the strict 
interpretation of the rule the gentleman would not be entitled to vote 
even if he was giving attention when his name should have been called 
and did not hear it called. But the construction of the rule by former 
Speakers, adhered to by the Chair, has been that where a gentleman 
states that he was giving attention when his name should have been 
called, and that he failed to hear his name called, to allow him to 
vote. Now, if the Chair should enlarge this construction of the rule, 
it would practically nullify the rule. It is quite in the power of the 
House to change the rule. The Chair does not think the gentleman has 
brought himself within the rule.

  3135. On May 20, 1932,\2\ the yeas and nays were ordered on agreeing 
to the resolution (H. Res. 167) providing a special order for the 
consideration of the bill (H. R. 4668) amending the flood control act 
of 1928.
  At the conclusion of the second roll call, Mr. Hampton P. Fulmer, of 
South Carolina, addressed the Chair and asked to be recorded.
  The Speaker \3\ inquired if the gentleman was present in the Chamber 
and listening when his name was called.
  Mr. Fulmer replied:

  Mr. Speaker, just as I entered the Chamber I heard my name called, 
but I was unable to answer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   \1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 10822.
  \3\ John N. Garner, of Texas, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3136
  The Speaker held:

  The gentleman does not qualify.

  3136. On August 7, 1911,\1\ the bill H. R. 8768, the pawnbroker's 
bill, regulating the loaning of money in the District of Columbia, was 
being considered in the House, when Mr. James Hay, of Virginia, moved 
that the House adjourn.
  The vote being taken by yeas and nays and the roll call having been 
concluded, Mr. Samuel W. McCall, of Massachusetts, requested that his 
vote be recorded.
  In response to an inquiry from the Speaker pro tempore,\2\ Mr. McCall 
said:

  Mr. Speaker, I was present in the Hall, but was not giving attention.

  The Speaker pro tempore held:

  The gentleman does not bring himself within the rule.

  3137. The practice does not contemplate that a Member shall be 
permitted to vote simply because he does not hear his name called, but 
is on the theory that through inadvertence on the part of the Clerk the 
name was not called at all, and therefore only those Members qualify 
who are present and listening when their names should have been 
called.--On June 4, 1919,\3\ the House was considering the agricultural 
appropriation bill.
  The roll call on the passage of the bill having been completed, Mr. 
Charles C. Kearns, of Ohio, who had not responded on the roll call, 
asked that his vote be recorded.
  The Speaker \4\ propounded the usual inquiry as to whether the 
gentleman had been present and listening when his name should have been 
called.
  Mr. Kearns said:

  I was in the Hall, but I did not hear my name called. I could not 
hear my name if it had been called--there was so much confusion in the 
room. I was present.

  The Speaker explained:

  The Chair would like to say that the rule does not contemplate that a 
Member can vote simply because he did not hear his name called. It is 
on the theory that the gentleman's name was not called at all, and 
therefore the only way that a Member can properly qualify is that he 
was present and listening, did not hear his name called, and therefore 
is allowed to vote on the theory that his name was not called. Unless 
gentlemen can state that they were present and listening when their 
names should have been called, they do not qualify. Unless the 
gentleman will state that he was present and listening to hear his name 
called, the gentleman can not qualify.

  Mr. Kearns submitted:

  I think I was; I was doing nothing but watching the roll call, and 
did not hear my name called. There was much confusion in the Hall.

  The Speaker held:

  The Chair does not think the gentleman has qualified.

  3138. On May 2, 1921,\5\ during consideration of a motion to suspend 
the rules and pass the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 30) authorizing the 
President to appoint a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 3708.
  \2\ John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
  \3\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 639.
  \4\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 940.
Sec. 3139
representative to cooperate with the Joint Committee on Reorganization, 
the House found itself without a quorum, and a call of the House was 
ordered.
  After a yea-and-nay vote had been concluded on a motion to dispense 
with further proceedings under this call, and before the result of the 
vote had been announced, Mr. J. C. Pringey, of Oklahoma, asked to be 
permitted to vote.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The Chair will state, inasmuch as a part of the Members may not be 
familiar with the rule, that there is one to the effect that unless a 
Member votes when his name is called he can not vote on the roll call. 
But the theory being that the Clerk may have neglected to call a 
Member's name, and, of course, in that case he having had no 
opportunity to vote ought to be allowed a further opportunity. So, if a 
man was listening and did not hear his name called, he can vote. Was 
the gentleman from Oklahoma present and listening when his name was 
called?

  Mr. Pringey having answered in the affirmative, the Speaker directed 
that he be recorded.
  3139. It is the duty of the Speaker to qualify a Member asking to 
vote at the end of the roll, but it is for the Member and not the 
Speaker to say whether he was in the Hall and listening and unless he 
answers categorically in the affirmative he may not vote.--On August 
13, 1912,\2\ the House voted on reconsideration of the bill H. R. 
22195, a tariff bill reducing the woolen schedule, returned by the 
President without his approval.
  At the conclusion of the roll call Mr. David J. Lewis, of Maryland, 
asked to be permitted to vote, and in response to the usual inquiry by 
the Speaker said:

  I was at the door of the cloakroom, if that embraces the Hall. I do 
not know what the interpretation of the word ``Hall'' is, whether it 
embraces the cloakroom or not, I can not answer otherwise than that I 
was standing in the door of the cloakroom waiting, and did not hear my 
name called, owing to the noise and other interruptions. I was 
listening for it and waiting.

