<DOC>
[Hinds Precedents -- Volume IV]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:hinds_cii.wais]

 
                              Chapter CII.

           GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEES.

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

    1. Reference required to give jurisdiction. Sections 4355-
     4361.\1\
    2. House may refer bill to any committee. Sections 4362-4364.
    3. Erroneous reference of a public bill. Sections 4365-4372.
    4. Senate amendments do not change jurisdiction of House 
     bills. Sections 4373, 4374.
    5. General principles of reference. Sections 4375, 4376.\2\
    6. Correction of errors in reference. Sections 4377-4379.
    7. Rule for reference of bills relating to claims. Sections 
     4380, 4381.
    8. Effect of erroneous reference of private bills. Sections 
     4382-4392.

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

  4355. It has generally been held that a committee may not report a 
bill whereof the subject-matter has not been referred to it by the 
House.--On February 21, 1850,\3\ Mr. Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, from 
the Committee on Public Expenditures, reported a bill, which was read 
for information by its title, as follows:

  A bill to provide a homestead of one hundred and sixty acres of the 
public domain for every man who is the head of a family and a citizen 
of the United States, etc.

  Mr. Samuel F. Vinton, of Ohio, objected to the reception of the bill, 
on the ground that the subject-matter of the bill had not been referred 
to the committee which reported it to the House, either by resolution 
or by the rules or otherwise.
  Debate arising, Mr. Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, read the rule:

  89. It shall be the duty of the Committee on Public Expenditures to 
examine into the state of the several public departments, and 
particularly into laws making appropriations of money, and to report 
whether the moneys have been disbursed conformably with such laws; and 
also to report from time to time such provisions and arrangements as 
may be necessary to add to the economy of the departments and the 
accountability of their officers.\4\

  Mr. Stephens urged that the principle involved was one of great 
parliamentary importance, whether any one of the standing committees of 
the House had power to originate and report bills upon any subject that 
had not been either generally or specially referred to it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Certain papers only being referred in course of an examination, 
the committee did not take into account other pertinent papers. Section 
559 of Vol. I.
  \2\ Acts of Executive Departments in submitting estimates do not 
control reference. Sections 4048, 4184 of this volume.
  \3\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 590; Globe, p. 
408.
  \4\ This committee no longer exists, and the rules do not generally 
prescribe duties in this way.
Sec. 4356
  The Speaker \1\ decided that the bill was not in order from the 
Committee on Public Expenditures, not being on a subject referred to 
them by the rules or the action of the House.
  Mr. Johnson having appealed, the decision of the Chair was sustained.
  4356. On November 6, 1877,\2\ Mr. Washington C. Whitthorne, of 
Tennessee, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, reported a resolution 
instructing that committee to make a thorough investigation into 
matters of deficiency, with power to send for persons and papers, etc.
  Mr. William P. Frye, of Maine, made the point of order that the House 
not having referred any measure, bill, petition, or resolution to the 
Committee on Naval Affairs for an investigation as proposed by the 
foregoing resolution, it was not competent for the committee to report 
the same at this time.
  The Speaker pro tempore \3\ sustained the point of order, on the 
ground that the resolution was not a ``measure'' within the meaning of 
Rule 89.\4\
  4357. On April 21, 1884,\5\ Mr. Samuel S. Cox, of New York, under 
instructions from the committee to ascertain the results of the Tenth 
Census, moved to suspend the rules, so as to enable him to report from 
that committee and the House to pass a bill of the following title, 
viz: ``An act supplementary to `An act to provide for the publication 
of the Tenth Census.' ''
  Mr. Alfred M. Scales, of North Carolina, made the point of order that 
the motion submitted by Mr. Cox was not in order, for the reason that 
the subject-matter of the bill had not been referred to the committee, 
and also for the further reason that that subject-matter belonged under 
the rules to the Committee on Printing.
  After debate on the point of order, the Speaker \6\ sustained the 
same, on the ground that a committee had no right to submit a report to 
the House unless it related to a subject over which it had jurisdiction 
by the rules of the House, or by a reference of the subject to it by 
order of the House.\7\
  4358. On August 18, 1890,\8\ during the call of committees for 
motions to suspend the rules, the Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands 
was called.
  Mr. William Vandever, of California, on behalf of that committee, 
moved that the rules be suspended so as to enable him to report and the 
House to pass a certain concurrent resolution authorizing the Secretary 
of Agriculture to continue an investigation into the proper location 
for artesian wells, and for the ascertainment of the existence of other 
subterranean waters that might be utilized for irrigation purposes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Forty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 159; Record, p. 
256.
  \3\ Milton Sayler, of Ohio, Speaker pro tempore.
  \4\ Rule 89 at that time provided: ``It shall be the duty of the 
Committee on Naval Affairs to take into consideration all matters which 
concern the naval establishment, and which shall be referred to them by 
the House, and to report their opinion thereupon; and also to report, 
from time to time, such measures as may contribute to economy and 
accountability in the said establishment.'' The present rule relating 
to the jurisdiction of this committee is somewhat different. (See sec. 
4189 of this volume.)
  \5\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 1108.
  \6\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \7\ The Record (pp. 3202, 3203) shows that the Speaker considered 
that the question turned on whether or not the subject had been 
referred to the committee, and does not indicate that the Speaker held 
it in order for a committee to report without such reference, even on a 
subject of which the rules gave it jurisdiction. In this case the 
jurisdiction under the rules belonged to the Committee on Printing.
  \8\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 967; Record, p. 
8772.
                                                            Sec. 4359
  The Speaker having suggested the question of the right of the 
committee to report the resolution, the subject-matter not having been 
referred to the committee, after debate,
  Mr. James B. Reilly, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that 
the resolution was not before the House, not having been referred to 
the committee.
  The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order.\2\
  4359. On September 20, 1893,\3\ Mr. Thomas C. Catchings, of 
Mississippi, submitted a report from the Committee on Rules 
recommending the adoption by the House of the following resolution:

  Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this order the 
Speaker shall, in compliance with clause 2 of Rule XXIV, call the 
committees for reports; and reports then made shall be by the Speaker 
referred to the appropriate calendars; and no motion shall be 
entertained or be in order until this order shall have been fully 
executed.

