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


                           Chapter CCLXX.\1\
 
                       SESSIONS AND ADJOURNMENTS.

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

   1. Provisions of the Constitution. Sections 3363-3367.
   2. The 3-day period and its conditions. Sections 3368, 3369.
   3. The holiday recess.. Section 3370.
   4. Instance of a session prolonged by recess. Section 3371.
   5. Sine die adjournment. Sections 3372-3374.
   6. Special sessions ends with day of meeting of next regular 
     session of a Congress. Section 3375.

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



  3363. While neither House may adjourn for more than three days during 
a session of Congress without the consent of the other, either may 
adjourn ad libitum with the consent of the other House.
  The first instance \2\ in which one House adjourned for more than 
three days with the consent of the other.
  On July 28, 1919,\3\ Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, being 
recognized to submit a privileged resolution, offered the following:


  Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on Saturday, the 2d day of August, it 
stand adjourned until 12 'clock meridian, Tuesday, the 9th of 
September.


  Mr. Mondell explained that the legislative program of the House had 
been practically completed and it was proposed that the House, with the 
consent of the Senate, stand in recess until the Senate had completed 
consideration of the pending peace treaty.
  After debate, the concurrent resolution was agreed to without 
division.
  3364. On November 18, 1919,\4\ on motion of Mr. Charles Curtis, of 
Kansas, by unanimous consent, the Senate proceeded to the consideration 
of the following Senate resolution:


  Resolved, That the consent of the Senate is hereby given to an 
adjournment sine die of the House of Representatives at any time prior 
to December 1 when the House shall so determine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Supplementary to Chapter CXL.
  \2\ There is no previous instance in which this procedure has been 
followed. Section 6672 of Hinds' Precedents.
  \3\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3248.
  \4\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 8760.
Sec. 3365
  It was suggested by Mr. William F. Kirby, of Arkansas, that 
adjournment of the House under the authorization proposed by the 
resolution would render it impossible for the Senate to adjourn at all.
  Mr. Curtis explained that it was understood that the House would 
adopt a similar resolution consenting to the adjournment of the Senate.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  On the following day,\1\ the House agreed to a privileged resolution 
presented by Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, as follows:


  Resolved, That the consent of the House of Representatives is hereby 
given to an adjournment sine die of the Senate at any time prior to 
December 1, when the Senate shall so determine.


  3365. A concurrent resolution fixing the time of final adjournment is 
offered as a matter of constitutional privilege.
  On May 29, 1928,\2\ in the Senate, Mr. Charles Curtis, of Kansas, 
submitted, as privileged, the following:


  Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives be authorized and directed to close the first session 
of the Seventieth Congress by adjourning their respective Houses on the 
29th day of May, 1928, at 5.30 o'clock p.m.


  Mr. Hiram W. Johnson, of California, objected to the present 
consideration of the concurrent resolution.
  The Vice President \3\ held the concurrent resolution to be 
privileged, and overruled the point of order.
  3366. A Senate resolution consenting to adjournment of the House for 
more than three days was refused consideration in the Senate on the 
ground that the House had not requested such consent.
  On request of the House, the Senate agreed to a resolution granting 
its consent to the adjournment of the House for a period in excess of 
three days.
  Adoption of a resolution requesting consent of the Senate to 
adjournment for more than three days was held not to confer privilege 
on a motion to adjourn to a certain day.
  On June 28, 1922,\4\ in the Senate, Mr. Francis E. Warren, of 
Wyoming, from the Committee on Appropriations reported favorably the 
following resolution:


  Resolved, That the consent of the Senate is hereby given to an 
adjournment of the House of Representatives to Tuesday, August 8, 1922.


  In debate it was explained that the resolution had been introduced at 
the request of the floor leader of the House to authorize adjournment 
by that body during consideration of the tariff bill in the Senate.
  Objection was made that such resolution should be preceded by an 
official request from the House and on that ground the resolution was 
laid on the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Record, p. 8810.
  \2\ First session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 10511; Senate 
Journal, p. 567.
  \3\ Charles G. Dawes, of Illinois, Vice President.
  \4\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 9549.
                                                            Sec. 3367
  On June 29,\1\ in the House, on motion of Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of 
Wyoming, the following resolution was considered:

  Resolved, That the House of Representatives requests the consent of 
the Senate to an adjournment of the House until Tuesday, August 15, 
1922.

  Mr. John N. Garner, of Texas, objected that the adoption of the 
resolution might be interpreted as authorizing arbitrary consideration 
of a motion to adjourn to a day certain.
  The Speaker \2\ held:

  The Chair thinks that this motion would not be privileged until some 
rule had been adopted as to the time of adjournment.