  The Speaker \3\ said tentatively:

  The gentleman knows whether it is inside the door or not. The only 
question the Chair has a right to ask is whether the gentleman was in 
the Hall, listening, when his name was called.
  The chair is not entertaining arguments on the subject. The question 
is, Was the gentleman: in the Hall, listening, when his name was 
called?
  The chair thinks the gentleman brings himself within the rule, 
although it is a close shave.

  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, submitted that it was not a question 
for the Speaker to decide and that in order to qualify the Member must 
himself answer and answer unequivocally in the affirmative.
  The Speaker ruled:

  The Chair thinks that the gentleman from Illinois states the rule 
correctly; and really the only question that the chair is expected to 
ask of a Member is whether he was in the Hall listening. It rests 
entirely with the gentleman from Maryland. If he says he was in the 
Hall listening, the Chair will have his name recorded. If he was not, 
he is not entitled to have it recorded.

  3140. On December 3, 1918,\4\ Mr. Frank Clark, of Florida, moved that 
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 10847.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \4\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 51
                                                            Sec. 3141
for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 12917) to provide for the 
establishment of a sanatorium for discharged soldiers and sailors.
  The roll call on agreeing to the motion having been concluded, Mr. 
Henry D. Flood, of Virginia, Mr. Robert Crosser, of Ohio, and Mr. 
Carter Glass, of Virginia, addressed the Speaker and asked to vote.
  In reply to the inquiry of the Speaker as to whether they were in the 
Hall and listening at the time their names should have been called Mr. 
Flood said:

  I reckon not.

  The Speaker \1\ held that he was not entitled to vote.
  Mr. Crosser said:

  Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I was here when my name was called 
or not. I have been here a good part of the time. I do know.

  The Speaker ruled adversely and said:

  The gentleman has to qualify and say whether he was in the Hall 
listening or not.

  Mr. Glass said:

  Mr. Speaker, I was in the Hall engaged in conversation and did not 
hear my name when it was called. Whether that is a qualification or 
not, the Speaker will have to decide. I shall be very glad to state, 
Mr. Speaker, I had intended voting. I missed my name on the first roll 
call and hoped to hear it on the second roll call, but I was engaged in 
conversation with a colleague and did not hear it.

  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, submitted that he ought to state that 
he was in the Hall expecting to vote and listening ``as Members usually 
listen.''
  Mr. Glass agreed:

  Well, I do state that. I was listening, just about as we are in the 
habit of listening.

  The Speaker held:

  I think the gentleman is entitled to vote.

  3141. On October 27, 1919,\2\ the Speaker laid before the House the 
message of the President returning with his objections the bill (H. R. 
6810) to prohibit intoxicating beverages and to regulate the use of 
spirits for other than beverage purposes.
  The question being taken on the passage of the bill, on 
reconsideration, the Speaker \3\ announced that the yeas were 175, the 
nays were 55, and two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the bill 
was passed, the objections of the President to the contrary 
notwithstanding.
  Thereupon Mr. Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, addressed the Speaker and 
desired to be recorded as voting ``nay.''
  The Speaker inquired if the gentleman was present and listening when 
his name was called.
  Mr. Longworth said:

  Practically.

  The Speaker held that the gentleman failed to qualify.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress. Record, p. 7611.
  \3\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 3142
  Mr. Longworth inquired if he might be recorded as voting ``present.''
  The Speaker ruled:

  The Chair has no discretion to allow the gentleman to vote at all.

  3142. On July 26, 1921,\1\ at the conclusion of a roll call, Mr. 
Thomas U. Sisson, of Mississippi, announced that he desired to vote.
  In reply to the interrogation of the Speaker \2\ as to whether he was 
present and listening when his name should have been called, Mr. Sisson 
said:

  I was present. I do not know whether I was listening at the time or 
not, but I did my best to listen. I can not positively state whether or 
not I was listening at the time my name was called. I do not know.

  The Speaker said:

  The gentleman must decide that question for himself. Can the 
gentleman state that he was listening when is name was called?

  Mr. Sisson failing to answer in the affirmative, the Speaker ruled 
that he did not qualify to be recorded.
  3143. When the Clerk in calling the roll call fails to note a 
Member's vote, the Member may, at any time, before the approval of the 
Journal, demand as a matter of right that it be recorded.--On January 
7, 1910,\3\ the House had under consideration the joint resolution (H. 
J. Res. 103) for the investigation of the Interior Department and the 
Bureau of Forestry of the Department of Agriculture.
  The yeas and nays being demanded and had on an amendment striking out 
language providing for investigation of the Bureau of Forestry, the 
Speaker \4\ announced that the yeas were 65, the nays were 225, and the 
amendment was rejected.
  Mr. George E. Foss, of Illinois, asked if his vote has been recorded, 
and being informed that it had not, demanded that he be permitted to 
vote.
  Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, made the point of order that the 
request came too late after the result of the vote had been finally 
pronounced.
  The Speaker ruled:

  This is the general practice of the House:
  ``When a vote actually given fails to be recorded, the Member may, 
before the approval of the Journal, demand as a matter of right that 
correction be made.''
  This is not a correction of the Journal. The vote can be recorded, if 
the gentleman voted, at any time before the approval of the Journal. 
The practice is well settled. While the vote does not change the 
result, even if it did it could be recorded under the well-settled 
practice of the House.
  The Chair reads from Hinds' Precedents, volume 5, section 5970:
  ``On July 19, 1882, during the consideration of the contested-
election case of Smalls against Tillman, the question was taken on the 
resolution declaring that Tillman was not elected, etc., and the 
announcement is made that there were--yeas 145, nays 1, not voting 145.
  ``The vote was next taken on the resolution declaring that Smalls was 
elected, etc., and there were--yeas 140, nays 5, not voting 145. The 
Speaker thereupon voted, making--yeas 141 nays 5, a total of 146, just 
a quorum.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4324.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 406.
  \4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3144
  ``The Speaker thereupon announced that on the vote preceding the last 
there had been an error in the tabulation and that in reality the 
result on the resolution declaring Tillman not elected had been--yeas 
144, nays 1, a total of 145, 1 less than a quorum.
  ``The Speaker declared that he would vote, and did so, making the 
result 145 yeas and 1 nay--a quorum voting.''
  That is, in principle, the same as the present situation. The Clerk 
will call the gentleman's name.

  3144. In order to qualify to vote at the end of the roll, a Member 
must have been within the Hall proper at the time his name should have 
been called.
  A Member in the lobby, cloakroom, or gallery is not entitled to vote 
even though he hear his name called.
  On February 27, 1915,\1\ the House was considering Senate amendment 
No. 1 to the District of Columbia appropriation bill, authorizing 
appointment of a joint select committee to determine the proper 
proportion of the expenses of the District of Columbia to be borne by 
the United States.
  Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, moved to concur in the Senate 
amendment with an amendment providing that the joint committee be 
instructed to report not later than January 1, 1916.
  The roll call on agreeing to the motion to concur having been 
completed, Mr. Henry W. Temple, of Pennsylvania, asked to have his vote 
recorded.
  In response to an inquiry from the Speaker pro tempore as to whether 
he had been in the Hall and listening when his name should have been 
called, Mr. Temple said:

  I was in the lobby.

  The Speaker pro tempore \2\ held:

  The gentleman does not bring himself within the rule.

  3145. On June 27, 1918,\3\ at the conclusion of the roll call on 
agreeing to the conference report on the post-office appropriation 
bill, Mr. William Gordon, of Ohio, addressed the Speaker and desired to 
have his vote recorded.
  In response to the usual inquiry from the Speaker as to whether he 
had been in the Hall and listening when his name should have been 
called, Mr. Gordon replied:

  I was in the smoking room. I heard my name called, but I did not get 
in in time to answer.

  The Speaker \4\ ruled:

  Nobody can vote who was outside of the Hall when his name was called. 
If the gentleman was in the smoking room, he cannot vote. The gentleman 
must be present and listening. He might be in the gallery listening, 
but that would not be sufficient.

  3146. A Member failing to qualify as entitled to vote after the roll 
has been called may not be recorded as ``present,'' although present 
before the pronouncement of the vote.--On December 21, 1920,\5\ at the 
conclusion of the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 4865.
  \2\ Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, Speaker pro tempore.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, record, p. 8387.
  \4\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \5\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 607.
Sec. 3147
roll call on the passage of the resolution (H. Res. 544) providing for 
the consideration of the bill (S. 3477) to increase the opportunities 
of the people to acquire rural homes, Mr. James W. Dunbar, of Indiana, 
and Mr. Edward B. Almon, of Alabama, appeared in the well of the House 
and asked to be permitted to answer ``present.''
  Both submitted that although absent at the time their names were 
reached on the roll they had come into the House before the vote was 
concluded and were entitled to be recorded as present.
  The Speaker pro tempore \1\ held that not being entitled to vote they 
were not entitled to be recorded as present.
  3147. In order for a Member to qualify as being entitled to vote, he 
must not only state that he was present when his name should have been 
called but that he was listening at that time.--On March 3, 1919,\2\ at 
the conclusion of the roll call on the motion to strike from the Record 
certain remarks made by Mr. Otis Wingo, of Arkansas, Mr. C. Frank 
Reavis, of Nebraska, who had failed to vote when the roll was called, 
asked to have his vote recorded.
  In response to an inquiry from the Speaker \3\ as to whether he had 
been in the Hall listening when his name should have been called, Mr. 
Reavis replied:

  I was in the Hall, but I was talking.

  The Speaker held:

  The gentleman does not bring himself within the rule.

