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

 
                              Chapter CIV.

                       APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEES.

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

    1. The rule as to standing committees. Section 4448.
    2. The Speaker the appointing agent. Sections 1149-4457.\1\
    3. Filling vacancies. Sections 4458-4460.
    4. Privilege of a resolution relating to. Sections 4461, 4462.
    5. General decisions. Sections 4463-4469.\2\
    6. Rules as to select and conference committees. Section 
     4470.\3\
    7. Instances of appointment by House. Sections 4471-4476.
    8. Members appointed before taking the oath. Sections 4477-
     4483.
    9. As to absent Members. Sections 4484-4487.
   10. Members whose seats are contested. Section 4488.\4\
   11. Rank on committee designated by Speaker. Section 4489.
   12. Members relieved of service by consent of House. Sections 
     4490-4512.

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

  4448. Unless otherwise specially ordered by the House the Speaker 
appoints the standing committees at the commencement of each Congress.
  Under the modern practice the Speaker appoints the standing 
committees at his convenience, without specific direction by the House.
  Form and history of section 1 of Rule X.
  Section 1 of Rule X provides for the appointment of the standing 
committees, enumerates them, and fixes the number of Members composing 
each. The first clause of the rule, introductory to the enumeration,\5\ 
provides as follows:

  Unless otherwise specially ordered by the House the Speaker shall 
appoint, at the commencement of each Congress, the following standing 
committees, viz:

  This form dates from the revision of 1880. When the first rules were 
adopted, on April 7, 1789,\6\ it was provided that the Speaker should 
appoint all the com-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ When the Speaker's seat is contested he does not appoint the 
Committee on Elections. Section 809 of Vol. I.
  \2\ As to minority representation. Section 2342 of Vol. III.
  Appointment of Delegates. Sections 1297-1301 of Vol. II.
  \3\ As to former practice of appointing the mover of a select 
committee its chairman. Sections 1827, 2342 of Vol. III.
  \4\ See also section 1018 of Vol. II.
  \5\ The enumeration is not given here, as the committees are again 
enumerated for definition of their powers and duties. See Chaps. XCIX-
CI, sec. 4019, etc., of this work.
  \6\ First session First Congress, Journal, p. 9. (Gales & Seaton ed.)
                                                            Sec. 4448
mittees except such as consisted of more than three Members, which were 
to be chosen by ballot. On January 13, 1790,\1\ this form was adopted:

  All committees shall be appointed by the Speaker, unless otherwise 
specially directed by the House, in which case they shall be appointed 
by ballot.

