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



                          Chapter CCLXXII.\1\
 
                        SUSPENSION OF THE RULES.

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

    1. The rule and its history. Sections 3397-3399.
    2. Recognition at discretion of Speaker. Sections 3400-3405.
    3. Application of motion. Section 3406.
    4. The second of the motion. Sections 3407-3409.
    5. The motion on committee suspension day. Section 3410.
    6. The motion as unfinished business. Sections 3411, 3412.
    7. The 40 minutes of debate. Sections 3413-3417.
    8. In relation to the previous question and other motions. 
     Section 3418.
    9. As to modification and withdrawal. Sections 3419, 3420.
    10. Scope of the motion. Sections 3421-3425.
    11. Effect of the motion. Section 3426.

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

  3397. The last six days of a session, in which motions to suspend the 
rules may be entertained under the rule, can not be determined, other 
than at the last session of a Congress, until a resolution fixing the 
date of adjournment has been agreed to in both Houses, and the fact 
that such resolution has been passed by one House is not to be 
construed as admitting the motion until the resolution has been adopted 
by the other House.
  On October 4, 1917,\2\ the House agreed to the following concurrent 
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 of the 
Congress by adjourning their respective Houses on Saturday, the 6th day 
of October, 1917, at 3 o'clock post meridian.

  On the following day,\3\ Mr. Richard W. Austin, of Tennessee, 
proposed to move to suspend the rules and pass a joint resolution 
authorizing payment of an extra month's salary to officers and 
employees of the House and Senate.
  The Speaker \4\ declined to recognize him for that purpose and said:

  Not now. Whenever the Senate passes the adjournment resolution then a 
motion to suspend the rules would be in order; but there is no telling 
when they will pass it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Supplementary to Chapter CXLII.
  \2\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 7798.
  \3\ Journal, p. 428; Record, p. 7865.
  \4\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 3398
  3398. Where date of adjournment has been tentatively agreed upon but 
not formally designated, legislation in order during the last six days 
of the session has been authorized by consent.
  On Tuesday, June 24, 1930,\1\ Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, 
rising to a question of order, stated that it was generally understood 
that adjournment would be reached not later than Wednesday, July 2. He 
therefore submitted a request for unanimous consent that beginning with 
the following Friday, June 27, for the remainder of the session it 
should be in order for the Speaker to recognize for motions to suspend 
the rules as during the last six days of a session.
  There being no objection, the request was agreed to.
  3399. The House has on occasion, by resolution, provided for 
suspension of the rules by majority vote.
  On February 26, 1909,\2\ the House adopted a resolution reported from 
the Committee on Rules providing that for the remainder of the session 
the motion to suspend the rules should be agreed to by a majority 
instead of by a two-thirds vote.
  In presenting the resolution, Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, 
explained:

  Mr. Speaker, the propriety of adopting this rule must be apparent to 
everyone. This is Friday night preceding the Thursday on which the 
Congress must adjourn. There are a great many bills necessary to be 
considered.

  3400. Under the later of decisions it is held that the right of a 
Member to have read a paper on which the House is to vote may not be 
abrogated by a suspension of the rules.
  On December 19, 1910,\3\ Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, called up 
from the Calendar of motions to Discharge Committees a motion to 
discharge the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads from the 
further consideration of the bill (H. R. 21321) to codify the postal 
laws.
  During the reading of the bill, which was of great length, Mr. Eben 
W. Martin, of South Dakota, moved to suspend the rules and dispense 
with the further reading of the bill.
  Mr. Mann interposed a point of order against the motion.
  The Speaker \4\ declined to entertain the motion and said:

  The Chair is prepared, not to rule, but to call attention to the 
decisions that have been made heretofore on questions that seem to be 
somewhat similar to this. The decisions are in conflict. The Chair 
calls attention to section 5277 of Hinds' Precedents, volume 5:
  ``5277. One June 19, 1878, Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, moved 
to suspend the rules and pass a bill relating to post routes, which he 
sent to the desk. Mr. Cannon then asked that the reading of the bill be 
waived.
  ``Objection being made, the Speaker held:
  `` `So far as the experience of the Chair extends, and certainly 
according to his own uniform ruling, the right has always been conceded 
to a Member to have a proposition read upon which he was called to 
vote, so that he might know what he was to vote on.'
  ``Mr. Benjamin F. Butler, of Massachusetts, asked if the rules might 
be suspended so as to dispense with the reading.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 11631.
  \2\ Second session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 3310.
  \3\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 502.
  \4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3401
  ``The Speaker said:
  `` `They can not.' ''
  Now, then, that is the latest ruling. The other rulings are in 
seeming conflict with this decision by Mr. Speaker Randall. Moreover, 
the situation now, while alike in principle to that of the precedent of 
1878, has peculiar features of its own. There was then no such rule 
upon the book of rules as to make it in order to move to discharge 
committees and give such motions precedence over motions to suspend the 
rules. This rule now operating has taken off the floor a motion to 
suspend the rules and pass the pension bill, which was made in apt 
time.
  So that a motion to suspend the rules on suspension day awaits the 
action of any Member to make a motion that would take precedence of it 
under this rule, and, in view of this being a new rule and these 
considerations, the Chair declines to recognize the gentleman from 
South Dakota to make the motion, because the practice has grown up for 
the last 25 or 30 years, or longer, under all Speakers, that a motion 
to suspend the rules, an exception to other motions in this respect, 
awaits recognition upon the part of the Speaker, and all Speakers have 
exercised the power that they have under the rule and under the 
practice of the House to recognize such motions. The Clerk will proceed 
with the reading of the bill.