  On the same day, the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the 
resolution of the House, when on motion of Mr. Charles Curtis, of 
Kansas, the request of the House was agreed to, and the House was 
notified of the action of the Senate.
  On the following day,\3\ in the House, Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New 
York, from the Committee on Rules, reported, as privileged, this 
resolution:

  Resolved, That when the House adjourns to-day it adjourns to meet on 
Tuesday, August 15, 1922, at 12 o'clock meridian.

  After debate, the yeas and nays being ordered, the question was taken 
on agreeing to the resolution, when the yeas were 171, the nays were 
43, and the resolution was agreed to.
  Thereupon, pursuant to the resolution, and the concurrent resolution 
previously agreed to, on motion of Mr. Mondell, the House adjourned 
until Tuesday, August 15, 1922, a 12 o'clock noon.
  3367. A motion to take from the Speaker's table a concurrent 
resolution providing for a recess of more than three days, while 
privileged, is not debatable.
  On July 6, 1918,\4\ Mr. Claude Kitchin, of North Carolina, moved to 
take from the Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 
20) providing for a recess of 30 days for the two Houses while the 
Committee on Ways and Means formulated the tariff bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the two Houses of Congress adjourn on Saturday, the calendar 
day of July 6, they adjourn to meet at 12 o'clock meridian on August 
12, 1918, unless sooner convened by the President of the United States.

  Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, submitted a parliamentary 
inquiry as to whether the motion was debatable.
  The Speaker \5\ held that it was not debatable.
  3368. In computing the days of a session the period during which the 
Congress stands adjourned for more than three days is treated as dies 
non.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Record, p. 9684.
  \2\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \3\ Record, p. 9877.
  \4\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 8835.
  \5\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 3368
  The week's time required to make a resolution of inquiry privileged 
consists of seven days on which the House is holding legislative 
sessions.
  On January 3, 1927,\1\ Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York 
proposed to call up, as a matter of privilege, a resolution of inquiry 
requesting information from the Secretary of the Treasury relating to 
the enforcement of the prohibition law.
  Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York made the point of order that the 
resolution was not privileged for the reason that it had not been 
introduced the required number of days. Mr. Snell submitted that the 
week required by the rule should be interpreted as seven legislative 
days and that the resolution having been introduced on the day on which 
Congress adjourned for the Christmas recess, seven legislative days had 
not yet elapsed.
  The Speaker \2\ ruled:

  The Chair will first decide the point originally raised by the 
gentleman from New York as to whether the 7-day rule applies in this 
case, and how. The Chair is very certain that this precise point has 
never arisen before in his service of the House and is unable to find 
any precedent for it since the beginning.
  The Chair does not think the precedent cited by the gentleman from 
New York is in point here, that precedent occurring while the House was 
in session; the failure of a committee to receive a resolution within 
the prescribed seven days did not vitiate the privilege of moving to 
discharge the committee from its consideration. This is a different 
question. This question has involved in it, as it seems to the Chair, 
whether during the holidays of the House adjournment sine die or 
adjournment for some specific time by concurrent resolution when both 
the Senate and the House act there is involved the duty of every 
committee of the House to remain here and take up any resolutions that 
may be referred to it.
  The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Garrett, as the Chair understood, 
admitted that if this resolution had been introduced on the 3d of July 
last is could not have been called up on the 6th of December, so that 
the question raised by the gentleman from Tennessee was that there was 
at least a technical difference between an adjournment sine die and an 
adjournment by concurrent resolution.
  The Chair appreciates that there might be a technical difference, but 
in making a precedent, as we do here to-day, the Chair thinks that this 
matter should be construed in a broad way and one particularly in the 
interest of the House and the machinery through which the House 
functions, namely, its committees. The Chair does not think that the 
question raised with respect to an adjournment of three days by the 
House would affect this case.
  The question here involves a resolution that was introduced on the 
last day of the second session of this Congress. It is called up on the 
first day after we meet, under a concurrent resolution, providing for 
an adjournment over the holidays. Clearly seven days have elapsed, but 
should those seven days be taken into consideration as prescribing 
whether a motion to discharge the committee from further consideration 
of this resolution is privileged in the sense that the rule provides? 
The Chair thinks not, and the Chair has less hesitation in ruling, as 
he expects to rule from the fact that the gentleman from New York is 
not prejudiced in his rights, assuming that this is in fact a 
privileged motion. The gentleman can call it up after seven working 
days have elapsed, in the contemplation of the rule, from the date of 
its introduction.
  The Chair thinks it would be extremely unfortunate if the Chair 
should hold or if the House should decide that the seven days under 
this rule should be construed as being a part of a period fixed by the 
House and Senate acting jointly for these two bodies to be in recess. 
Any other construction, it seems to the Chair, would be a highly 
technical one, and, further, would impose
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 1001.
  \2\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3369
upon chairmen of committees and on committees themselves duties which 
ought not to be imposed on them. The Chair is very clear that in the 
ruling which he is about to make he is establishing a precedent which 
will be for the best interests of the House in future. The Chair 
therefore sustains the point of order.