  As the number of standing committees began to increase, another rule 
provided that ``the standing committees shall be appointed at the 
commencement of each session.'' \2\ In addition to this it was 
customary to adopt a resolution directing the Speaker to appoint the 
committees pursuant to the rules; and sometimes the resolution 
presented was so urgent as to embarrass the Speaker.\3\ At the time of 
the revision of 1860 Mr. Israel Washburn, jr., of Maine, reported from 
the Committee on Rules and the House adopted an amendment providing 
that the committees should be appointed at the first of each Congress 
instead of the first of each session.\4\ The resolution or order 
authorizing or directing the Speaker to appoint the standing committees 
was proposed as usual at the organization of the House on July 5, 1861, 
by Mr. Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, but Mr. Speaker Grow declared that 
under the rules which the House had just adopted the Speaker was 
already authorized to appoint the standing committees.\5\ So the 
resolution was not passed, and since then has been omitted.
  When the rules were revised in 1880,\6\ the two old rules were united 
in the present form of the first clause. Of course, the other clauses 
of the section have been modified to conform to increases in the number 
and membership of the committees.
  On June 14, 1813,\7\ Mr. Cyrus King, of Massachusetts, presented a 
proposition for the choice of the Committee on Elections by lot, the 
Speaker to draw the names from a box prepared by the Clerk. On December 
7, 1813,\8\ at the beginning of the next session, the House considered 
the proposition. Mr. William Findley, of Pennsylvania, having 
questioned the Constitutional power of the House to adopt such a rule, 
consideration was postponed until December 9, when the proposition was 
defeated.\9\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session First Congress, Journal, p. 140.
  \2\ See Rule 76, Appendix to Journal of second session Thirty-fifth 
Congress.
  \3\ See Debates, second session Twenty-first Congress, pp. 347-350.
  \4\ First session Thirty-sixth Congress, Globe, pp. 1181, 1209.
  \5\ First session Thirty-seventh Congress, Globe, p. 11; also first 
session Thirty-sixth Congress Globe, p. 176. On February 27, 1880 
(second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1207-), during the 
revision of the rules, Mr. Edward H. Gillette, of Iowa, proposed to 
amend the then existing rules, providing that the rules should be the 
rules of the succeeding Congress, so it should provide that ``no 
Speaker shall be authorized to construct the committee of any future 
Congress without direct authority by vote of the House of 
Representatives.'' This amendment was disagreed to by the House without 
division. The theory that one House could impose rules on the 
succeeding House did not, however, survive long after this time. (See 
secs. 6743-6755 of Vol. V of this work.)
  \6\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 200.
  \7\ First session Thirteenth Congress, Journal, p. 32 (Gales & Seaton 
ed.); Annals, p. 155.
  \8\ Second session, Journal, pp. 162, 168; Annals, pp. 783, 786.
  \9\ In the Senate, for a time about 1833, the committees were 
appointed by the President pro tempore. (First session Twenty-third 
Congress, Debates, pp. 27-29.)
  The present practice of the Senate in appointing committees is shown 
by the following resolutions, agreed to December 18, 1905 (first 
session Fifty-ninth Congress, Senate Journal, p. 61):
  Ordered, That so much of Rule XXIV of the Senate as provides for 
appointment of the standing and other committees of the Senate by 
ballot be suspended.
  Resolved, That the following shall constitute the standing and select 
committees of the Senate of the Fifty-ninth Congress: [Here follows 
list of the committee assignments.]
Sec. 4449
  4449. The motion directing the Speaker to appoint the committees has 
been the subject of an amendment proposing their appointment by the 
House.--On December 27, 1849,\1\ Mr. Armistead Burt, of South Carolina, 
offered this resolution:

  Resolved, That the Speaker do now appoint the standing committees of 
the House.