  3401. An exceptional instance in which, in the absence of a question 
of order, a bill was considered without reading.
  On December 20, 1920,\1\ Mr. Edward C. Little, of Kansas, by 
direction of the Committee on Revision of the Laws, moved that the 
rules be suspended and the bill (H. R. 9389) to consolidate, codify, 
revise, and reenact the general and permanent laws of the United States 
in force March 4, 1919, a bill of 10,747 sections, be passed, being 
read by title only.
  There being no objection and the question of the reading of the bill 
not being raised, the motion was unanimously agreed to and the bill was 
passed.
  However, the bill failed to receive the sanction of the Senate and in 
the following Congress, on May 16, 1921,\2\ by direction of the 
Committee, Mr. Little again offered a motion to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill without reading.
  Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, called attention to the 
irregularity of the motion and the necessity of reading any bill on 
which Members were required to vote.
  The Speaker \3\ said:

  The Chair thinks if nobody demands the reading of the bill it can be 
done.
  Without objection, a second will be considered as ordered.

  There being no objection and no one having raised a question of 
order, the motion was unanimously agreed to and the bill was passed.
  3402. Recognition to move suspension of the rules on days on which 
the motion is in order is within the discretion of the Speaker.
  Instance wherein the Speaker near the end of a session requested that 
Members desiring to be recognized to move to suspend the rules submit 
their request in writing.
  On January 28, 1931,\4\ following a call of the House to ascertain 
the presence of a quorum, the Speaker \5\ announced.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 574.
  \2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 1477.
  \3\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \4\ Third session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 3398.
  \5\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
Sec. 3403
  The Chair desires to make this further announcement: When the session 
draws to a close ordinarily there are quite a number of requests to the 
Speaker for recognition to move to suspend the rules. Those requests 
are now coming in rapidly. It is impossible for the Chair to keep in 
mind all of the requests and the merits of the bills. At the close of 
the last session the Chair requested all Members desiring to move to 
suspend the rules to put their requests in writing and to accompany 
their requests with the bill and report. The Chair will again make that 
request for the remainder of the session. It worked very well last 
year, and the Chair hopes that it will this year.

  3403. Recognition for motions to suspend the rules is within the 
discretion of the Speaker.
  On February 27, 1915,\1\ it being within six days of adjournment, Mr. 
Patrick D. Norton, of North Dakota, proposed a motion to suspend the 
rules.
  The Speaker \2\ declined to entertain the motion.
  Mr. Norton submitted that the motion to suspend the rules during the 
last six days of a session was privileged.
  The Speaker said:

  It is if the Chair recognizes the gentleman for that purpose, but it 
is solely within the discretion of the Chair.

  3404. On February 21, 1921,\3\ during the call of the Consent 
Calendar, Mr. Alben W. Barkley, of Kentucky, asked recognition to move 
to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 4682) to amend the judicial 
code.
  The Speaker \4\ declined recognition and said:

  The Chair will not recognize any gentleman unless the Chair knows 
about the matter.
  The Chair will not recognize the gentleman unless he consults the 
Chair in advance.

  3405. The rule providing for the call of the Consent Calendar on the 
first and third Mondays does not preclude recognition within the 
discretion of the Speaker for a motion to suspend the rules, and such 
motion is in order before the calendar is called or at any time before 
the call is completed.
  A motion may be withdrawn in the House before decision thereon and 
decision of a question of order is not such ``decision'' as will 
prevent withdrawal.
  The withdrawal of a motion in Committee of the Whole is by unanimous 
consent only.
  Instance wherein the Speaker of his own initiative submitted to the 
House for decision a question as to procedure.
  On February 28, 1913,\5\ in response to a question raised by Mr. 
Thomas W. Hardwick, of Georgia, the Speaker \6\ held, tentatively, that 
on days on which it was in order to call the Calendar for Unanimous 
Consent the call of the calendar took precedence over motions to 
suspend the rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 4887.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \3\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3585.
  \4\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \5\ Third session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 4328.
  \6\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3406
  On the following day,\1\ however, it being one of the last six days 
of the session the question was again raised by Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, 
of Alabama, who moved to suspend the rules and pass a resolution 
relating to the order of business.
  Mr. Hardwick made the point of order that the motion could not be 
entertained until the call of the Calendar for Unanimous Consent had 
been completed.
  Debate having been concluded on the point of order, the Speaker 
submitted the question to the House for its decision and said:

  The proposition pending is the point of order made by the gentleman 
from Georgia against the motion to suspend the rules.
  This rule, providing for unanimous consent and suspension of the 
rules and discharges of committees, is ambiguous. When this point was 
first raised the other day, the Chair said that if the rule were 
strictly construed, the contention of the gentleman from Georgia is 
correct, but that he did not believe that the authors of that rule ever 
intended to work the Unanimous Consent Calendar ahead of the 
suspensions in the last six days of the session.
  Inasmuch as the House has the right to do what it pleases at any 
time, and the Chair has no pride of opinion whatever about that quasi 
ruling, the Chair submits to the House itself the question whether on 
the last six days of a session the Unanimous Consent Calendar shall 
take precedence of motions to suspend the rules.
  Is the motion made by the gentleman from Alabama to suspend the rules 
in order at this time? Those who believe that will say ``aye.''