  3148. In order to qualify as entitled to vote after the second 
calling of the roll, it is not sufficient that a Member be in the Hall 
when his name should have been called but he must be listening at the 
time.--On June 4, 1919,\4\ at the close of the vote on the agreeing to 
the resolution (H. Res. 78) for the appointment of a select committee 
on war expenditures, and before the announcement of the result, Mr. 
John F. Miller, of Washington, addressed the Speaker \5\ and stated 
that he desired to vote ``yea.''
  The Speaker having inquired if he was present and listening, Mr. 
Miller replied that he ``was present.''
  The Speaker said:

  That is not sufficient.

  3149. It is not sufficient that a Member be present but he must also 
be listening when his name was called in order to qualify on a yea-and-
nay vote.
  Instance wherein a bill with Senate amendments was taken from the 
Speaker's table and the Senate amendment agreed to by resolution from 
the Committee on Rules.
  Form of special order providing for summary agreement to Senate 
amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, Speaker pro tempore.
  \2\ Third session, Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4914.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 647.
  \5\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3150
  On April 28, 1932,\1\ Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, from the 
Committee on Rules, by direction of that committee, called up the 
following resolution:

  Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill H.R. 6662, with the amendment of the Senate thereto, be, and the 
same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end that the 
amendment of the Senate be, and the same is hereby, concurred in.

  Debate on the resolution having been concluded, the yeas and nays 
were ordered on agreeing to the resolution.
  At the close of the second roll call, Mr. John M. Nelson, of 
Wisconsin, said:

  Mr. Speaker, I was in the Hall talking to my colleague and did not 
hear my name called.

  The Speaker \2\ ruled:

  The Chair does not think the gentleman qualifies.

  Mr. Nelson explained:

  I was here listening, except temporarily when I was talking to my 
colleague.

  The Speaker said:

  If the gentleman will say he was in the Hall listening when his name 
was called, the gentleman will qualify.
  The Member in order to quality must answer the question: ``Was the 
gentleman in the Hall listening when his name was called'' in the 
affirmative. The gentleman made the statement that he was in the Hall, 
but that he was talking to his colleague when his named was called.
  The Chair wants to be absolutely fair. When he asked the gentleman if 
he was in the Hall listening when his name was called he must answer 
``yes''; otherwise he does not qualify.
  3150. On April 21, 1933,\3\ on a yea-and-nay vote in agreeing to the 
motion to recommit the bill H. R. 4606, the unemployment relief bill, 
Mr. James P. Bushanan, of Texas, rose at the conclusion of the second 
roll call and desired to be recorded.
  In response to the Speaker's inquiry as to the gentleman's 
qualification, Mr. Buchanan said:

  I was present, but listening to one of my colleagues talk.

  The Speaker \4\ ruled:

  The gentleman does not quality.

  3151. It is not in order after a record vote on which he failed to 
vote for a Member to announce how he would have voted if present.\5\--
On February 6, 1915,\6\ Mr. John E. Raker, of California, rising in his 
place said:

  Mr. Speaker, I want to ask unanimous consent to make a statement for 
a minute. I was here yesterday afternoon, but on account of sickness in 
my family I was called out and could not get back in time to vote on 
the motion to recommit the naval appropriation bill. I returned, but 
too late to have my vote recorded. If I had been here, I would have 
voted against the motion to recommit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 9156.
  \2\ John N. Garner, of Texas, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Seventy-third Congress, Record, p. 9129.
  \4\ Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \5\ Similar decisions were rendered by Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of 
Illinois, First session Seventy-third Congress, Record, pp. 2587, 3834.
  \6\ Third session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 3155.
Sec. 3152
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that the 
statement was ``wholly improper.''
  The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order and said:

  The statement is out of order.

  3152. At the end of a yea-and-nay vote on a motion to adjourn, 
pending a call of the House, Members appearing prior to the 
announcement of the vote were recorded without the qualification.--On 
October 8, 1913,\2\ during consideration of the joint resolution (S. J. 
Res. 5) providing for the appointment of a commission to report on 
vocational education, the House found itself without a quorum, and on 
motion of Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, a call of the House was 
ordered.
  During the proceedings incident to securing a quorum Mr. Fitzgerald 
moved that the House adjourn.
  The yeas and nays having been ordered on the motion to adjourn, the 
roll was called, twice, when Mr. Ezekiel S. Candler, jr., of 
Mississippi, and Mr. Thetus W. Sims, of Tennessee, appeared on the 
floor and desired to be recorded as voting.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that it was 
necessary for the gentleman to qualify in order to vote.
  After debate the Speaker pro tempore \3\ held:

  The Chair thinks a motion to adjourn, pending the obtaining of a 
quorum, is such a proceeding as entitles anyone appearing, prior to the 
announcement by the Chair of the vote, to the right to vote.
  The question that is worrying the Chair is whether under a proceeding 
to obtain a quorum the ordinary rule to which the gentleman from 
Illinois has referred would apply, and whether the exception stated in 
clause 3 of Rule XV does not apply. The language of clause 3 is not 
limited to questions requiring a quorum to decide. Manifestly, if there 
has been no call of the House, it would not have been the right of any 
gentleman to have himself recorded on a motion to adjourn or on any 
other roll call, unless he qualified under the rule by stating that he 
had been present when his name was called, giving attention, and had 
failed to hear it. The question that raises the doubt in the mind of 
the Chair is whether, there being a proceeding pending to ascertain the 
presence of a quorum, even though not arising by an automatic call of 
the House, and any Member having the right to come in and have himself 
recorded, a subsidiary motion like the motion to adjourn would not also 
carry with it the right of the Member to be recorded prior to the 
announcement of the vote.
  Prior to the announcement of the vote upon the motion to adjourn, 
would it not be within the power of the Chair to note the presence of a 
Member, the House then being without a quorum and desiring to obtain 
one? And that being so, would not the Member have the right to have his 
name recorded?
  The Chair appreciates the importance, as a precedent, of a ruling of 
this kind, although of no importance in its bearing upon the present 
situation. Not having had an opportunity to examine the precedents, and 
as far as the Chair is aware, the point not having been raised 
heretofore, the Chair would prefer not to have to make such a 
precedent.
  The Chair is aware of the fact that many matters of this kind are 
arranged by unanimous consent. If the gentleman insists upon his point 
of order, which is equal to an objection, the Chair will hold that the 
gentleman whose names have been called and have been permitted to vote 
have the right so to vote.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Sixty-third Congress, p. 5506.
  \3\ Swagar Sherley, of Kentucky, Speaker pro tempore.
                                                            Sec. 3153
  3153. Failure of the signal bells to announce a vote does not warrant 
repetition of the roll call.
  Exceptional instances in which the Speaker has entertained requests 
for unanimous consent that the roll be called a third time because of 
failure of the bells to signal the beginning of the vote.
  On February 21, 1919,\1\ the roll was called on the passage of the 
bill (H. R. 16020) making deficiency appropriations for transportation 
systems under Government control.
  At the close of the roll call many Members reported that the bells 
had failed to signal the commencement of the vote.
  Mr. Henry D. Flood, of Virginia, asked unanimous consent that the 
roll be called a third time in order to afford an opportunity for 
Members not apprised of the vote to be recorded.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, submitted that it was not in order 
fro the Speaker to entertain the motion.
  The Speaker pro tempore \2\ having put the question by consent, there 
was no objection and the roll was called a third time.
  On resuming the chair, the Speaker \3\ said:

  The Chair wants to make one remark to the House in the interest of 
order. That was a very dangerous precedent that was set down here a 
little while ago in calling these names. All the effect that will have 
will be to induce Members to stay in their rooms two or three minutes 
longer when the signals are sounded on a roll call. The most important 
days of the session have come, and Members ought to be here until late 
in the evening.

  Mr. Mann said:

  Mr. Speaker, in that connection will the Speaker permit me to say 
that I should not have been willing to grant the request that was made 
except that various Members stated that there was something the matter 
with the bells making the call.

  The Speaker concluded:

  That was excusable; but to attempt to get down here and force a third 
roll call is dangerous.

  3154. On April 15, 1921,\4\ the House having under consideration the 
bill H. R. 2435, the emergency tariff bill, Mr. John N. Garner, of 
Texas, moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on Ways and Means 
with instructions.
  The question being taken and the roll having been called twice, Mr. 
George M. Young, of North Dakota, proposed.

  Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the bells over in the House Office 
Building were not in working condition this afternoon and did not ring 
for this roll call; and in view of that fact I ask unanimous consent 
that all who are now present desiring to vote may be permitted to do 
so.

  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, said:

  Mr. Speaker, in view of the peculiar situation I am very reluctant to 
make objection. My recollection is that this question arose before and 
that the Speaker decided that this could not be done.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 3938.
  \2\ George R. Lunn, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 354.
Sec. 3155
  Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, said:

  I am not going to object this time, but I shall not allow another 
request like this to be agreed to if I am here.

  The Speaker,\1\ after further debate, decided to entertain the 
request, and, the question being submitted, there was no objection and 
the roll was called the third time.
  3155. The signal bells having failed to ring announcing a vote, the 
House ordered that they be tested.--On May 2, 1918,\2\ immediately 
following the approval of the Journal, Mr. Joseph Walsh, of 
Massachusetts, being recognized, said:

  Mr. Speaker, I desire to inquire, in view of the happening yesterday, 
when the signal bells were rung and did not sound in the other 
building, whether it might not be well that the bells might be tested 
again this morning to see if they are in working order without the 
necessity of making the point of no quorum?