  Mr. Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, objected to the reception of the 
report upon the ground that as appeared from the Journal and the Record 
no such resolution, or similar resolution, had been referred to the 
Committee on Rules, and that the committee therefore had no 
jurisdiction to report the proposed resolution, and that pursuant to 
clause 51 of Rule XI \4\ all proposed action touching the rules and 
order of business must in the first instance be referred to the 
Committee on Rules.
  The Speaker \5\ overruled the objection, holding that under the 
provisions of clause 57 of Rule XI \6\ the Committee on Rules had 
authority to report at any time on the rules and order of business of 
the House, notwithstanding the proposed rule or order had not been 
specially referred to that committee.
  Mr. Burrows appealed from the decision of the Chair. Mr. Fitch moved 
to lay the appeal on the table, and the motion was decided in the 
affirmative--173 yeas to 55 nays.
  4360. On January 5, 1894,\7\ Mr. Thomas C. Catchings, of Mississippi, 
from the Committee on Rules, reported a resolution providing for the 
consideration of the bill (H. R. 4864) to reduce taxation, to provide 
revenue for the Government, and for other purposes.
  Mr. Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, made the point of order that the 
resolution reported by Mr. Catchings not having been referred to the 
Committee on Rules, that committee had no jurisdiction to report the 
same to the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \2\ On December 4, 1877, and February 26, 1878 (second session Forty-
fifth Congress, Journal, p. 527; Record, pp. 18, 19, 1342), Mr. Speaker 
Randall had ruled that a committee had no authority to report a 
resolution or bill the subject-matter whereof had not been referred to 
it. There was, however, a ruling of August 5, 1846 (first session 
Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal p. 1234; Globe, p. 1187), wherein 
Speaker pro tempore George W. Hopkins, of Virginia, permitted the 
Committee on Ways and Means to report a matter which had not been 
referred to it.
  \3\ First session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 96, 97, 98.
  \4\ Now section 53 of Rule XI. See section 4321 of this volume.
  \5\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \6\ Now section 61 of Rule XI. See section 4621 of this volume.
  \7\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 61; Record, p. 
502.
Sec. 4361
  The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order.
  4361. A petition properly referred to a committee \2\ gives 
jurisdiction for reporting a bill.--On July 22, 1852,\3\ Mr. Richard H. 
Stanton, of Kentucky, from the Committee on Printing, to whom was 
referred the petition of Thomas Ritchie, made a report thereon, 
accompanied by a joint resolution, providing a settlement with Ritchie 
for the printing of the Thirty-first Congress.
  Mr. Edward Stanly, of North Carolina, made the point of order that it 
was not in order for the gentleman (Mr. Stanton) to report the joint 
resolution from the committee, on the ground that it was not within the 
range of subjects contemplated for their action by the law of Congress 
establishing that committee.
  The Speaker \4\ decided that, inasmuch as the resolution was based 
upon a petition regularly referred to that committee, it was competent 
for the committee to report thereon by bill or otherwise.
  Mr. Stanly appealing, the appeal was laid on the table by a vote of 
81 to 65.
  The record of debates \5\ shows that Mr. Stanly, in making his point 
of order, declared that the matter was a private claim, and therefore 
not properly within the jurisdiction of the committee.
  Mr. Solomon G. Haven, of New York, made the point that unless the 
resolution was reported from both branches of the Committee on 
Printing, which was a joint committee under the twentieth joint rule, 
it could not be received. Mr. Stanton admitted that the report was only 
from the House part of the committee.
  The Speaker, in ruling on the point of order made by Mr. Stanly, 
quoted a precedent of February 12, 1851,\6\ wherein the Speaker ruled 
that, as the twenty-first joint rule explicitly provided that ``it 
shall be in order for the Committee on Printing to report at any 
time,'' it placed no restriction as to the subject-matter of the 
report, only limiting the committee to such matters as were 
legitimately before them. This latter decision also referred to a 
decision in the Thirtieth Congress.
  On the second point the Speaker thought that the law governing the 
committee contemplated separate action by the two branches in certain 
cases.
  4362. The House itself may refer a bill or resolution to any 
committee, and jurisdiction is thereby conferred.--On December 21, 
1889,\7\ Mr. M. M. Boothman, of Ohio, from the Committee on Accounts, 
to which was referred the joint resolution of the House (H. Res. 11) 
giving one month's extra pay to certain employees of the House, 
reported the same with amendments.
  The House having proceeded to their consideration, Mr. William C. 
Oates, of Alabama, raised the question of jurisdiction.
  The Speaker \8\ held that the House having referred the joint 
resolution to the Committee on Accounts in the regular course of 
business, jurisdiction was thereby conferred.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ See section 3364 of this volume for rule for proper reference of 
petitions.
  \3\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, p. 935.
  \4\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Congressional Globe, p. 
1884.
  \6\ Second session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 267.
  \7\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 87; Record, p. 
376.
  \8\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 4363
  4363. On December 4,1876,\1\ Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, 
offered this resolution:

  Resolved, That the credentials of James B. Belford be referred to the 
Judiciary Committee, and that said committee be instructed to inquire 
and report at as early a day as possible whether Colorado is a State in 
the Union, and that until such report is received no person claiming to 
be a Representative from Colorado be sworn in as a Member of this 
House.

  Mr. Omar D. Conger, of Michigan, made the point of order that the 
proposed reference of the credentials was irregular, and that under the 
rules the same should be referred to the Committee on Elections.
  The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order, on the ground that it 
was competent for the House to refer any subject to any committee that 
it might choose.\3\
  4364. On April 28, 1900,\4\ the House was considering the bill (S. 
2799) to carry into effect the stipulations of Article VII of the 
treaty between the United States and Spain, etc., reported from the 
Committee on War Claims and under consideration in the House as in 
Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. George W. Ray, of New York, moved that the bill be referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary with certain instructions.
  Mr. Thaddeus M. Mahon, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that 
this could not be done since the jurisdiction of the bill by the rules 
belonged to the Committee on War Claims.
  The Speaker pro tempore \5\ overruled the point of order, holding 
that the House might refer a bill to any committee.
  4365. According to the later practice of the House the erroneous 
reference of a public bill, if it remain uncorrected, in effect gives 
jurisdiction to the committee receiving it.--On October 19, 1893,\6\ 
Mr. Joseph Wheeler, of Alabama, on behalf of the Committee on the 
Territories, presented for consideration the bill (H. R. 3606) to 
require railroad companies operating railroads in the Territories over 
a right of way granted by the Government to establish stations and 
depots at all town sites on the lines of said roads established by the 
Interior Department.
  Mr. W. A. Stone, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that the 
bill, not being within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
Territories, had been erroneously reported and was improperly on the 
Calendar.
  The Speaker \7\ overruled the point, holding as follows:

  The reference of a public bill, as described by the rules, is 
different from that prescribed in regard to private bills. An erroneous 
reference of a public bill may be corrected any morning immediately 
after the reading of the Journal, either by unanimous consent or on 
motion of a Member representing the committee to which the bill has 
been erroneously referred or on motion of the committee claiming
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 13; Record, p. 
10.
  \2\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
  \3\ Bills being now introduced by filing them at the Clerk's desk, 
the House does not often have the opportunity to express its wish as to 
reference, except by motion to change reference. (See sec. 3364 of this 
volume.)
  \4\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4823.
  \5\ Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, Speaker pro tempore.
  \6\ First session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 147.
  \7\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
Sec. 4366
jurisdiction. And where a public bill has been suffered, even 
erroneously, to be considered by a committee and that committee has 
reported it back to the House, there is no way of raising the question 
of jurisdiction if the bill is a public bill, the case is different in 
regard to private bills. This bill is practically an amendment of a 
charter granted to a railroad company to pass through lands in the 
Territories, which original bill was reported by the Committee on the 
Territories.\2\

  4366. On January 12, 1897,\3\ during the call of committees in the 
morning hour, Mr. Charles S. Hartman, of Montana, called up, when the 
Committee on Mines and Mining was called, the bill (H. R. 6780) to 
amend section 2335 of the Revised Statutes.
  Mr. John F. Lacey, of Iowa, reserved the point of order that the bill 
should have been referred to the Committee on the Public Lands and not 
to the Committee on Mines and Mining.
  The Speaker \4\ said:

  The rules prescribe that if by any error or misunderstanding a bill 
has been sent to the wrong committee it is the duty of the committee 
who desire jurisdiction to present the matter to the House for a 
change; and no question having been raised, and the committee having 
reported, the Chair thinks it is too late to raise the question.