  The question being taken, on a division requested by Mr. Underwood, 
the vote was yeas 189, noes 23.
  The Speaker announced:

  The ayes have it, and the House decides that the motion to suspend 
the rules is in order at this time.

  Whereupon, Mr. Underwood explained that his purpose in submitting the 
motion to suspend the rules was to secure a decision on the question of 
order, and asked to withdraw his motion.
  Mr. Hardwick objected that it was not in order to withdraw the motion 
except by unanimous consent.
  The Speaker ruled:

  The gentleman can withdraw it without permission in the House, 
although he could not in Committee of the Whole. In the House a Member 
making a motion may withdraw it at any time before it is voted on or 
amended.

  3406. Adoption of a motion to suspend the rules suspends all rules, 
including the unwritten law and practice of the House.
  A motion to suspend the rules and pass a conference report does not 
admit the point of order that the conference report contains matter not 
in disagreement between the two Houses.
  On May 12, 1909,\2\ Mr. George E. Foss, of Illinois, moved to suspend 
the rules and take from the Speaker's table the conference report on 
the naval appropriation bill and agree to the same.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Record, p. 4454.
  \2\ First session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 6147.
Sec. 3407
  The conference report having been read, Mr. John Sharp Williams, of 
Mississippi, made the point of order that the report contained matter 
not in disagreement between the two Houses, relating to an increase in 
the pay of the Marine Corps.
  Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, submitted that the incorporation 
in a conference report of provisions not in settlement of any dispute 
between the two Houses was merely a matter of custom and precedent and 
was not a formal rule of the House and therefore not affected by a 
motion to suspend the rules.
  The Speaker \1\ ruled:

  The motion to suspend the rules, if agreed to by a proper vote of the 
House, suspends all the rules which otherwise would prevent the 
consideration of the pending matter. There is no rule of the House or 
the Senate touching this matter. The practice has grown up in the 
House--and the Chair believes it is a wise practice--that the Chair on 
a point of order being made that the conferees have acted without 
jurisdiction, or upon a matter of legislation not before them, shall 
rule on the point of order, which, if sustained, vacates the conference 
report as much as a vote of the House would vacate it.
  Now, the Chair, acting in harmony with this rule, following the 
precedents of former Speakers, has rigidly, whenever the point of order 
has been made, sustained it, where the facts warranted the point of 
order. The practice in the Senate is different from what it is in the 
House. A point of order is only sustained by a vote of the Senate on 
the report itself. The presiding officer does not decide the point of 
order; it is for the Senate by vote to determine whether or not they 
will reject a report if the report covers matters not committed to the 
conferees.
  Formerly the practice of the House was unsettled, but it has been 
very well settled for almost a generation.
  This motion is to suspend all rules, which otherwise might forbid 
consideration of the report; and that includes all practice, all 
parliamentary precedents; for a precedent or practice manifestly is not 
of higher dignity than a formal rule of the House. Therefore, in the 
opinion of the Chair, the point of order under this condition is not 
well taken. The Chair overrules the point of order.

  3407. On a motion to suspend the rules the Speaker in recognizing a 
Member to demand a second gives priority to one opposed to the motion, 
but if no one rises in opposition, recognizes for that purpose a member 
favoring the proposition.
  On June 3, 1918,\2\ Mr. John E. Raker, of California, was recognized 
to move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2380) granting to 
the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii powers to authorize woman 
suffrage.
  Miss Jeannette Rankin, of Montana, demanded a second.
  The Speaker \3\ inquired if the lady was opposed to the bill and, 
being told that she favored it, said:

  The chair will recognize somebody who is opposed to it, if there is 
anybody, in accordance with the rule; otherwise the chair will 
recognize the lady from Montana.

  The second being ordered, the Speaker announced:

  The gentleman from California is entitled to 20 minutes and the lady 
from Montana is entitled to 20 minutes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 7325.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3408
  3408. On a motion to suspend the rules a member of the committee 
opposing the bill is entitled to priority in demanding a second, but 
members of the committee favoring the bill yield to its opponents in 
the right to demand a second.
  In qualifying for recognition to demand a second it is not sufficient 
to express conditional or partial opposition to the bill, but it is 
necessary to announce unconditional opposition.
  On June 3, 1920,\1\ the Speaker recognized Mr. Halvor Steenerson, of 
Minnesota, to move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H. R. 14338) 
providing for the reclassification of post-office salaries.
  Mr. John A. Moon, of Tennessee, the ranking minority member of the 
committee reporting the bill, asked recognition to demand a second.
  Mr. Henry M. Goldfogle, of New York, not of the Committee, also 
sought recognition to demand a second.
  In response to the Speaker's inquiry, Mr. Moon said that he was not 
opposed to the bill. Mr. Goldfogle said that he opposed certain 
provisions in the bill, but declined to state that he would vote 
against it.
  The Speaker \2\ held that Mr. Goldfogle had not qualified as an 
unconditional opponent of the bill and recognized Mr. Moon as the 
ranking member of the committee.
  3049. On motion to suspend the rules one opposed to the bill has 
prior right to recognition to demand a second over a member of the 
committee reporting the bill who favors the motion.
  On June 20, 1921,\3\ Mr. Stephen G. Porter, of Pennsylvania, moved a 
suspension of the rules for the purpose of passing the joint resolution 
(S. J. Res. 34) creating a commission to represent the United States in 
the celebration of the first centennial of the proclamation of the 
independence of the Republic of Peru.
  Mr. Henry D. Flood, of Virginia, the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, which reported the joint resolution, and 
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, who was not a member of that 
committee, simultaneously requested recognition to demand a second.
  The Speaker pro tempore \4\ decided:

  The gentleman from Texas, who is opposed to the bill, is recognized 
to demand a second.

  3410. Under the later practice authorization by a committee is not 
requisite to recognition to move suspension of the rules on committee 
suspension day.
  On February 21, 1921,\5\ the third Monday of the month, the Speaker 
\2\ recognized Mr. James S. Parker, of New York, to move to suspend the 
rules and pass the joint
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 8383.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2774.
  \4\ Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Speaker pro tempore.
  \5\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3576.
Sec. 3411
resolution (S. J. Res. 161) authorizing the operation of the New York 
State Barge Canal, with certain amendments.
  Mr. Otis Wingo, of Arkansas, made the point of order that this being 
committee suspension day, motions to suspend the rules must be 
authorized by the committees having jurisdiction, and the proposed 
resolution as amended was without the sanction of the Committee on 
Military Affairs.
  The Speaker held that authorization by the committee was not required 
and overruled the point of order.
  3411. A motion to suspend the rules pending and undisposed of at 
adjournment recurs as unfinished business on the next day when such 
business is again in order.
  On Monday, June 9, 1930,\1\ Mr. Royal C. Johnson, of South Dakota, 
asked recognition to move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 
1372) for payment of the claims of certain Indian tribes, on which a 
second had been ordered at adjournment on the previous Monday.\2\
  The Speaker \3\ reminded:

  It is not necessary for the gentleman to make that motion. As the 
Chair understands the parliamentary situation, the gentleman moved last 
Monday to suspend the rules and pass the bill, S. 1372, and debate 
thereon had been exhausted. The question is on the motion of the 
gentleman from South Dakota to suspend the rules and pass the bill.

  The question being taken, and two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof, the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  3412. A motion to suspend the rules on which a second has been 
ordered remaining undisposed of at adjournment recurs as the unfinished 
business on the next day on which such motion is again in order.
  Where a quorum fails on a vote by tellers on seconding a motion to 
suspend the rules and a count by the Speaker discloses the presence of 
a quorum, the second is ordered.
  Debate on a motion to suspend the rules is limited to 20 minutes on 
each side, and if adjournment is taken before the 40 minutes have been 
consumed, the time remaining is available when the motion is again 
considered.
  Reference to a discussion as to the function and importance of the 
motion to suspend the rules.
  On February 28, 1931,\4\ one of the last six days of the session, Mr. 
Thomas A. Jenkins, of Ohio, moved to suspend the rules and pass the 
joint resolution (H. J. Res. 500) further restricting for a period of 
two years immigration into the United States.
  Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, having demanded a second, and the 
vote being taken, the tellers announced 153 ayes and 2 noes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 10337.
  \2\ Record, p. 9919.
  \3\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \4\ Third session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 6575
                                                            Sec. 3412
  Mr. Fiorello LaGuardia, of New York, made the point of order that a 
quorum was not present. The Speaker,\1\ after counting, announced that 
238 Members were present, a quorum, and the second was ordered.
  Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, inquired what would be the status 
of the pending measure if the House adjourned after the second was 
ordered.
  The Speaker held that in such event the motion to suspend the rules 
would be the unfinished business at the next meeting of the House.
  The Speaker then recognized Mr. Jenkins, as the mover of the motion, 
and Mr. Dickstein, as the demander of a second, for 20 minutes each.
  During debate Mr. Henry W. Temple, of Pennsylvania, as a 
parliamentary inquiry, asked what disposition would be made of the time 
remaining for debate if the House adjourned before the 40-minute period 
was concluded.
  The Speaker replied that any portion of the 40 minutes remaining 
unconsumed at adjournment would be available when the House again 
convened.
  Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Snell, the House adjourned.
  When the House met on the next legislative day, the Speaker 
announced:

  When the House adjourned on Saturday there was pending a motion by 
the gentleman from Ohio to suspend the rules and pass a bill. The 
gentleman from New York has 10 minutes remaining and the gentleman from 
Ohio has 12 minutes remaining.