  The Speaker \3\ replied that the Doorkeeper had already tested the 
bells.
  Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Walsh, by unanimous consent, it was 
offered that the bells be tested a third time.\4\
  3156. The failure of the bells to signal the beginning of a roll call 
is not taken into consideration by the Speaker in qualifying Members 
desiring to vote after their names have been passed.--On July 26, 
1921,\5\ the House was considering the resolution (H. Res. 151) 
providing for payment of expenses of the Joint Committee on 
Reorganization from the contingent fund.
  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, moved that the House adjourn.
  At the conclusion of the vote on the motion to adjourn and before the 
result had been announced, Mr. Theodore E. Burton, of Ohio, Mr. Charles 
H. Brand, of Georgia, Mr. Louis W. Fairfield, of Indiana, and others 
requested that their votes be recorded, as the failure of the bells to 
signal the beginning of the roll call properly had caused them to reach 
the Hall after their names had been called.
  The Speaker \1\ held that the failure of the bells to ring might not 
be taken into consideration and that the gentlemen failed to qualify.
  3157. Failure of the bells to function properly in announcing a vote 
does not waive the rule requiring Members to be in the Hall and 
listening when their names are called.
  Although a Member may not come within the rule permitting him to vote 
on roll call, the Speaker may count him as present to make a quorum.
  On July 8, 1914,\6\ at the conclusion of the vote on the motion by 
Mr. John E. Raker, of California, to recommit the bill (H. R. 8428) 
providing for publicity of campaign expenditures, Mr. Henry T. 
Helgesen, of North Dakota, who had failed to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-fifth, Congress, Record, p. 5951.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \4\ The practice has since been established of testing the signal 
bells each legislative day at 9 o'clock a.m.
  \5\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4324.
  \6\ Second session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 11836.
                                                            Sec. 3158
respond when his name was called, explained that the bells had rung but 
once, and asked to have his vote recorded.
  The Speaker\1\ said:

  Was the gentleman in the Hall, listening, at the time when his name 
was called?
  The gentleman does not qualify. The Clerk will note the gentleman, 
Mr. Helgesen, ``present.''

  Mr. Helgesen protested against being noted as present without being 
permitted to vote.
  The Speaker ruled:

  The rule prescribes when the gentleman may vote; that is, if he was 
in the Hall, listening, when his name should have been called and did 
not hear it, he is allowed to vote afterwards; otherwise he may not 
vote; but, strange to say, under the rule, although the Speaker refuses 
to allow a Member to vote, he may count him ``present.'' Voting 
``present'' helps to make a quorum. That is exactly what the gentleman 
is going to do, because the chair is going to count the gentleman.

  3158. An unusual instance in which, by unanimous consent, the signal 
bells were rung as if for a call of the House.
  An occasion of the introduction of distinguished visitors informally 
to the House.
  On May 28, 1926, \2\ pending a motion by Mr. S. Wallace Dempsey, of 
New York, to resolve into the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Tom Connally, 
of Texas, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, said:

  Mr. Speaker, I have been advised that visiting royalty is going to be 
present in the gallery at 12 o'clock. Is it expected that the House 
will be in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union at 
that time, or has any arrangement been made for any ceremony?

  The Speaker \3\ responded:

  No arrangement has been made for any ceremony so far as the House is 
concerned. Before putting the motion of the gentleman from New York, 
without objection, the bells will be rung as for a call of the House. 
Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none. The question 
is on the motion of the gentleman from New York that the House resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
for the further consideration of the river and harbor bill.

  Following the ringing of the bells, Mr. J. Charles Linthicum, of 
Maryland, protested:

  I rise to ask why the bells were rung when the point of no quorum was 
not made?
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the ringing of these bells and bringing 
Members over here unless it means something. I do not think we should 
begin ringing the bells and fooling Members. I heard no point of no 
quorum made.

  Subsequently Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, speaking by 
unanimous consent, said in part:

  Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen of the House and of the 
committee: In the Executive gallery, by courtesy of the President, 
there have just arrived, as has been shown by the spontaneous applause 
of the House, some very distinguished visitors from across the sea. 
[Applause, the Mem-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 10300.
  \3\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
Sec. 3159
bers rising.] Our distinguished visitors come from a country with which 
our Republic has always had the most amicable relations; in fact, they 
are natives of a land that has made valuable contributions to the early 
beginnings of our national history.
  On the morrow there will be dedicated at this Capital a monument 
erected to the memory of the greatest man of Swedish blood who ever 
came to the United States, Capt. John Ericsson, the designer and 
builder of the Monitor, who in the Nation's greatest trial met an 
actual emergency, a great crisis, an impending danger to the cause of 
the Union. Happily, we are all united today in the great cause for 
which John Ericsson and the Monitor fought in 1862.
  The Government of Sweden, His Majesty the King of Sweden, and the 
people of Sweden, responded to our request, at first informally and 
subsequently more formally made, that at the dedication of this 
memorial tomorrow there might be present these distinguished visitors 
from abroad.
  I wish to say to our visitors that the American people, the 
Government of the United States, as they already know by reason of the 
assurances of the President, the Secretary of State, and many others, 
and the Congress of the United States, bid them welcome to America. 
These noted guests in the Executive gallery are His Royal Highness 
Gustaf Adolf, the Crown Prince, and Her Royal Highness Louise 
Alexandra, the Crown Princess of the Kingdom of Sweden. [Applause, the 
membership standing.]

  3159. On undisputed evidence that a Member recorded as voting was not 
present at the roll call, the Speaker ordered the vote stricken from 
the tally.
  On December 5, 1932,\1\ Mr. Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, moved to 
suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 480) 
proposing an amendment to the Constitution repealing the eighteenth 
amendment.
  The question being taken on agreeing to the motion and the yeas and 
nays being ordered, the vote was reported as yeas 273, nays 144. Mr. 
Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, inquired if Mr. Francis Seiberling, of 
Ohio, was recorded as voting.
  The Speaker \2\ replied that Mr. Seiberling was recorded as voting in 
the affirmative.
  Mr. Snell said:

  Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 
Seiberling, asking to be paired and stating that he would not be here 
to-day. The pair has just been read. I am just informed that the 
gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Selvig, answered to Mr. Seiberling's name 
by mistake and did not answer to his own name until the second roll 
call.