  4367. On April 7, 1852,\5\ Mr. James L. Orr, of South Carolina, from 
the Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the memorial of the 
board of internal improvements of the State of Florida, reported a bill 
granting the right of way and making a donation of the public lands to 
the State of Florida for the benefit of the Atlantic, Gulf and Central 
railroads, and for other purposes.
  Mr. George S. Houston, of Alabama, made the point of order that, 
inasmuch as the bill contained a provision to exempt railroad iron from 
duty, which was a subject not within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
on Public Lands, it was not in order as a report from that committee.
  The Speaker \6\ said:

  The Committee on Public Lands have reported a bill which provides, 
first, for granting alternate sections of land to aid in the 
construction of a railroad, and then provides for abolishing altogether 
duties upon all railroad iron. The Chair does not understand that any 
matter connected with duties upon railroad iron has ever been referred 
to the Committee on Public Lands at all. This subject has never been 
referred to them in the first place, and if referred, then the Chair 
must decide them very improperly referred to that committee, it being a 
matter touching the revenue, and therefore belonging exclusively, in 
the opinion of the Chair, to the Committee on Ways and Means. The Chair 
therefore decides that the report made from the Committee on Public 
Lands is not in order.

  Mr. Thomas L. Clingman, of North Carolina, having appealed, the 
appeal was laid on the table by a vote of 125 yeas, 39 nays.
  4368. On May 10, 1879,\7\ Mr. John T. Harris, of Virginia, from the 
Committee on the Revision of the Laws, reported the bill (H. R. 1493) 
defining the duties of reporter of the Supreme Court of the United 
States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ See section 3364 of this volume.
  \2\ Speaker pro tempore S. S. Cox made a similar ruling on January 
31, 1888. (First session Fiftieth Congress, Journal, pp. 617, 618; 
Record, p. 844.)
  \3\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 725, 726.
  \4\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, p. 565; Globe, p. 
1003.
  \6\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \7\ First session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1222, 1223.
                                                            Sec. 4369
  Mr. James A. Garfield, of Ohio, made the point of order that the bill 
was not within the jurisdiction of the committee reporting it.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The Chair is of the opinion that the bill having been referred to the 
committee by the House and acted on and reported by that committee, is 
not subject to the point of order.

  4369. On January 29, 1906,\2\ Mr. John J. Jenkins, of Wisconsin, on 
the call of committees when the Committee on the Judiciary was called, 
presented the bill (H. R. 2) requiring all corporations engaged in 
interstate commerce to make returns, and for other purposes.
  Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, raised the question that the 
jurisdiction of the bill belonged to the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce and not to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The Speaker \3\ held:

  The whole matter has been settled by former precedents in the House. 
* * *
  The Chair is perfectly clear that * * * the question can not be 
raised in this way at this time.

  4370. On January 15, 1900,\4\ the bill (H. R. 5042) to provide for 
improvements in the tax departments of the District of Columbia, which 
had been reported from the Committee on the District of Columbia, was 
called up for consideration, when Mr. William W. Grout, of Vermont, 
raised the question that the bill should have been referred to the 
Committee on Appropriations, as it carried an appropriation.
  After debate the Speaker \5\ said:

  The point of order made by the gentleman from Vermont, as the Chair 
understands, is that this committee--the Committee on the District of 
Columbia--has no jurisdiction over this bill because it contains an 
appropriation. It has been said by Speaker Crisp, Speaker Reed, and 
others that an erroneous reference of a public bill, remaining 
uncorrected, in effect gives jurisdiction to the committee. The House 
has had its day in court to have the erroneous reference corrected and 
has failed to do so. The Chair is of the opinion, therefore, that this 
matter is properly within the control of this committee, and that it is 
within the power of the House, in considering the bill, to determine 
whether to leave the appropriation in the bill or to strike the 
appropriation out of the bill and leave only the matters of general 
legislation.

  4371. On February 2, 1901,\6\ Mr. William S. Knox, of Massachusetts, 
asked for the immediate consideration of the bill (H. R. 7091) relating 
to the coinage of Hawaii.
  Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, made the point of order that 
the bill had been reported from the Committee on Territories, whereas 
its jurisdiction belonged to the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and 
Measures.
  After debate the Speaker \5\ held:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 1721, 1722.
  \3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 832.
  \5\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \6\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 186; Record, pp. 
1849, 1850.
Sec. 4372
  Rule XXII, clause 2, discusses the reference of private bills, done 
by the Members themselves and not by the Speaker. Clause 3 of the same 
rule refers to public bills. The Chair will have the Clerk read clause 
3 of Rule XXII:
  ``3. All other bills, memorials, and resolutions may, in like manner, 
be delivered, indorsed with the names of Members introducing them, to 
the Speaker, to be by him referred, and the titles and references 
thereof and of all bills, resolutions, and documents referred under the 
rules shall be entered on the Journal and printed in the Record of the 
next day, and correction in case of error of reference may be made by 
the House without debate in accordance with Rule XI on any day 
immediately after the reading of the Journal, by unanimous consent, or 
on motion of a committee claiming jurisdiction, or on the report of the 
committee to which the bill has been erroneously referred.''
  Now, the purpose of that rule is this: If a reference has been 
erroneously made, it is within the power of the House, without debate, 
to avoid the consumption of time, for on motion of the committee, as 
designated, a change of reference can be made by the House; the purpose 
of that rule being that a reference can not be made and the committee 
to which it is referred be permitted to spend days, weeks, and months 
in its consideration, and when brought into the House for its 
consideration a point of order be successfully made that it was not 
properly referred. That should have engaged the attention of those 
interested on the day following the reference, under the rule which has 
just been reported.
  This matter, however, has been decided by Speaker Crisp, and the 
Clerk will read paragraph 667 of the Parliamentary Precedents of the 
House of Representatives of the United States.\1\
  The Chair, without discussing now the original question of reference, 
for, as stated by the gentleman from Massachusetts, a reference made in 
the regular way can not be regarded in any way as a binding precedent. 
The Chair is constrained to hold that this point of order comes too 
late, the bill is now properly before the House, subject, of course, to 
an objection to its consideration by unanimous consent.