  The Speaker continued:

  If the House will indulge the Chair, this mass of papers on the 
Chair's desk represents the requests for suspension of the rules, which 
the Chair has tentatively promised. Beyond that there are probably 40 
or 50 Senate bills on the Speaker's table, similar House bills having 
been reported and now on the Calendar, for which the Chair will grant 
recognition at some time or another. Besides that, there are a number 
of conference reports pending, there may be messages from the 
President, and but few hours remaining before final adjournment.
  Now, on Saturday night when the Chair recognized the gentleman from 
Ohio to suspend the rules, intimation was made that the Chair was 
unfair.
  The situation was that some gentlemen were exercising their 
parliamentary rights, under the rules as they exist, to interpose 
objections to the passage of the bill and to delay it as much as 
possible. The Chair thinks that any Member is not only within his 
rights, but it is his duty, where he is opposed to a measure, to adopt 
all proper parliamentary methods to prevent the passage of the bill; 
but in the interest of the speeding up of the business of the House, it 
is equally the right of Members in favor of the bill to use all proper 
parliamentary methods to speed its passage. One of these parliamentary 
methods which has been repeatedly used is the motion to suspend the 
rules.
  The Chair agrees that suspension of the rules is not a normal 
legislative procedure. In a sense it is a trifle unfair in that it 
limits debate and does not permit the right of amendment. If anybody 
thinks that the Chair covets the right to recognize or not to recognize 
motions to suspend the rules in the last six days of a session, he is 
far from being correct. It is one of the most burdensome, unpleasant 
duties that can fall to the lot of a Member of Congress. It is always 
unpleasant for the present occupant of the Chair to say no, four out of 
five times, as he is compelled to do.
  But there are times when suspension of the rules is vitally necessary 
to dispatch public business. It is going to be vitally necessary in the 
next few hours because very few hours remain before adjournment, and 
the Chair must use his discretion, when he believes it is in the 
interest of a large majority of the House to use the right of 
suspension.
  I think the Chair is safe in saying that not more than three of four 
times since his incumbency of his office for the past six years has the 
motion to suspend the rules, out of hundreds of cases, received less 
than the necessary two-thirds; in other words, the Chair was in fact 
aiding the House to carry out its will.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
Sec. 3413
  3413. On a motion to suspend the rules a demand for a second is not 
in order until the bill has been read.
  On June 3, 1920,\1\ Mr. Halvor Steenerson, of Minnesota, moved to 
suspend the rules and pass the bill (H. R. 14338) to reclassify 
postmasters and employees of the Postal Service and readjust their 
salaries and compensation.
  The Clerk having read the title of the bill, Mr. Henry M. Goldfogle, 
of New York, demanded a second.
  The Speaker \2\ declined to entertain the demand and said:

  A second can not be demanded until the bill has been read. The Clerk 
will report the bill.

  3414. Instance in which the 40 minutes of debate allowed on a motion 
to suspend the rules were increased by unanimous consent.
  On February 7, 1916,\3\ the House was considering a motion made by 
Mr. Lemuel P. Padgett, of Tennessee, to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H. R. 9224) providing for an increase in the number of midshipmen 
at the United States Naval Academy.
  Mr. Padgett, to whom 20 minutes had been allotted under the rule, 
yielded to Mr. Champ Clark, of Missouri, who had not completed his 
remarks when the 20 minutes expired.
  On motion of Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Clark was permitted to proceed without the time being taken from 
the 40 minute debate permitted under the rule.
  3415. Where the time allowed for debate on a motion to suspend the 
rules was extended by unanimous consent, the Speaker divided the 
additional time on the ratio governing division of the original 40 
minutes provided by the rule.
  While the Speaker in recognizing Members to demand a second on a 
motion to suspend the rules, in the absence of the other 
considerations, gives priority to members of the committee and to the 
political minority, the determining qualification is opposition to the 
motion and members of the political majority opposing the proposition 
will be recognized in preference to members of the political minority 
favoring the proposition.
  In the allotment of time for debate on a motion to suspend the rules 
and pass a bill, a member of the committee reporting the bill has prior 
to recognition over one not a member of the committee.
  On June 27, 1921,\4\ Mr. Andrew J. Volstead, of Minnesota, moved to 
suspend the rules and pass the bill (H. R. 7294) supplemental to the 
national prohibition act.
  The Speaker \2\ announced:

  The Chair understands it has been agreed that there shall be 2 hours 
on a side instead of the usual 20 minutes on a side. The Chair thinks 
that the ordinary procedure to be followed is for the Chair to follow 
the same course that is adopted where there is 20 minutes on a side. 
The Chair would recognize some member of the committee to demand a 
second who is opposed to the bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 8381.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 2240.
  \4\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 3095.
                                                            Sec. 3416
  Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, the ranking minority member of the 
committee favored the bill. Mr. Anthony J. Griffin, of New York, 
opposed the bill, but was not a member of the committee. Mr. David G. 
Classon, of Wisconsin, qualified both as a member of the committee and 
as opposed to the bill, and was recognized to demand a second.
  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, the minority leader, protested:

  Mr. Speaker, on the bill that passed the House just a few minutes ago 
the parliamentary situation resulted in two gentlemen on the majority 
side of the Chamber having control of the time. Whether it was the 
result of that or not, the fact is that the minority side of the House 
received during that debate of 40 minutes 8 minutes of time, 5 minutes 
of that time being yielded to a gentleman in favor and 3 minutes to one 
opposed. Now, the present question before us is not a party question. 
All efforts that have been made to make it a party question have 
failed. It seems to me that it should be arranged so that we can be 
assured of an equal division of time between those in favor and those 
against the measure, and that the political minority of the House 
should have its proper recognition.