  The Speaker \2\ stated that, while the rules of the House required 
the appointment of standing committees by the Speaker, the invariable 
practice had been that the Speaker did not appoint them until a 
resolution to that effect had been adopted by the House.\3\
  Mr. William A. Sackett, of New York, proposed an amendment, striking 
out all after the word ``Resolved,'' and inserting the following: 
``That the committees of this House be appointed by the House, under 
the provisions of the seventh rule.\4\'' * * *
  After debate, involving the slavery question, the amendment was 
rejected, and the original resolution was agreed to.\5\
  4450. Although the rules permit the House to direct the appointment 
of the standing committees otherwise than by the Speaker, the House has 
always declined to exercise its power in this respect. The phrase of 
Rule X, which provides that the Speaker shall appoint the standing 
committees ``unless otherwise specially ordered \6\ by the House,'' has 
been construed as contemplating a motion at the time of organization of 
the House to order another method of selection.
  On December 1, 1806,\7\ an issue was made as to whether or not the 
committees should be appointed by the Speaker. Mr. Willis Alston, jr., 
of North Carolina, moved that they be appointed by ballot. This 
proposition was defeated, 44 votes to 42; and the committees were 
appointed pursuant to the standing rules and orders of the House. On 
October 28, 1807,\8\ the motion that the standing committees be 
appointed by ballot was again offered, on the ground that it would 
relieve the Speaker of an unpleasant duty and be more pleasing to the 
House. On the other hand it was urged that in selection by ballot there 
was no responsibility, such as the Speaker felt, that a House with many 
new Members could not ballot intelligently, that the balloting would 
consume much time, etc. Finally the motion to appoint by ballot was 
negatived, yeas 24, nays 87, and the House ordered the appointment of 
the committees in accordance with the rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 185, 186; 
Globe, pp. 79-85.
  \2\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \3\ On January 17, 1882 (first session Forty-seventh Congress, 
Record, pp. 463-467, 492) the House, after full debate, voted down a 
proposition that the committees be appointed by a board of eleven 
Members, to be chosen by viva voce vote of the House. The vote came on 
a question of order, deciding that the proposition was not in order as 
an amendment to the pending subject. The vote was yeas 162, nays 74, 
sustaining the point of order that the amendment was not in order.
  \4\ This was the rule providing for election of committees by ballot 
by the House. See section 6003 of Vol. V of this work.
  \5\ Also, for further statement on this point, see Globe, p. 75.
  \6\ The old form of the rule used the word ``directed,'' and provided 
that if not appointed by the Speaker the election should be by ballot. 
The present form of rule does not restrict the House to ballot.
  \7\ Second session Ninth Congress, Annals, pp. 110, 111.
  \8\ First session Tenth Congress, Journal, p. 10; Annals, pp. 790, 
794.
                                                            Sec. 4451
  4451. On May 23, 1809,\1\ Mr. Willis Alston, jr., of North Carolina, 
moved that the standing committees of the House be now appointed.
  Mr. Matthew Lyon, of Kentucky, moved to amend by specifying that they 
should be appointed by ballot. This motion was supported by Mr. Barent 
Gardenier, of New York, on the ground that such proceeding was more in 
harmony with republican institutions than the more monarchical method 
of appointment by the Speaker.
  The amendment was disagreed to, 67 nays to 41 yeas. The original 
motion of Mr. Alston was then agreed to.
  4452. The delay of the Speaker in appointing the standing committees 
having occasioned criticism, a resolution directing the appointment was 
offered, but was disagreed to by the House.
  Mr. Speaker Reed in a ruling referred to the power of the Speaker in 
relation to the House itself.
  Dates at which the standing committees have been appointed in the 
last fifty years. (Footnote.)
  On April 7, 1897,\2\ Mr. Jerry Simpson, of Kansas, claiming the floor 
for a question of privilege, called attention to the fact that the 
committees of the House had not been appointed, and demanded that this 
should be done.
  The Speaker \3\ said:

  The House will perceive that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Simpson] 
has made no proposition whatever upon the subject. He has simply stated 
his own views, and the Chair has thought perhaps it was best the matter 
should be stated and that the House should consider it.
  So far as the power of the Speaker is concerned, everyone who has 
made the subject a matter of consideration understands that his power 
is solely the power of the House, and the House can at any moment 
change the action which its representatives sees fit to indulge in. The 
House has the power at all times. And while the rules of the House 
require certain committees to be appointed, there has always been 
allowed to the Chair a reasonable amount of discretion as to the time 
when they should be appointed. Opportunity is always allowed the Chair 
to find out something about Members, so that he may do the duties which 
are imposed upon him in the most intelligent way of which he is 
capable. It is not a rare case that the Speaker has not appointed 
committees at once.
  A Congress which was called together under circumstances something 
like the present, the Forty-second, was presided over by a very eminent 
man, Mr. Blaine, and he declined--not declined, but did not see fit to 
appoint committees. The matter was brought up in the House, and he gave 
his reasons therefor; and those reasons were approved by the House; at 
least no action was taken by the House on the subject. There are about 
150 new Members in the House. Under ordinary circumstances the occupant 
of the chair has time from the 4th day of March until the first Monday 
in December to obtain information in regard to his fellow-Members; but 
under the present circumstances there has been no opportunity. We have 
been called together in extraordinary session, and the question was, 
What was the best course for us to pursue, whether we should wait in 
appointing the committees until such times as would make the 
appointments more suitable or whether the public service was in such a 
condition that that ought to be done?
  Now, the Chair has had full consultation with the various Members, as 
he has met them, upon the subject, and until this morning he supposed 
that it was the unanimous feeling of the House that it was not 
necessary to appoint the committees in haste, because the public 
service did not require it. The Chair is sorry to see that any 
gentleman in the House has lent himself to the suggestions which are 
sometimes made outside of the House with regard to the power of the 
occupant of the Chair. It is a power that
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Eleventh Congress, Journal, p. 9 (Gales and Seaton 
ed.); Annals, pp. 58, 59.
  \2\ First session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 651.
  \3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
Sec. 4453
is given to him by the House for its purposes, and its purposes alone; 
not for any selfish purposes; not for him to carry out any personal 
desires or designs of his own, but to carry out the wishes of the House 
as he understands them after a faithful and conscientious examination 
of the subject. If the House thinks that any occupant of the chair is 
not carrying out its wishes, is not acting as its representative, the 
remedy is in the hands of the House at any time. And the Chair 
cheerfully welcomes any action on the part of the House, whose 
representative he is.