  4372. A public bill having been reported by a committee and being 
under consideration in Committee of the Whole, it was held that the 
question of jurisdiction might not then be considered.
  A bill may not be divided among two or more committees although it 
may contain matters properly within the jurisdiction of several 
committees.
  On March 8, 1890,\2\ the House was in Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union, considering the bill (H. R. 7156) to provide 
for the increase of the limit of cost of site and public building at 
Newark, N.J. The bill, after authorizing the purchase of land and 
construction of the building at an increased limit of cost, provided:

  And that the sum of $300,000, in addition to the sum of $350,000 
appropriated by act of Congress approved March 1, 1888, be, and the 
same is hereby, appropriated, out of any moneys in the United States 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

  Mr. William S. Holman, of Indiana, made a point of order that the 
bill made an appropriation of money.
  After debate the Chairman \3\ ruled:

  The bill for which the pending bill is a substitute is the bill (H. 
R. 565) introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Lehlbach] on 
the 18th of December, 1889, prior to the adoption of the new rules. The 
indorsement upon the bill is: ``Read twice, referred to the Committee 
on Public Buildings and Grounds, and ordered to be printed.'' The 
Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds took jurisdiction of the 
bill. The point of order is made as against that clause of the bill 
which provides for an appropriation, because of the provision in clause 
21 of Rule XI, which is:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ See section 4365.
  \2\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, pp. 2041, 2046.
  \3\ Lewis E. Payson, of Illinois, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 4372
  ``All proposed legislation shall be referred to the committees named 
in the preceding rule, as follows, viz: Subjects relating * * * to the 
public buildings and occupied or improved grounds of the United States, 
other than appropriations therefor; to the Committee on Public 
Buildings and Grounds.''
  It is claimed that, because of the prohibition in the rule as to the 
reference to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds of matters 
involving appropriations for public buildings or for the occupied 
grounds in the United States, the point of order can be made against 
that provision in this bill which provides for an appropriation. It 
must be remembered that the House is now acting in Committee of the 
Whole on the state of the Union, considering a bill which has been 
reported by the committee, to which a bill substantially like this one 
has been referred. It has been frequently decided--and the Chair refers 
to the one decision covering the question--that a point of order as to 
the reference of a bill can not be made for the first time in Committee 
of the Whole. On the 10th day of May, 1879--the Chair reads now from a 
collection of decisions made by Mr. Speaker Randall--
  ``Mr. John T. Harris, from the Committee on the Revision of the Laws, 
to which was referred the bill (H. R. 1493) defining the duties of 
reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States, fixing his 
compensation, and providing for the publishing and distribution of said 
reports, reported the same without amendment.
  ``Mr. Garfield made the point of order that the bill was not in order 
to be reported from the Committee on the Revision of the Laws, on the 
ground that the subject-matter of the bill was, under the rule, 
committed to another committee.
  ``The Speaker overruled the point of order on the ground that it was 
too late to raise the question of the proper reference of a bill when 
the same was reported for consideration, the question of reference 
being in order only after its second reading, when, under the rule 
(Rule CXVIII), it was read for commitment or engrossment, which 
question of reference was not then raised.''
  It must be remembered that the fact is, as the Chair thinks, that the 
reference of this bill on the 18th day of December last was the act of 
the House of Representatives, and was not the individual act of the 
Speaker, nor the act of the Speaker in his position as Speaker alone. 
The bill, in legal contemplation, was read a first and second time, and 
then referred, as was assumed, under the rule. The question has been 
presented in the arguments whether or no that was the proper reference. 
Now, it is conceded by gentlemen who are in favor of sustaining the 
point of order that the subject-matter of the bill, which is the 
erection of a public building, was properly referred to the Committee 
on Public Buildings and Grounds, and could have been properly referred 
to no other committee.
  It is suggested in argument that as the bill embraced two 
propositions, one of which might properly go to the Committee on Public 
Buildings and Grounds and the other involving an appropriation, which, 
as suggested by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Breckinridge], ought 
properly to go to the Committee on Appropriations--in this view it has 
been suggested that some action should be had by which that kind of 
division should be made. But it has been repeatedly held that a bill 
can not be so divided. The Chair reads from the Manual and Digest:
  ``It has been uniformly held that a bill can not be divided among two 
or more committees, although it contains subject-matter which 
legitimately belongs under Rule XI (the rule under consideration) to 
several committees; but must be referred to one committee as an 
entirety.''
  Therefore, under the decisions and under this opinion in the digest 
collating the decisions, the reference of this bill to the Committee on 
Public Buildings and Grounds was, in the judgment of the Chair, a 
proper reference. The question is one of jurisdiction. The Committee on 
Public Buildings and Grounds has, by the formal action of the House 
itself--not by a formal vote of the House, but by action which, in the 
judgment of the Chair, was tantamount or equivalent to a vote of the 
House--received jurisdiction of this bill.
  The bill being before that committee and involving a matter upon 
which the House has power to act, namely, to provide for payment for 
the erection of a public building at the same time that it provides for 
its erection, the committee alone had power to act upon the bill, 
because it is conceded, as the Chair understands, by all gentlemen who 
have taken part in the debate that the Appropriations Committee would 
not have jurisdiction of this appropriation until after the erection of 
the public building had been authorized,\1\ when the Committee on 
Appropriations would have the power, under the rule, to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ The Committee on Appropriations might not include an item in a 
general appropriation bill until it should have been authorized; but 
would it not have jurisdiction to report a special bill?
Sec. 4373
make the appropriation in pursuance of existing law and to include the 
amount in the sundry civil appropriation bill.
  Clearly, the proposition for the appropriation for this building must 
go to some committee, and the Chair is of opinion that, under the rules 
of the House as they stand now and under the rules of the House of 
Representatives in the last Congress, there is no committee of the 
House to which a proposition for the appropriation of a sum of public 
money to pay for the erection of a public building might properly be 
referred under the rule in the first instance. None has been suggested 
in the argument, so far as the Chair knows. The Chair has made inquiry 
of two or three gentlemen having the floor as to what committee, in 
their opinion, this bill could have been referred to except the 
Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds.
  Clearly it could not go to the Committee on Appropriations, because 
in general appropriation bills nothing is allowable except 
appropriations for expenses incurred in pursuance of existing law. As 
the bill had to go somewhere; as it did go to the Committee on Public 
Buildings and Grounds; as that committee has reported the bill, and it 
has been committed by the House to the Committee of the Whole on the 
state of the Union, and is now under consideration in Committee of the 
Whole, the Chair is of opinion that it is properly cognizable here and 
that the point of order should be overruled.
  In connection with this question the Chair desires to say that a 
matter of the correction of a reference or taking any advantage of any 
improper reference is purely a matter for the House itself. Under the 
existing rules, if this bill had been referred by the Speaker without 
the knowledge of the House--furtively, as suggested--perhaps by the 
influence of some Member who desired the bill to go to a committee that 
had not jurisdiction--if a bill under those circumstances should be 
referred to a committee not having jurisdiction, it would be because 
the rules gave the Speaker that power. But the rules also provide that 
any improper reference of a bill may be corrected in any one of three 
ways: Either by unanimous consent, or upon request of the committee 
claiming jurisdiction, or upon the report of the committee to which the 
bill has been referred.
  Because this bill was referred by the House to this committee--and 
not improperly, as the Chair thinks, for the reasons which have been 
stated--and because it is under consideration in Committee of the 
Whole, the Chair thinks this point of order must be overruled.