  The Speaker replied:

  The Chair has stated to gentlemen who approached him for recognition 
that he would prefer to recognize a member of the minority inasmuch as 
the gentleman from Minnesota is on the majority side, but inasmuch as 
there is no member of the minority of the committee opposed to the 
bill, the Chair feels constrained to recognize the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.

  3416. Where the proponent of a motion to suspend the rules is opposed 
to the proposition, a Member who favors it will be recognized to 
control the 20 minutes of debate on that side.
  If no one qualifies to demand a second on a motion to suspend the 
rules, and no minority Member seeks recognition for that purpose, the 
Speaker recognizes at his discretion.
  Requests for recognition to demand a second to a motion to suspend 
the rules come too late after the second has been ordered.
  On June 27, 1921,\1\ Mr. Thomas B. Dunn, of New York, chairman of the 
Committee on Roads, which had reported the bill (S. 1072) providing 
Federal aid to the States in the construction of rural post roads, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass that bill with House amendments.
  On demand of Mr. Robert I. Doughton, of North Carolina, a second was 
ordered.
  Pending the motion, Mr. Dunn inquired.

  I would like to have a ruling of the Chair as to whether anyone is 
entitled to take charge of the bill who is against the provisions of 
the bill, even though he is chairman of the committee?

  Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, raised a question of order and 
submitted that under the statement of the chairman of the Committee on 
Roads he was not entitled to control the time in debate allowed under 
the rule.
  The Speaker pro tempore \2\ said:

  The Chair will state that it was within the right of the gentleman 
from New York as chairman of the Committee on Roads, to move a 
suspension of the rules and pass the bill, which he did. The question 
now is as to how the time of 40 minutes under the rule, 20 minutes in 
favor thereof and 20 minutes against, shall be allotted. It has been 
the uniform practice for a gentleman moving
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 3085.
  \2\ William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, Speaker pro tempore.
Sec. 3417
a suspension of the rules to have charge of the time in favor, because 
it is the presumption that as he moved to suspend the rules to pass the 
bill, he naturally favored the passage of the bill, else he would not 
have moved its passage.
  But the Chair is confronted with an unusual condition, unknown to him 
in his 14 years of service in the House, wherein a like situation has 
never occurred.
  It is within the power of the gentleman from New York to yield, if he 
desires, the 20 minutes to any Member he sees fit who is in favor of 
the bill, or to allot the time individually to those whom he believes 
are in favor of the bill.

  Subsequently, however, he ruled:

  Since the Chair has made his last statement in relation to the 
control of the time, he has had his attention called to a precedent 
that is somewhat in point. It is found in Second Hinds' Precedents, 
paragraph 1449, the syllabus of which is as follows:
  ``The chairman of a committee, having in committee opposed a bill, 
must in the House yield prior recognition to a member of his committee, 
who has favored the bill.''.
  The Chair holds that the gentleman from New York when recognized by 
the Speaker had the right to move the suspension of the rules, as he 
did to pass the bill, but upon his statement that he is opposed to the 
bill and the statement of the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Robsion, 
that he is in favor of it and was directed by the Committee on Roads to 
take charge of the bill, will recognize the gentleman from Kentucky for 
20 minutes in favor of the bill, and the gentleman from New York Mr. 
Snyder in opposition for 20 minutes.

  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, made the point of order that Mr. 
Homer P. Snyder, of New York, was a member of the majority and was not 
entitled to recognition as against members of the minority who opposed 
the proposition.
  The Speaker pro tempore reminded:

  The Chair will refresh the memory of the leader of the minority by 
stating that when the motion of the gentleman from New York was made to 
suspend the rules and a second was demanded by the gentleman from North 
Carolina the Chair asked the gentleman from North Carolina if he was 
opposed to the bill and he said he was not. He did not qualify.
  No member of the minority rose to claim recognition in opposition to 
the bill. If he had, the present occupant of the Chair would have 
recognized him under the uniform practice of party division. But no 
member of the minority having arisen to demand a second, the Chair 
recognized the gentleman from New York.

  Whereupon, Mr. Garrett proposed to request recognition for Mr. Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, a minority member opposed to the bill.
  The Speaker pro tempore declined to entertain the request and said:

  Ah, but the gentleman comes too late with that. The demand should 
have been made at the time when a second was demanded. The Chair cannot 
set aside the order of the House whereby a second has been considered 
as ordered, and dispossess the only gentleman rising in opposition and 
demanding recognition of the time, which under the invariable practice 
has been under his control.

  3417. Time yielded by a Member in control of half of the 40 minutes 
of debate on motion to suspend the rules may not be reserved or yielded 
to a third Member.
  On January 20, 1930,\1\ the House was considering a motion by Mr. 
Schuyler Otis Bland, of Virginia, to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (S. 1784) providing for the improvement of Wakefield, the birth 
place of George Washington.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 1993.
                                                            Sec. 3418
  Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, who had been allotted 20 minutes 
of the 40 minutes of debate allowed under the rule, yielded 10 minutes 
to Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin.
  At the expiration of five minutes, Mr. Stafford proposed to reserve 
the remainder of the time yielded to him.
  Mr. Cramton made the point of order that time so yielded could not be 
reserved or yielded to another.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The Chair thinks the gentleman can not yield the balance of the time 
yielded to him. The Chair thinks that the practice is, when two 
gentlemen are recognized to control the time--and in this case they are 
the gentlemen from Michigan, Mr. Cramton, and the gentleman from 
Virginia, Mr. Bland, no other gentleman can control any of the time 
that has been yielded to him by either one of those gentlemen.