  4453. On May 3, 1897,\1\ the Speaker not having appointed the 
committees, Messrs. James Hamilton Lewis, of Washington, and William H. 
Fleming, of Georgia, proposed action by the House declaratory of the 
duty of the Speaker to appoint the committees withiil a reasonable time 
after the commencement of the Congress.
  For the purpose of testing the will of the House more definitely, Mr. 
Nelson Dingley, of Maine, presented this resolution as a substitute:

  Resolved, That the Speaker be directed to immediately appoint the 
committees of the House.

  On a yea-and-nay vote this proposition was rejected by 125 yeas to 50 
nays, 13 answering ``present.'' \2\
  4454. In the Fortieth Congress the Speaker did not appoint the 
committees, except a few, until the closing days of the first 
session.--The first session of the Fortieth Congress met on March 4, 
1867, and adjourned November 30, 1867, there being two recesses in the 
meanwhile. The committees were not appointed by the Speaker \3\ until 
November 25,\4\ but in the early portion of the session the Speaker, by 
special direction of the House, appointed the Judiciary Committee in 
order that it might pursue the investigations of the conduct of the 
President,\5\ also the Committee on Foreign Affairs,\6\ to deal with 
the northern boundary question, the Committee on Rules,\7\ on Enrolled 
Bills,\8\ and a few other committees especially called for.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 874.
  \2\ The committees were appointed on July 24, the last day of the 
session. The dates of the appointment of the committees by Speakers in 
the last fifty years have been as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Days of                                           Days of
         Congresses.            Sessions   Committees  elapsed    Congresses.     Sessions   Committees  elapsed
                                 begin.    appointed.   time.                      begin.    appointed.   time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thirty-fifth.................  Dec. 7,     Dec. 14,         7   Forty-eighth...  Dec. 3,     Dec. 24,         21
                                1857        1857                                  1883        1883
Thirty-sixth.................  Dec. 5,     Feb. 9,         66   Forty-ninth....  Dec. 7,     Jan. 7,          31
                                1859        1860                                  1885        1886
Thirty-seventh...............  July 4,     July 8,          4   Fiftieth.......  Dec. 5,     Jan. 5,          31
                                1861        1861                                  1887        1888
Thirty-eighth................  Dec. 7,     Dec. 14,         7   Fifty-first....  Dec. 2,     Dec. 21,         19
                                1863        1863                                  1889        1889
                  Thirty-      Dec. 4,     Dec. 11,         7   Fifty-second...  Dec. 7,     Dec. 23,         16
                   ninth.       1865        1865                                  1891        1891
Fortieth <SUP>a</SUP>...................  Mar. 4,      Nov. 25,      266   Fifty-third....  Aug. 7,     Aug. 21,         14
                                1867 <SUP>a</SUP>      1867                                  1893        1893
Forty-first..................  Mar. 4,     Mar. 15,        11   Fifty-fourth...  Dec.2,      Dec 21,          19
                                1869        1869                                  1895        1895
Forty-second <SUP>a</SUP>...............  Mar. 4,     Dec. 4,        275   Fifty-fifth....  Mar. 15,    July 24,        131
                                1871 <SUP>c</SUP>      1871                                  1897 <SUP>d</SUP>      1897
Forty-third..................  Dec. 1,     Dec. 5,          4   Fifty-sixth....  Dec. 4,     Dec. 18,         14
                                1873        1873                                  1899        1899
Forty-fourth.................  Dec. 6,     Dec. 20,        16   Fifty-seventh..  Dec. 2,     Dec. 10,          8
                                1875        1875                                  1901        1901
Forty-fifth..................  Oct. 15,    Oct. 29,        14   Fifty-eighth...  Nov. 9,     Dec. 5,          26
                                1877        1877                                  1903        1903
Forty-sixth..................  Mar. 18,    Apr. 11,        24   Fifty-ninth....  Dec. 4,     Dec. 11,          7
                                1879        1879                                  1905        1905
Forty-seventh................  Dec. 5,     Dec. 21,        16                    ..........  ..........
                                1881        1881
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 <SUP>a</SUP> Held in pursuance of the act of Jan. 22, 1867; Mr. Colfax, Speaker.
<SUP>b</SUP> This session was in adjournment from July 20 to Nov. 21 and from Mar. 30 to July 3. Recesses are counted in
  the elapsed time.
<SUP>c</SUP> This session lasted from Mar. 4 to Apr. 20. The recess is counted in the elapsed time.
<SUP>d</SUP> The duration of this session was from Mar. 15 to July 24. See also Record, p. 1387, first session Fifty-
  fliftli Congress.