  3369. The House has by standing order provided that it should meet on 
two days only of each week instead of daily.
  In providing for merely formal sessions, the House has authorized the 
Speaker to designate a date on which the regular routine of the House 
should be resumed.
  Instance in which an arrangement for a virtual recess of the House 
was successively prolonged.
  On June 19, 1929,\1\ the House agreed to a resolution providing that 
after September 23, 1929, the House should meet only on Mondays and 
Thursdays of each week until October 14, 1929, and authorizing the 
Speaker in his discretion to designate a date prior to that time for 
resumption of business by the House.
  Pursuant to this resolution the Clerk of the House, on September 27, 
addressed the following communication to Members.

  Dear Sir: I am desired to inform you that the Speaker and the 
majority and minority floor leaders, respectively, have deemed it 
advisable to notify Members of the House that on October 14 the 
majority leader, Mr. Tilson, will ask unanimous consent to extend the 
period of 3-day recesses of the House until Monday, October 28, 1929, 
no business to be transacted until that date. In other words, that the 
present arrangement can be continued, to which it is thought there will 
be no objection.
  Yours sincerely,
                                               William Tyler Page.

  However, on October 14,\2\ the standing order was supplemented by a 
further resolution extending the arrangement to the date of November 
11, 1929.
  On November 11,\3\ the Senate not having yet completed consideration 
of the tariff bill, on motion of Mr. John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, by 
unanimous consent, the time was further extended to November 21, 
inclusive.
  3370. The House has adjourned for the holiday recess as of the 
legislative day.
  On December 16, 1926,\4\ Mr. John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, the 
majority floor leader, offered, as privileged, the following concurrent 
resolution:

  Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
that when the two Houses adjourn on the legislative day of December 22, 
1926, they stand adjourned until 12 o'clock meridian, Monday, January 
3, 1927.

  The concurrent resolution was agreed to without debate or division.
  3371. First instance in which a Congress convened for four sessions.
  In early days extra sessions were held on dates fixed by law rather 
than at the call of the President.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 3228.
  \2\ Record, p. 4531.
  \3\ Record, p. 5422.
  \4\ Second session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 623.
Sec. 3372
  On Monday, December 4, 1922,\1\ a day prescribed by the Constitution 
of the United States for the annual meeting of Congress, the Sixty-
seventh Congress assembled for its fourth session, the first instance 
in which any Congress had convened in more than three sessions.
  From the First to the Sixtieth Congresses two sessions were the rule, 
three sessions being held in the First, Fifth, Eleventh, Thirteenth, 
Twenty-fifth, Twenty-seventh, Thirty-fourth, Thirty-seventh, Fortieth, 
Forty-first, Forty-second, Forty-fifth, Forty-sixth, Fifty-third, 
Fifty-fifth and Fifty-eighth Congresses. Beginning with the Sixty-first 
Congress two sessions became the exception and with the exception of 
the Sixty-fourth, three sessions were held in all from the Sixty-first 
to the Sixty-seventh, which convened in four sessions.
  In the early days the extra sessions were held on dates fixed by law 
rather than at the call of the President, Congress itself deciding if 
and when extra sessions were necessary. Under the constitutional 
provision that Congress assemble March 4, 1789, and thereafter in every 
year on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint 
a different day, 18 acts were passed up to and including May 20, 
1820,\2\ providing for the meeting of Congress on other days in the 
year. Since that year Congress has met regularly on the first Monday in 
December.
  3372. A resolution providing for a sine die adjournment is not 
debatable.
  On November 20, 1913,\3\ Mr. Robert Y. Thomas, of Kentucky, 
presented, as a privileged question, a concurrent resolution providing 
for sine die adjournment on November 22, 1913.
  Mr. Thomas was proceeding in debate when Mr. James R. Mann, of 
Illinois, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, asked if the proposition 
was debatable.
  The Speaker \4\ replied that he had been unable to find a precedent 
in point but that he was inclined to consider the question debatable.
  However, on November 22,\5\ speaking by consent, he said:

  The Chair desires to correct a ruling that he made on Thursday, 
November 20. On that day the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Thomas 
offered the following privileged resolution:
  ``Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring). 
That the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives be authorized to close the present session by 
adjourning their respective Houses on the 22nd day of November, 1913, 
at 1 o'clock p.m.''
  In answer to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair ruled that the 
resolution was debatable. That ruling was made hurriedly, without 
opportunity to examine the authorities and without time for reflection, 
and the question had never been raised before during the 19 years in 
which the present occupant of the chair has been in the House.
  It turns out that on March 23, 1871, Mr. Speaker Blaine held a 
similar resolution to be not debatable. This is the only decision on 
the point that the Chair has been able to find after thorough 
investigation, but that decision of Mr. Speaker Blaine has been 
accepted by the House for 42 years. But aside from the decision, upon 
mature reflection and reasoning from analogy, the Chair thinks the 
resolution is not debatable, because if declared debatable such 
resolutions might be converted into instruments of troublesome 
filibustering, just as a motion to recess was used until deprived of 
its privileged character. Therefore the decision of Mr. Speaker Blaine 
is affirmed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 1.
  \2\ First session Sixteenth Congress, Annals, p. 222; Journal p. 507.
  \3\ First session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 5953.
  \4\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \5\ Record, p. 5986.
                                                            Sec. 3373
  3373. On June 21, 1926,\1\ Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, 
submitted, as privileged, the following:

  Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives be authorized to close the present session by 
adjourning their respective Houses on the 30th day of June, 1926, at 5 
o'clock p.m.

  Mr. Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, inquired if the resolution was 
subject to debate.
  Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, contended that the proposition 
was debatable and recited instances in the Sixty-sixth, Sixty-seventh, 
and Sixty-eighth Congresses in which similar concurrent resolutions had 
been debated.
  After exhaustive discussion, the Speaker \2\ ruled:

  The Chair recalls himself a number of the instances cited by the 
gentleman from Illinois where debate was had on such a resolution as 
this, as a matter of course the point of order not being raised. The 
trouble here is that the point of order being made the Chair must 
decide it not at all on the merits of the resolution, not at all on the 
question whether or not it would be wise to have debate on the 
resolution, but solely on the parliamentary situation. There is but one 
precedent which exactly fits this case. The wording of that resolution 
in that case was identical with this. There is no precedent to the 
contrary either before or since. Under the circumstances the Chair 
thinks he certainly would not ``fall from grace,'' as suggested by the 
gentleman from Illinois, in following a decision rendered by so eminent 
an authority as Speaker Clark, and therefore he has no alternative but 
to sustain the point of order.

  3374.  On November 21, 1929,\3\ Mr. John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, 
called up a concurrent resolution (S. Con. 19) reading:

  Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives be authorized to close the present session of the 
Congress by adjourning their respective Houses on Friday, November 22, 
1929, at the following hours, namely: The Senate at the hour of 10 
o'clock p.m., and the House at such hour as it may by order provide.

  The Speaker having recognized Mr. Tilson to debate the resolution, 
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, objected that the question was not 
debatable.
  The Speaker \4\ overruled the point of order, but subsequently, on 
December 4,\5\ withdrew that ruling and said:

  The Chair desires to make a statement touching the rules and 
precedents of the House. On November 21, 1929, when the adjournment 
resolution was before the House, some debate having been had on it, the 
gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Rankin, propounded a parliamentary 
inquiry to the Chair as to whether the resolution was debatable or not, 
and the present occupant of the chair ruled it was debatable. had the 
Chair paused to reflect a moment he would not have made that answer.
  On June 21, 1926, the same question exactly was before the House, and 
the gentleman from Illinois, the late Mr. Madden, desired to debate it. 
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Snell, made the point of order that 
the resolution was not debatable, quoting a decision by Mr. Speaker 
Clark.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 11698.
  \2\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 5916.
  \4\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \5\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 100.
Sec. 3375
  The Speaker then read the decision by Speaker Clark and held:

  The Chair does not think this is a matter of very vital importance, 
the question having only been raised four times in history, so far as 
the Chair knows; and yet the Chair thinks that in the interest of order 
and the preservation of precedents he should make this statement, so 
that there may be no further question that a resolution of adjournment 
is not debatable.

  3375. A special session continuing until the constitutional day for 
annual meeting ends automatically on that date.
  Instance wherein one session of Congress followed another without 
appreciable interval.
  Pursuant to a proclamation of the President of the United States, the 
first session of the Sixty-third Congress assembled on April 17, 1913, 
and remained in session until November 29, 1913,\1\ when Mr. Oscar W. 
Underwood, of Alabama, in the House made the following motion:

  Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

  The motion was agreed to, and accordingly, at 12 o'clock and 55 
minutes p. m., calendar day of Sunday, November 30, 1913, the House 
adjourned without notification either to the President or the Senate.
  In the Senate, on the same legislative day,\2\ the hour of 12 
o'clock, meridian, calendar day of December 1, 1913, having arrived, 
the Vice President \3\ announced:

  The hour having arrived at which, in accordance with the Constitution 
of the United States the Congress of the United States is required to 
assemble in regular session, the Chair declares the extraordinary 
session adjourned sine die.

  Thereupon the Vice President called the Senate to order for the 
second session of the Sixty-third Congress.
  Simultaneously the Speaker called the House to order, the roll was 
called by States, and resolutions were agreed to authorizing 
notification of the Senate and the President.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 1.
  \2\ Record, p. 6053.
  \3\ Thomas R. Marshall, of Indiana, Vice President.