  3418. A motion to suspend the rules may be entertained although a 
bill on which the previous question has been ordered may be pending.
  On April 20, 1908,\2\ Mr. Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, submitted from 
the Committee on Rules, the resolution (H. Res. 344) providing for an 
investigation, by a special committee to be appointed by the Speaker, 
of the price of wood pulp and print paper.
  On motion of Mr. Dalzell, the previous question was ordered on 
agreeing to the resolution, yeas 149, nays 114.
  After debate Mr. John Sharp Williams, of Mississippi, proposed to 
demand a division of the question on the preamble and the various 
substantive propositions contained in the resolution.
  Thereupon, Mr. Dalzell moved to suspend the rules and pass the 
resolution.
  Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, made the point of order that 
after the previous question was ordered on a pending proposition a 
motion to suspend the rules was not in order until the pending 
proposition was disposed of.
  The Speaker \3\ directed attention to section 6827 of Hinds' 
Precedents and said:

  The previous question was ordered on agreeing to the resolution. This 
motion to suspend the rules covers both the preamble and the 
resolution. Therefore the Chair again refers to Mr. Speaker Crisp's 
ruling, as follows:
  ``The Speaker overruled the point of order, holding that this being 
the first Monday of the month it was in order to entertain motions to 
suspend the rules: that the object of such motion was to suspend all 
the rules, and the effect was to bring the House to an immediate vote 
on the pending motion.''
  The Chair believes that that ruling of Mr. Speaker Crisp was correct, 
and this motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania is to suspend all 
rules and pass not only the resolution but the preamble as well, upon 
which preamble the previous question has not been ordered. And in 
principle it comes within the ruling of Mr. Speaker Crisp. It is a 
proceeding to dispense with all rules of every nature and pass the 
bill. The Chair overrules the point if order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 5029.
  \3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 3419
  3419. A motion to suspend the rules may be withdrawn at any time 
before a second is ordered, even after tellers are appointed on 
seconding the motion.
  On December 19, 1921,\1\ Mr. Albert Johnson, of Washington, moved to 
suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 237) 
authorizing the Secretary of Labor to stay temporarily the deportation 
of certain aliens.
  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, demanded a second, and tellers 
were appointed, when, pending the count of the vote by the tellers, Mr. 
Johnson withdrew the motion.
  Mr. Garrett raised a question of order on the right to withdraw the 
motion after tellers had been ordered.
  The Speaker \2\ held that withdrawal was in order at any time prior 
to the ordering of a second.
  3420. After a second is ordered on a motion to suspend the rules the 
motion may be withdrawn or modified by unanimous consent only.
  On June 9, 1930,\3\ Mr. James S. Parker, of New York, moved to 
suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3619) to organize the Federal 
Power Commission, with amendments.
  The Clerk having read the bill as proposed, a second was demanded and 
ordered, when Mr. Parker asked unanimous consent that section 2 of the 
bill be again read.
  There was no objection, and section 2 of the bill was read a second 
time.
  Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, raised the question of order that 
the section as read the second time did no conform to the section as 
originally read.
  Mr. George S. Graham, of Pennsylvania, explained that there had been 
a change of but two words and that the substitution had been made to 
remedy an inadvertence.
   Mr. Huddleston submitted that after a second was ordered the bill 
was not subject to amendment and insisted on his point of order.
  The Speaker \4\ sustained the point of order.
  Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, asked unanimous consent that the 
motion to suspend the rules be withdrawn.
  Mr. Huddleston objected.
  Whereupon, the proposal was considered in its original form and, two-
thirds voting in the affirmative, passed as first read by the Clerk.
  3421. A motion to suspend the rules may provide for the passage of a 
bill regardless of whether it has been reported or referred to any 
calendar or even previously introduced.
  On July 19, 1909,\5\ Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, being recognized 
for that purpose, moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill 
authorizing the construction of various bridges across certain 
navigable waters.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 634.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 10331.
  \4\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 4511.
                                                            Sec. 3422
  Mr. Thomas W. Hardwick, of Georgia, made the point of order that the 
bill had not been reported by a committee of the House and had not been 
placed on any calendar.\1\
  The Speaker \2\ ruled:

  This is a motion to suspend the rules. It being the third Monday, it 
is in order to move to suspend the rules and pass a bill whether it has 
been reported by a committee or not. The Chair apprehends that this has 
never been introduced, but the Chair is not sure about that. Is a 
second demanded?