  The Speaker directed:

  Inasmuch as the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Seiberling, is not here and 
did not answer to his name, the Chair will order his name stricken from 
the list.

  The vote was then recorded as yeas 272, nays 144.
  3160. A Member who has voted on a roll call may change his vote 
before the announcement of the result.--On November 3, 1919,\3\ the 
yeas and nays were ordered on a motion to adjourn. At the close of the 
roll call and before the announcement of the result of the vote, Mr. 
Clay Stone Briggs, of Texas, asked, as a parliamentary inquiry, if it 
would be in order for him to change his vote on the pending question.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 13.
  \2\ John N. Garner, of Texas, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7906.
                                                            Sec. 3161
  The Speaker pro tempore \1\ held that the roll call had not been 
complete until the announcement of the result and that it was in order 
to change a vote at any time prior to the announcement.
  Thereupon Mr. Briggs changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  3161. It having been erroneously announced that a quorum had voted 
when the roll later disclosed the absence of a quorum on the vote, the 
Speaker declared subsequent proceedings in connection therewith 
vacated, and the Journal was amended accordingly.--On July 9, 1911,\2\ 
when the journal of the preceding day was read, Mr. Henry D. Clayton, 
of Alabama, called attention to a discrepancy in the Journal between 
the roll call and the announcement by the Speaker \3\ of the vote by 
which the previous question had been ordered on the resolution (H. Res. 
597) providing for consideration of the bill (H. R. 22591) amending the 
Judicial Code.
  It was explained that the Clerk in reporting the vote to the Speaker 
had reported 198 as voting on the bill, a quorum, when the roll later 
disclosed that only 190 had voted, not a quorum.
  Mr. Clayton, asked unanimous consent that the previous question on 
the passage of the resolution on which a quorum had failed to vote be 
considered as adopted, and that the record of subsequent proceedings 
relating there to be approved.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, took the position that the failure of 
a quorum to vote on ordering the previous question vacated all 
subsequent proceedings connected therewith.
  The Speaker said:

  The Chair has no doubt about the method of procedure; he may be 
entirely wrong about it, but in his own mind he thinks that the vote on 
the previous question and all subsequent proceedings must be vacated.

  Mr. Clayton moved that the vote on ordering the previous question on 
the preceding day and proceedings subsequent thereto be vacated.
  Mr. Oscara W. Underwood, of Alabama, contended:

  Mr. Speaker, if the Chair will pardon me, the first rule of this 
House and of the Constitution is that the House can not transact 
business unless a quorum is present. An error was made in announcing 
that a quorum was present, because of the fact that the tally clerk 
wrongly added the score. A quorum was not present. Therefore, that roll 
call was void. The role call itself disclosed that a quorum was not 
present, and, therefore, all subsequent proceedings in the day's work 
would be void until a quorum was found to be present. That must be 
clear, because the House can not do business unless a quorum is 
present. It seems to me, therefore, that when the question is raised, 
and unanimous consent can not be had to correct the error, it is in 
order for the Chair to declare that a quorum was not present during 
those proceedings and therefore they are void, and thus, by the order 
and direction of the Chair, bring the House back to the point where 
this roll call was originally entered.

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

  While I have not the precedent before me, Mr. Speaker, I have no 
doubt that the Speaker has the authority to declare the proceedings 
vacated. On the other hand, I have no doubt that the House has the 
authority to do the same thing by motion. That is the proposition now 
pending.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Speaker pro tempore.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 8775.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 3162
The Journal has been read. This is a matter of correcting the Journal. 
The Journal has, theoretically been approved by the Speaker before 
being read, and whatever action is taken should be in connection with 
the approval of the Journal. If the proceedings are vacated by a 
motion, I assume that carried with it that the Journal shall be 
corrected accordingly, because the matter now comes up upon the 
approval of the Journal.

  Mr. Mann then asked to have read the following excerpt from the 
Journal for December 19, 1903:\1\

  The Speaker announced that by error a different result has been 
reported from the actual result on the vote on the motion for the 
previous question on the resolution of the House (H. Res. 76) by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Wanger.
  The Speaker announced that, therefore, all proceedings relating to 
the erroneous announcement would fall, and that if there be no 
objection the Journal will be amended to show the fact.

  The Speaker announced:

  The Journal shows the fact, except it shows that the Speaker made an 
erroneous declaration. The way it came about is this: There was great 
confusion in the House and some of the clerks got the figures wrong and 
handed up the slip to the Speaker. Of course, the Speaker did not count 
the vote on roll call and the Speaker announced the vote as handed to 
him. The Chair wants that declaration of the Chair changed. The Journal 
shows the correct vote, and the Record shows the correct vote, and 
shows that there was no quorum present. If the gentleman will withdraw 
his motion, the Speaker will declare the vote vacated.