  4373. A House bill relating to the revenue, being returned with a 
Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute relating to coinage, was 
in the House referred to the committee having jurisdiction of the 
subject of the original bill.--On December 27, 1895,\1\ the bill (H. R. 
2904) ``to maintain and protect the coin-redemption fund, and to 
authorize the issue of certificates of indebtedness to meet temporary 
deficiencies of revenue,'' was reported from the Committee on Ways and 
Means. In the Senate it was voted to strike out all after the enacting 
clause and insert a measure providing for the free coinage of 
silver.\2\ On February 3, 1896,\3\ the bill and amendment, having been 
returned from the Senate, were referred by the Speaker, under the 
rule,\4\ to the Committee on Ways and Means, although the subject of 
the substitute would belong to the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and 
Measures.
  4374. A House bill relating to revenue in Porto Rico and reported 
from the Ways and Means Committee, being returned from the Senate with 
an amendment relating to the civil government of the island, was 
referred to the Ways and Means Committee, although the subject of the 
amendment was within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Insular 
Affairs.--On April 4, 1900.\5\ the bill (11. R. 8245) ``an act 
temporarily to provide
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 343.
  \2\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 484, 1216.
  \3\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1260.
  \4\ See section 4020 of this volume.
  \5\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3781.
                                                            Sec. 4375
revenues for the relief of the island of Porto Rico, and for other 
purposes,'' with an amendment of the Senate providing a system of 
territorial government for the island, was on the Speaker's table.
  The bill had originally been reported from the Committee on Ways and 
Means of the House, and to this committee the bill with the Senate 
amendment was again referred, although the subject of the amendment was 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Insular Affairs.\1\
  4375. The House may by vote, refer a bill to any committee, without 
regard to the rules of jurisdiction.
  To a bill to place an officer on the retired list of the Army, an 
amendment proposing to give him a pension was held not germane.
  On February 29, 1884,\2\ the House having under consideration the 
bill to retire General Pleasonton, and the previous question having 
been moved on the passage of the bill, Mr. Thomas M. Browne, of 
Indiana, moved that the bill be recommitted to the Committee on 
Military Affairs with instructions to report the same with an amendment 
to put General Pleasonton's name on the pension roll at $100 per month.
  Mr. Thomas M. Bayne, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that it 
was not in order to refer a bill to a committee which did not have 
jurisdiction of the subject; and also the further point of order that 
the proposition was not germane to the subject-matter of the bill.
  The Speaker \3\ overruled the first point of order on the ground that 
it was competent for the House to refer a bill to any committee it 
pleased,\4\ and sustained the second point of order on the ground that 
the pending bill was proposed to restore General Pleasonton to the Army 
of the United States and give him rank and pay as a retired officer, 
while the proposition submitted by Mr. Browne merely gave him a pension 
while he still remained out of the military service of the Government.
  4376. A joint resolution may not be divided for reference.--On 
January 11, 1882,\5\ the House was considering the reference of a joint 
resolution (H. Res. 91) to declare certain lands heretofore granted to 
railroad companies forfeited to the United States, etc.
  A proposition being made to refer portions of the resolution to 
different committees, the Speaker \6\ said:

  The Chair doubts the right of the House to divide a joint resolution 
for reference.

  Thereupon the entire resolution was referred to the Committee on 
Public Lands.
  4377. The rule provides that errors in reference of public bills may 
be corrected after the reading of the Journal in certain specified 
ways.--Section 3 of Rule XVI \7\ provides as follows for change of 
reference of public bills:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ See Rule XI, section 18.
  \2\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 703.
  \3\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \4\ In the first instance bills are not introduced now as then. (See 
section 3364 of this volume.)
  \5\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 365, 366.
  \6\ J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \7\ For full form and history of this rule see section 3364 of this 
volume.
Sec. 4378
  * * * correction in case of error of reference may be made by the 
House without debate in accordance with Rule XI on any day immediately 
after the reading of the Journal, by unanimous consent, or on motion of 
a committee claiming jurisdiction, or on the report of the committee to 
which the bill has been erroneously referred.

  4378. Motions to change the reference of public bills are not open to 
debate or subject to amendment.--On February 26, 1894,\1\ Mr. William 
H. Hatch, of Missouri, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture--which 
committee claimed jurisdiction of the bill (H. R. 5653) regulating the 
sale of certain agricultural products, defining options and futures, 
and imposing taxes thereon--moved to discharge the Committee on Ways 
and Means from the consideration of the bill, and that the same be 
referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
  The Speaker \2\ held that the motion was not subject to debate or 
amendment.\3\
  4379. Errors in the reference of petitions and private bills are 
corrected at the Clerk's table, without action by the House, at the 
suggestion of the committee having possession.--Section 2 of Rule XXII 
\4\ provides:

  * * * petitions and private bills which have been inappropriately 
referred may, by the direction of the committee having possession of 
the same, be properly referred in the manner originally presented; \5\ 
and an erroneous reference of a petition or private bill under this 
clause shall not confer jurisdiction upon the committee to consider or 
report the same.

  4380. A bill for the payment or adjudication of any private claim 
against the Government must be referred to one of these committees: 
Claims, War Claims, Private Land Claims, Pensions, Invalid Pensions, 
Accounts.
  Present form and history of section 3 of Rule XXI.
  Section 3 of Rule XXI provides:

  No bill for the payment or adjudication of any private claim against 
the Government shall be referred, except by unanimous consent, to any 
other than the following-named committees, viz: To the Committee on 
Invalid Pensions, to the Committee on Pensions, to the Committee on 
Claims, to the Committee on War Claims, to the Committee on Private 
Land Claims, and to the Committee on Accounts.