  3422. Pending the decision of a question of order raised against a 
conference report it is in order to move to suspend the rules and agree 
to the report.
  On February 25, 1911,\3\ the House was considering the conference 
report on the District of Columbia appropriation bill, when Mr. Ben 
Johnson, of Kentucky, made the point of order that the conferees had 
exceeded their authority by including in the report a provision 
relating to the construction of street paving which had not been passed 
by either House.
  After debate on the question of order and pending the decision of the 
Speaker, Mr. Albert S. Burleson, of Texas, moved to suspend the rules 
and agree to the conference report as submitted.
  Mr. Johnson raised a further question of order against entertaining 
the motion to suspend the rules while the point of order was pending.
  The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order and recognized Mr. 
Burleson as follows:

  The gentleman has made a point of order, but if the rules should be 
suspended it will not be subject to the point of order. It is a motion 
to suspend the rules and give the House an opportunity to dispose of 
this report.

  3423. A motion to suspend the rules and agree to a conference report 
proposes suspension of all rules inconsistent with the adoption of the 
report, including the rule requiring printing before consideration.
  On May 23, 1908,\4\ Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, moved that the 
rules be suspended for the calling up and adoption of the conference 
report on the bill (S. 6155) providing for an enlarged homestead.
  Mr. Willliam A. Reeder, of Kansas, made the point of order that the 
conference report had not been printed as required by the rules and 
therefore was not subject to consideration.
  The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order and said:

  It is not necessary to print under the rules of the House, because 
this is the motion to suspend the rules of the House and agree to the 
conference report. And the motion to suspend all rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ No committee had yet been appointed except the Committees on Ways 
and Means, Accounts and Mileage.
  \2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \3\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 3418.
  \4\ First session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 6831.
Sec. 3424
means the suspension of such rules as otherwise would stand in the way 
of immediate consideration of the report. The rule requiring printing 
would stand in the way, but the motion now offered removes that 
obstacle.

  3424. The fact that a proposition is subject to points of order does 
not preclude its passage under a suspension of the rules.
  On February 21, 1910,\1\ Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, by 
direction of the Committee on Appropriations called up the conference 
report on the urgent deficiency appropriation bill, and moved to pass 
the report as presented.
  The report having been read by the Clerk, Mr. Charles B. Law, of New 
York, made the point of order that the conferees had exceeded their 
powers by including provisions relating to the salaries of certain 
Federal judges, not in disagreement between the two Houses.
  The Speaker \2\ ruled:

  This is a motion to suspend all rules touching this report which 
would prevent its present consideration. The point of order made by the 
gentleman from New York would prevent the present consideration of the 
report. This is a motion to suspend the rules and agree to the report. 
There was a ruling in the last Congress, quite a lengthy one, and the 
Clerk will read from it.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  ``This motion is to suspend all rules which otherwise might forbid 
consideration of the report; and that includes all practice, all 
parliamentary precedents; for the precedent or practice manifestly is 
not of higher dignity than a former rule of the House. Therefore, in 
the opinion of the Chair, the point of order under this condition is 
not well taken.''
  Having a precedent which the Chair thinks is a correct precedent, the 
Chair overrules the point of order.

  3425. Instance wherein a motion to suspend the rules was utilized in 
taking a bill from the Speaker's table and agreeing to Senate 
amendments.
  A Senate amendment is not subject to the point of order in the House 
that it is not germane to the House bill.
  On March 3, 1931,\3\ Mr. Gilbert N. Haugen, of Iowa, asked unanimous 
consent that the bill (H. R. 16836) imposing a tax on oleomargarine, 
with Senate amendment thereto, be taken from the Speaker's table, and 
the Senate amendments agreed to.
  Objection being made, Mr. Haugen moved to suspend the rules, take the 
bill from the Speaker's table, and concur in the Senate amendments.
  Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, made the point of order that the 
Senate amendments were not germane to the bill.
  The Speaker pro tempore \4\ ruled:

  Senate amendments are not subject to a point of order in the House on 
the ground that they are not germane to the text of the House bill.

  Thereupon a second was ordered, and, after debate, two-thirds having 
voted in the affirmative, the rules were suspended and the Senate 
amendments were agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2177.
  \2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \3\ Third session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 7196.
  \4\ Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
                                                            Sec. 3426
  3426. Suspension of the rules to pass a bill suspends all rules 
inconsistent with its purpose and the provision of clause 5 of Rule XXI 
admitting a question of order at any time is not applicable to the 
motion.
  On February 7, 1921,\1\ Mr. Sam R. Sells, of Tennessee, by direction 
of the Committee on Roads, moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H. R. 15873) authorizing appropriation of additional sums for Federal 
aid in construction of post roads.
  Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that the 
bill had been improperly reported and was not entitled to a place on 
the calendar, in that it proposed to dispose of money previously 
appropriated by Congress, making available funds which otherwise would 
be returned to the Treasury, and that the motion to suspend the rules 
did not preclude the point of order for the reason that it was 
specifically provided in section 5 of Rule XXI \2\ that such question 
of order could be ``raised at any time.''
  After debate the Speaker \3\ overruled the point of order and said:

  The Chair would state that, in his judgment, the reason why the point 
of order is not valid is that the rule allowing suspension suspends all 
rules. The Chair thinks that applies to the rule relied upon by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts as well as others. It is not necessary 
that the bill should have been reported by the committee. The gentleman 
from Tennessee moves to suspend the rules and pass the bill which the 
Clerk had reported, and the Chair thinks that suspends every rule, and 
the point of order does not lie. Is a second demanded?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2742.
  \2\ Now section 4 of Rule XXI.
  \3\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.