  Mr. Clayton having withdrawn his motion, the Speaker continued:

  The Chair declares the Journal agreed to and the proceedings on that 
roll call and the subsequent proceedings vacated.

  3162. Where by an error of the Clerk in reporting the yeas and nays 
the Speaker announces a result different from that shown by the roll, 
the status of the question must be determined by the vote as actually 
recorded.
  A vote having been incorrectly announced through error on the part of 
the Clerk, it is in order to move that the Journal and Record be 
amended to conform to the facts, or the Speaker may of his own 
initiative announce the correction and direct that the Journal be 
corrected.
  On June 28, 1918,\2\ immediately following the reading of Journal, 
Mr. Claude Kitchin, of North Caroline, referring to the vote taken on 
previous day on agreeing to the conference report on the post office 
appropriation bill, said:

  Mr. Speaker, as everybody in the House knows, I am very much opposed 
to the conference report. I voted against it. In the quiet discussion, 
after vote was taken and the decision announced by the Chair as to 
whether the figures of the tally clerk were correct as he announced it 
to the Speaker after the recapitulation of the vote, I went myself and 
examined the original sheets of the roll call. I found there were 150 
votes for the conference report and 149 votes against it. The Chair, 
upon the tally clerk's figures, announced that there were 149 votes for 
the conference report and 150 votes against, and declared the report 
was rejected.
  The Constitution requires that upon demand a yea-and-nay vote shall 
be recorded in the Journal. The Journal shows, according to the record 
of the vote, that there were 150 votes for the conference report and 
149 votes against it, and that therefore, the tabulation or addition of 
the tally clerk was wrong. I think the Journal and Record ought to be 
corrected to show the actual fact that the conference report was 
adopted and not rejected. Any court in the world would correct its own 
judgment under the circumstances. It is not fair, it is not right, for 
us who opposed the conference report to insist that the report was 
rejected.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifth-eighth Congress, Record, p. 80.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 8422.
                                                            Sec. 3162
  Mr. Kitchin then moved that the Journal be corrected to show that the 
conference report had been agreed to.
  The question being taken, the motion was agreed to and the Journal 
was amended as indicated.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The Chair, with the consent of the House, would like to make a few 
remarks about this matter.
  This is the first time for a long while that this has been done, and 
perhaps not a dozen men in the House ever saw the thing done before. 
But it is not unprecedented.
  Now, the way the Chair arrives at a yea-and-nay vote in the House is 
by these tally clerks handling up the figures. Of course the Chair 
cannot go down there and count the votes, and would not know how to do 
it if he did go down there. They have some system of their own whereby 
when they get through with the roll they know the number of the yeas 
and nays and those present. And then these clerks at the desk take the 
tally sheet out and go over it, one of them a Democrat and one a 
Republican, and I never heard of anybody that disputed the integrity of 
either.
  Everybody will recollect that yesterday was a very hard, disagreeable 
day in this House. Everybody was worn out and it is not the first time 
in the history of this House that clerks have made a mistake in 
arithmetic. I know of a good many that Members never hear of at all in 
the counting, and there is nothing unreasonable about it. The clerks 
are not perfect.
  Now, it has so turned out, I suppose, a dozen times since I have been 
Speaker. I do not read the Record every morning unless there is 
something particular about it that I want to see. At least a dozen 
times since I have been Speaker I have happened to remember the vote 
taken here, and then I would see it next morning showing a difference 
of two or three; but it did not make any difference, because the 
corrections they made did not change the result. It is only when it 
changes the result that the ``tug of war'' comes.
  Now, I want to show you a sample of what happened here. I cite a case 
on page 566, section 6085, of Hinds' Precedents, volume 5:
  ``Where, by an error of the Clerk in reporting the yeas and nays, the 
Speaker announces a result different from that shown by the roll the 
status of the question must be determined by the vote as actually 
recorded.''
  I will read Speaker Carlisle's opinion. It is short. The Speaker 
said:
  ``The Chair desires to state, as a matter of justice to the tally 
clerk, that in recording the affirmative vote in the column assigned 
for that purpose upon the sheet, when that vote had reached 49 he put 
down the figures 49 and called two or three more names before there was 
any other vote in the affirmative. When the next gentleman voted in the 
affirmative the tally clerk, looking back to his previous figures, took 
the 9 for a 4--and it looks very much like a 4, as the gentleman from 
Alabama will see if he examines it--and therefore recorded the next 
vote as 45, when it should have been 50''--
  That is five times as bad as these clerks did--
``and that error was continued until the close of the roll call, and 
the footings were made accordingly. It was a mistake made simply by the 
tally clerk on account of mistaking the figure. The Chair, therefore, 
thinks the Journal should be corrected to show the previous question 
was ordered.''
  In conformity with Mr. Kitchin's motion, the Chair announces that the 
vote stood 150 yeas, 149 nays, and the conference report is agreed to.

  Mr. Simeon D. Fess, of Ohio, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked if an 
error in the Journal could be corrected only by order of the House.
  The Speaker replied:

  The Chair does not think so; but the gentleman from North Carolina 
had already made his motion, and the Chair thought the House would be 
better satisfied to settle the matter itself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.