  This rule dates from 1885, when it was adopted to prevent private 
claim bills from overburdening committees charged more properly with 
the examination of public questions.\6\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 202; Record, p. 
2423.
  \2\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \3\ Section 3 of Rule XXII then and now provided that this motion 
should not be debatable. (See section 3364 of this volume.)
  \4\ For full form and history of this rule see section 3364 of this 
volume.
  \5\ That is, the chairman of the committee having the bill indorses 
on it the fact that the jurisdiction belongs to another specified 
committee and delivers it to the Clerk. (See sec. 1 of Rule XXII; sec. 
3364 of this volume.) Correction of error in case of public bills is 
made in accordance with section 3 of Rule XXII. (See section 3364 of 
this volume.)
  \6\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 170. Prior to the 
adoption of this rule, on July 14, 1852 (First session Thirty-second 
Congress, Journal, p. 897; Globe, p. 1778), Mr. Willis A. Gorman, of 
Indiana, from the Committee on Printing, reported a bill (H. R. 299) 
``to provide for executing the public printing and establishing the 
prices thereof, and for other purposes.''
  Mr. Edward Stanly, of North Carolina, made the point of order that 
under the joint rule defining the duties of the Committee on Printing 
it was not competent for that committee to report a bill of this 
character, and especially when that committee had not been regularly 
called for reports. The joint rule
                                                            Sec. 4381
  4381. A bill to provide a commission to settle claims against the 
Government does not fall within the rule requiring private claims to be 
referred only to certain specified committees.--On July 18, 1894,\1\ 
Mr. Joseph H. Outhwaite, of Ohio, presented for consideration the bill 
(H. R. 5939) to appoint a commission to report and determine upon 
certain damages done to citizens of Lauderdale County, Ala., by the 
building of the Muscle Shoals Canal.
  Mr. Joseph D. Sayers, of Texas, made the point of order that the bill 
having been erroneously referred to the Committee on Military Affairs 
that committee had no jurisdiction to consider and report it, and that 
it should be committed to the proper committee.
  After debate the Speaker \2\ overruled the point, holding that 
inasmuch as the bill did not provide for the payment or adjudication of 
a claim against the Government it did not come within the purview of 
clause 4 of Rule XXI,\3\ and that unanimous consent was not required to 
refer the same to the Committee on Military Affairs.
  4382. The erroneous reference of a private bill to a committee not 
entitled to jurisdiction does not confer it, and a point of order is 
good when the bill comes up for consideration either in the House or in 
Committee of the Whole.--On September 28, 1893,\4\ Mr. Thomas C. McRae, 
of Arkansas, on behalf of the Committee on the Public Lands, moved that 
the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House for the 
purpose of considering the bill (H. R. 1127) for the relief of Francis 
M. Tomlin.
  Mr. Joseph D. Sayers, of Texas, made the point of order that the bill 
was improperly referred to the Committee on the Public Lands, and that 
under the rules that committee had no authority to report the bill, it 
being for the payment of a claim against the Government.
  The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order, holding as follows:

  The matter of the introduction, reference, and report of private 
bills under the rules of the House is important, and the Chair would 
like to call attention to it. The first clause of Rule XXII provides:
  ``1. Members having petitions or memorials or bills of a private 
nature to present may deliver them to the Clerk, indorsing their names 
and the reference or distribution to be made thereof; and said peti-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
referred to defined the jurisdiction of the committee as that of 
adopting measures to remedy neglect or delay on the part of the 
contractor and audit and pass on his accounts.
  The Speaker (Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker) said: ``During the last 
Congress the Committee on Printing reported what was regarded by many 
gentlemen as a private claim. The question was then made as it is now--
that it was not competent for the committee to make such a report. It 
was decided, however, that as the subject had been referred by the 
House to the committee it was clearly in order. The Chair understands 
from the statement of the chairman of the committee that the matters 
embracing the provisions of this bill had been referred to that 
committee. Unless the Chair has been misled in regard to the facts, it 
seems to me there can be no doubt as to the right of the committee to 
report the bill. * * * The House has referred to the Committee on 
Printing matter precisely such as is embraced in the bill. There is a 
rule authorizing that committee to report at any time. The Chair 
therefore decides that the bill or report of the committee is in 
order.''
  Mr. Stanly having appealed, the appeal was laid on the table by a 
vote of yeas 108, nays 60.
  \1\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 493; Record, p. 
7661.
  \2\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \3\ Now section 3 of Rule XXI. (See sec. 4380 of this volume.)
  \4\ First session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 118.
Sec. 4383
tions and memorials and bills of a private nature, except such as, in 
the judgment of the Speaker, are of an obscene or an insulting 
character, shall be entered on the Journal with the names of the 
Members presenting them,'' etc.
  Now, a Member in the introduction of a private bill may cause its 
reference to any committee of the House by indorsing upon the bill an 
indication of the reference which he desires. That is a matter that the 
Representative must determine for himself, but he must determine it in 
view of the other rules of the House, which are really the only 
restriction upon a Member in the introduction and reference of a 
private bill. Clause 4 of Rule XXI provides that--
  ``No bill for the payment or adjudication of any private claim 
against the Government shall be referred, except by unanimous consent, 
to any other than the following-named committees, viz: To the Committee 
on Invalid Pensions, to the Committee on Pensions, to the Committee on 
Claims, to the Committee on War Claims, to the Committee on Private 
Land Claims, and to the Committee on Accounts.''
  No private bill shall be referred, except by unanimous consent, to 
any other committee than those enumerated in clause 4 of Rule XXI.
  Clause 2 of Rule XXII provides that--
  ``Petitions and private bills which have been inappropriately 
referred may, by direction of the committee having possession of the 
same, be properly referred in the manner originally presented.''
  That is, by putting them in the box with an indorsement giving the 
correct reference--
``and an erroneous reference of a petition or private bill under this 
clause shall not confer jurisdiction upon the committee to consider or 
report the same.''
  Now, the limitation, it seems to the Chair, is clear. In the first 
place, a Member may indorse upon a bill the reference that he desires, 
but he can not by such indorsement give jurisdiction to a committee 
that under the rules has no jurisdiction of the subject-matter. Private 
bills must go to one of the committees enumerated in clause 4 of Rule 
XXI, and if they go anywhere else the committee that gets them has no 
authority either to consider them or to report them. That is the 
language of the rule, and really there would be no other way of 
protecting the jurisdiction of committees except in that way.
  Therefore the Chair thinks that a private bill referred under clause 
1 of Rule XXII to any other committee than one of those named in clause 
4 of Rule XXI can not be considered or reported by such committee, and 
it seems to the Chair that the only time when the question can be 
raised is when the bill is called up for consideration, because these 
bills are reported just as they are introduced, through the box, and 
they do not come to the attention of the Chair at all until they are 
called up for consideration. The Chair never sees them or knows 
anything of them, because they are not presented as are reports or 
public bills in the open House, but they come in through the box.
  The Speaker also stated that whenever a point of order shall be made 
that a private bill on the Calendar had been reported by a committee 
not authorized to report the same, the Chair would, if the point be 
made before the consideration of the bill had been entered upon, direct 
that such bill be recommitted to the committee improperly reporting it 
for appropriate action under the rules.

  4383. On January 18, 1895,\1\ Mr. John T. Heard, of Missouri, 
presented for consideration the bill (H. R. 5457) for the relief of 
Emmart Dunbar & Co.
  Mr. Elijah V. Brookshire, of Indiana, made the point of order that 
the bill was in the nature of a claim, and was therefore, under clause 
4 of Rule XXI,\2\ improperly reported from the Committee on the 
District of Columbia.
  The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order.
  And the Committee of the Whole House was discharged from the 
consideration of the bill and the same was referred to the Committee on 
Claims.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 70, 71.
  \2\ Now section 3 of Rule XXI. (See see. 4380.)
  \3\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 4384
  4384. On March 4, 1898,\1\ the House was in Committee of the Whole 
House considering the Private Calendar. A bill (H. R. 4411) for the 
relief of James H. Birch being taken up, Mr. John Dalzell, of 
Pennsylvania, made the point of order that the bill was not one 
properly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on War Claims, which 
had reported it.
  The Chairman \2\ ruled:

  The point of order is made against this bill that it is here on a 
report from the Committee on Wax Claims, and that, under the rule, that 
committee has no jurisdiction.
  Clause 31 of Rule XI, which relates to the reference of claims, 
provides that--
  ``All proposed legislation shall be referred to the committees named 
in the preceding rule, as follows:
  ``Subjects relating to claims arising from any war in which the 
United States has been engaged, to the Committee on War Claims.''
  That hardly means any claims arising at a time contemporaneous with 
the war, as has been intimated by some gentlemen in arguing this 
matter, because a claim for recruiting Confederate soldiers was 
something that arose contemporaneously with the war. The only thing to 
show that this claim was connected with the war at all is the fact that 
it was at the time of the war. The whole claim is made against the 
State of Missouri or the provisional government of Missouri, for 
recruiting Missouri regiments--Missouri militia. It does not appear 
that they were used in the service of the Union outside of the State, 
or in the State, except incidentally in trying to keep the State from 
seceding, perhaps.
  It does appear that some of these men, or most of them, were 
afterwards transmuted--I think that is the word used--to other United 
States regiments, but this claim is not for the transmuting of the men 
or the recruiting of the men into the United States regiment. It is for 
recruiting them into the militia of Missouri. Now, the Chair thinks 
that that does not come within this clause of the rule. The question 
has been raised as to what committee it should be referred to. There is 
no question about that.
  Clause 30 of the rule says that subjects relating ``to private and 
domestic claims and demands, other than war claims, against the United 
States'' shall be referred ``to the Committee on Claims.''
  There is no question about where the bill would go, and the Chair 
thinks that the Committee on Claims had jurisdiction of the subject and 
that the Committee on War Claims did not. The Chair sustains the point 
of order.

  When the committee rose the Chairman reported this bill as having 
been improperly reported from the Committee on War Claims, and, 
therefore, as improperly before the Committee of the Whole.
  The bill was then referred to the proper committee by the House.
  4385. On March 4, 1898,\3\ the House being in Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union, considering bills on the Private 
Calendar, the Chairman ruled upon a point of order which Mr. Eugene F. 
Loud, of California, had made against a bill (H. R. 1935) for the 
relief of William B. Caldwell.
  The Chairman \2\ said:

  Upon this bill a point of order is pending. The point of order was 
raised against this bill by the gentleman from California [Mr. Loud], 
on the ground that the bill had been referred to the Committee on War 
Claims, and referred improperly, the committee having no jurisdiction 
to report the bill, and claiming that the bill was improperly on the 
Calendar. At the time the point of order was raised the Chair had read 
from the Clerk's desk a decision of the Speaker of the present House. 
The attention of the Chair was then called to the fact that that 
decision referred to a public bill, and not to a private bill, and so 
the matter was postponed until this morning.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2496.
  \2\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2483.
Sec. 4385
  The Chair finds upon reading clauses 1 and 2 of Rule XXII that it is 
provided:
  ``Members having petitions or memorials or bills of a private nature 
to present may deliver them to the Clerk, indorsing their names and the 
reference or disposition to be made thereof; and said petitions and 
memorials and bills of a private nature, except such as, in the 
judgment of the Speaker, are of an obscene or insulting character, 
shall be entered on the Journal with the names of the Members 
presenting them, and the Clerk shall furnish a transcript of such entry 
to the official reporters of debates for publication in the Record,''
  Clause 2 provides:
  ``Any petition or memorial or private bill excluded under this rule 
shall be returned to the Member from whom it was received; and 
petitions and private bills which have been inappropriately referred 
may, by the direction of the committee having possession of the same, 
be properly referred in the manner originally presented; and an 
erroneous reference of a petition or private bill under this clause 
shall not confer jurisdiction upon the committee to consider or report 
the same.''
  The last paragraph seems to effectually dispose of a bill which has 
been improperly referred to a committee where the bill is of a private 
character; but the Chair had more difficulty to get at the proper 
disposition of this bill on reference to the terms of the bill itself. 
The bill is threefold in its nature, being a bill for the relief of 
William B. Caldwell. In the first place, it provides that William B. 
Caldwell's name be entered ``upon the muster rolls of said company as 
mustered into the service August 1, 1864, and honorably mustered out 
March 1, 1865, and to issue to him in honorable discharge 
accordingly.''
  Of course, if the bill ended there, it would have gone to the 
Committee on Military Affairs. The bill further provides:
  ``And the said William B. Caldwell shall be paid all the pay, 
allowances, and bounties due to a soldier regularly serving in said 
company between the dates aforesaid.''
  Under this language this claim in a bill belongs properly to the 
Committee on War Claims.
  Now in determining the question as to whether the bill is properly 
referred or not, it seems there are different items in the bill that 
might carry it to one of two or three different committees, because 
there is a further item in this bill allowing a pension to this man 
from the date of his original application--that is, arrears of pension 
of course that would go to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and no 
other committee would have jurisdiction. The question is whether this 
clause of the bill providing for back pay and bounty, which the 
existing law would give him, provided he is put on the muster roll and 
receives an honorable discharge according to the first clause of the 
bill, gives jurisdiction to the Committee on War Claims. The Chair 
hardly sees how that can be. If that were allowed, then that part of 
the bill that belonged to the Committee on Military Affairs for the 
granting of an honorable discharge would immediately have the 
jurisdiction changed from the Committee on Military Affairs to the 
Committee on War Claims by the addition of a purely superfluous clause.
  The first clause of the bill itself having given an honorable 
discharge, under the present law, would give him back pay and bounty 
for the time he was on the muster roll of that company. There can be no 
question about that. Now, it can not be that a bill to reenact existing 
law shall give the Committee on War Claims jurisdiction. If that were 
true, it breaks up the whole foundation of the rules for the reference 
of the bills, and a bill could be referred to any committee if the 
Member who draws the bill puts in a clause, no matter whether it is 
necessary to the enactment or not, which gives jurisdiction to that 
particular committee, although the bill and the gist of the bill and 
the main object of the bill would take it to another committee.
  Of course the main object of this bill is to give him a muster and 
honorable discharge. The other thing is incident to it, and it can not 
be that under the rules of the House--the proper enforcement of the 
rules of the House--this bill should go to the Committee on War Claims. 
The Chair has no doubt that a bill of this kind, being referred by the 
indorsement of the Member who introduces the bill, and not by the 
action of the House, that the question of the jurisdiction of the 
committee can be raised whenever the bill comes up for action, either 
in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Therefore the Chair 
sustains the point of order made against this bill.

  When the committee rose the Chairman reported that the bill had not 
been properly before it; the standing committee reporting it not having 
jurisdiction. The bill was referred to the proper committee.
                                                            Sec. 4386
  4386. On December 4, 1894,\1\ Mr. Joseph H. Outhwaite, of Ohio, on 
behalf of the Committee on Military Affairs, presented for 
consideration a bill for the relief of the legal representatives of 
Orsemus B. Boyd.
  Mr. Joseph D. Sayers, of Texas, made a point that the Committee on 
Military Affairs had no jurisdiction to report the bill, inasmuch as it 
provided for the payment of a claim against the Government.
  The Speaker \2\ sustained the point, and the Committee of the Whole 
House was discharged from the consideration of the bill and the same 
was referred to the Committee on Claims.
  4387. On October 13, 1893, \3\ Mr. Thomas C. McRae, of Arkansas, on 
behalf of the Committee on the Public Lands, presented for 
consideration a bill for the relief of William P. Keady, on the Private 
Calendar.
  Mr. Nelson Dingley, of Maine, made the point of order that the bill 
was a private bill and that the Committee on the Public Lands which 
reported it had no jurisdiction to report thereon.
  The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order, and it was ordered that 
the Committee of the Whole House be discharged from the consideration 
of the bill, and that it be returned to the Committee on Public Lands 
for appropriate reference.
  On October 16 the Speaker stated that upon a further examination of 
the bill for the relief of William P. Keady, which had been returned on 
Friday last to the Committee on the Public Lands in order that the 
committee might cause the bill to be appropriately referred, as in case 
of other private bills, he was of opinion that the questions arising on 
the bill were peculiarly within the province of the Committee on the 
Public Lands, and, while the bill was for the relief of an individual, 
the question involved was in its nature public--that is, whether 
certain lands had been restored to the public domain and were subject 
to entry by scrip; that the Committee on the Public Lands might 
therefore entertain jurisdiction of the bill.
  4388. On July 18, 1894,\4\ Mr. Joseph 1-1. Outhwaite, of Ohio, 
presented for consideration a bill for the relief of the owners of the 
schooner Henry R. Tilton.
  Mr. Eugene F. Loud, of California, made the point that the bill was 
improperly reported by the Committee on Military Affairs and should, as 
it was in the nature of a claim, be reported by the Committee on 
Claims.
  The Speaker pro tempore \5\ sustained the point of order.
  4389. On December 16, 1904,\6\ on a day set apart by order for 
consideration of business reported from the Committee on Claims, the 
Committee of the Whole House was considering the bill (H. R. 8113) for 
the relief of Agnes W. Hills and Sarah J. Hills.
  Mr. Sereno, E. Payne, of New York, made the point of order that the 
bill related to a war claim, and that the jurisdiction of it belonged 
to the Committee on War Claims.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 15.
  \2\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 138.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 492.
  \5\ Alexander M. Dockery, of Missouri, Speaker pro tempore.
  \6\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 379, 393.
Sec. 4390
  After examination and debate, the Chairman \1\ held:

  It appears by the reading of the bill that it is a war claim. 
Reference to the Committee on Claims under the precedents of this House 
does not give jurisdiction to that committee. It appears that the 
precedent is as follows:

  ``The erroneous reference of a private bill to a committee not 
entitled to jurisdiction does not confer it, and a point of order is 
good when the bill comes up for consideration, either in the House or 
in Committee of the Whole.''
  So it is evident that the bill can not be considered at this time, 
and will have to be sent back.

  Later, when the Committee of the Whole House rose, the Chairman 
reported--

  That that committee had had under consideration the bin H. R. 8133, 
which was found to have been reported from a committee not having 
jurisdiction; that the committee also had had under consideration 
sundry bills and joint resolutions and had directed him to report the 
same back, some with amendment and some without, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be adopted and that the bills do 
pass.

  The Speaker \2\ said:

  House bill 8113, reported by the committee that did not have 
jurisdiction, will, without objection, be referred to the Committee on 
War Claims.

  There was no objection.
  4390. The House having changed the reference of a private Senate bill 
from one committee to another, a point of order as to the jurisdiction 
of the latter committee, made after the bill was reported, was 
overruled.--On January 28, 1907,\3\ a District of Columbia day, Mr. 
Joseph W. Babcock, of Wisconsin, proposed action to consider the bill 
(S. 3702) for the relief of the Gurley Memorial Presbyterian Church, of 
the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that this 
bill was not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the District 
of Columbia under section 3 of Rule XXI,\4\ and that under section 2 of 
Rule XXII \5\ it was not in order for consideration.
  After debate, the Speaker I held:

  The Chair calls the attention of the gentleman also to the fact that 
this is a Senate bill, and a Member has nothing to do with the 
reference of it. Under the rule the Speaker, acting for the House, 
referred it to the Committee on Claims. The Committee on Claims brought 
it back to the House, and the House, by unanimous consent, changed the 
reference to the Committee on the District of Columbia. So that it is 
the action of the House; and it has been ruled that such action confers 
jurisdiction without regard to the rules in many cases, many 
precedents. * * *
  But the gentleman will notice that the rule he now refers to seems to 
cover House bills referred by Members. This is a Senate bill, referred 
originally by the Speaker to the Committee on Claims under Rule 
XXIV,\6\ reported back from the Committee on Claims with 
recommendations that it be referred to the Committee on the District of 
Columbia, and the House unanimously referred it to that committee. 
There are many precedents where, without regard to the rule, the House 
by a majority has referred bills to committees, thereby conferring 
jurisdiction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Mr. P. P. Campbell, of Kansas, Chairman.
  \2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 1849.
  \4\ See section 4380 of this volume.
  \5\ See section 3364 of this volume.
  \6\ See section 3089 of this volume.
                                                            Sec. 4391
  Therefore the Speaker overruled the point of order.
  4391. Where the House itself refers a private House bill to a 
committee, the point of order as to jurisdiction does not avail.--On 
February 11, 1905,\1\ the House proceeded to the consideration of the 
bill (S. 3218) for the relief of Civil Engineer Peter C. Asserson, 
retired.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is 
hereby, authorized and directed to adjust the pay of and pay to Civil 
Engineer Peter C. Asserson, United States Navy, retired, the full 
amount of the retired pay of a rear-admiral of the nine lower numbers 
for the time he has been on active duty since his retirement with that 
rank and whenever hereafter he shall be employed on active duty.

  This bill had been reported by the Committee on Naval Affairs; and 
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that, as the 
bill belonged to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Claims, it had 
been improperly reported to the House.
  The Speaker I said:

  The Chair will call the attention of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Mann] to the fact that this bill was referred by the Speaker to the 
Committee on Claims. Afterwards it was returned to the House with a 
request that the bill be referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, 
and it was so ordered; so that the gentleman's point of order, the 
Chair believes, would be good were it not that the change of reference 
was made by the express order of the House. The Chair will state 
further that if this bill had been reported by the Committee on Claims 
it would not come within the terms of the order, but coming, as it 
does, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, it seems to the Chair that 
the point of order is not well taken, and that it does come within the 
terms of the order agreed to.

  4392. A private bill reported from a committee not having 
jurisdiction of the subject was ordered by the Speaker to be 
recommitted, as a step preliminary to a change of reference.--On May 1, 
1902,\3\ Mr. Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, called attention to the 
fact that the bill (H. R. 13480) to provide an American register for 
the steamer Brooklyn, had been reported by the Committee on Interstate 
and Foreign Commerce and was on the Private Calendar. In fact the 
jurisdiction of the bill belonged to the Committee on Merchant Marine 
and Fisheries, and it had not been reported properly by the other 
committee.
  The Speaker \2\ thereupon ordered the bill to be recommitted to the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
  Then, on request of Mr. Grosvenor, by unanimous consent, the House 
ordered the reference of the bill to be changed to the Committee on 
Merchant Maxine and Fisheries.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 2417, 2418.
  \2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 666.
  \4\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.