  \3\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
  \4\ Journal, p. 260.
  \5\ Journal, pp. 19, 20.
  \6\ Journal, p. 28.
  \7\ Journal, p. 21.
  \8\ Journal, p. 34.
                                                            Sec. 4455
  4455. Before the adoption of rules the House sometimes authorizes the 
Speaker to appoint certain necessary committees.--In 1889,\1\ before 
the adoption of rules, the House by resolution authorized the Speaker 
to appoint committees on Rules, Accounts, Enrolled Bills and Mileage.
  4456. On December 6, 1887,\2\ before the adoption of rules, the House 
agreed to a resolution authorizing the Speaker to appoint certain 
committees--Enrolled Bills, Mileage, Rules, and Accounts, of which the 
numbers should be the same as in the last Congress.
  4457. Although the rules required the Speaker to appoint the standing 
committees, yet it was the invariable practice in former years for him 
not to appoint until directed by order of the House.--On December 9, 
1829,\3\ Mr. Lewis Condict, of New Jersey, offered this resolution:

  Resolved, That the standing committees be now appointed, pursuant to 
the rules and orders of the House.

  Mr. James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, objected that the adoption of 
such a resolution would not give the Speaker proper time to make up his 
committees. It was the third day of the session, and if the resolution 
could go over and be adopted on the following day, the House might then 
adjourn over and give the Speaker until the first of the next week.
  This course was adopted. The resolution was agreed to on December 10, 
but the Speaker immediately announced the committees before the House 
adjourned.\4\
  4458. In the earlier but not in the later practice the Speaker filled 
vacancies on committees only by the special direction of the House.--On 
January 24, 1833,\5\ the House ordered a member of the Committee on 
Commerce to be appointed in place of Mr. John Davis, of Massachusetts, 
who had resigned his seat.
  4459. On September 26, 1850,\6\ the Speaker was authorized by order 
of the House to fill the vacancies on the Committees on Ways and Means, 
three in number.
  4460. On January 7, 1858,\7\ Mr. Speaker Orr filled several vacancies 
on standing committees without special action of the House authorizing 
him so to do.\8\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 6.
  \2\ First session Fiftieth Congress, Journal, p. 17; Record, p. 12.
  \3\ First session Twenty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 28, 29; 
Debates, p. 472.
  \4\ On January 29, 1853, Mr. Speaker Boyd said that he did not feel 
authorized to appoint certain special committees which had existed at 
the preceding session, and which by implication seemed to have been 
continued by the House, without the action of the House authorizing 
him. (Second session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 206, 207; 
Globe, p. 444.)
  \5\ First session Twenty-third Congress, Journal, p. 236.
  \6\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 1541.
  \7\ First session Thirty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 145; Globe, p. 
226.
  \8\ In the year 1900, during the recess between the first and second 
sessions of the fifty-sixth Congress, Mr. Speaker Henderson asked of 
the clerk at the Speaker's table (Asher C. Hinds) an opinion as to 
whether or not the Speaker might fill an existing vacancy on the Ways 
and Means Committee before the assembling of Congress. Following is the 
opinion, to the reasoning of which the Speaker agreed: ``It seems that 
the appointment of a Member on a committee is an act of the Speaker 
which is in order only as a part of the business of the House. It is, 
to use the technical term, the `transaction of business.' The Speaker 
would not think of appointing a Member on a committee at a time when 
the House was without a quorum. It is one of those acts that are always 
recorded in the Journal, and if an appointment
Sec. 4461
  4461. A question as to the privilege of resolutions directing the 
Speaker as to the appointment of committees in a certain way or for 
certain purposes.--In 1867, at the extraordinary session convened by 
law, the Speaker did not appoint the committees of the House until the 
end of the session, except in certain cases where he was directed by 
the House to appoint particular committees.
  On March 15, 1867,\1\ a resolution was presented requesting the 
Speaker to appoint the Committee on Public Expenditures, in order that 
it might proceed with the investigation of the administration of the 
New York custom-house.
  The resolution having been presented as privileged, the Speaker \2\ 
said:

  The Chair rules that a resolution directing the Speaker to appoint 
one of the standing committees of the House is a question of privilege, 
and the resolution is in order and before the House.

  4462. On March 7, 1871,\3\ on the second legislative day of the 
session, Mr. William E. Niblack, of Indiana, as a question of 
privilege, offered the following:

  Resolved, That the Speaker be, and he is hereby, requested to proceed 
at once to appoint the standing committees of this House, reserving 
such vacancies as in his judgment may be proper for Representatives not 
yet elected.

  Mr. Luke P. Poland, of Vermont, raised a question of order as to 
whether or not the resolution was privileged.
  The Speaker \4\ said:

  It is not.

  The resolution was received by unanimous consent, and after debate 
was laid on the table.
  4463. An order providing for the appointment on a committee of two 
Members of the House ``by that body,'' the Speaker declined to appoint
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
should be made in recess there would be no Journal record, unless the 
fact should be announced after the meeting of the House. The 
appointment of a Member on a committee is an act of the same class as 
the administering of the oath to a Member. The Speaker may not do it 
away from the House, even at a time when Congress is in session, except 
by permission of the House. It seems by a fair analogy that the Speaker 
should not appoint a Member of a committee at a time when he is away 
from the House and the House is not in session, unless the House has 
previously given permission. Suppose the House were in session and the 
Speaker were away from it. The appointment of Members on committees (as 
conference committee, for instance) would be a function of the Speaker 
pro tempore in the chair and not of the real Speaker out of the chair. 
Moreover, the parliamentary system of the House presupposes that there 
shall ordinarily be no occasion for such an act. Committees become 
moribund so soon as the session finally adjourns, even when there is to 
be another session of the same Congress, and they may exercise life 
only when the House votes special permission, as it did to Ways and 
Means at the recent session. It might seem at first that on a committee 
so endowed with power to act in recess a vacancy might be filled, for 
it is conceivable that enough vacancies might occur to destroy a quorum 
and thus defeat the wish of the House that the committee act. But 
further reflection makes it plain that such a contingency would be 
something for the House to foresee and guard against by voting to the 
Speaker the power to act during recess as it did vote the power to the 
committee. In such matters as are involved here the rules of the House 
are the law for Speaker as well as for the committees, and if a 
committee may not exercise its functions in recess, why should the 
Speaker be able to?''
  \1\ First session Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 120.
  \2\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Forty-second Congress, Journal, p. 15; Globe, pp. 
16-18.
  \4\ James G. Blaine, of Maine, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 4464
unless specially directed by the House.--On February 9, 1853,\1\ the 
House agreed to a resolution providing that ``two Members of the House 
be appointed by that body'' to join a committee on the part of the 
Senate to notify the President-elect of his election.
  The Speaker \2\ held that from the language of the resolution he 
could not appoint the committee unless directed by the House.
  This direction was thereupon given by motion made and carried.
  4464. In 1877, in accordance with a provision of law, the House 
elected, by viva voce vote, five members of the electoral commission.--
On January 30, 1877,\3\ Mr. Henry B. Payne, of Ohio, as a question of 
privilege, submitted the following resolution, which was agreed to:

  Resolved, That the House do now proceed by viva voce vote to appoint 
five members of the commission provided for in the act approved January 
29, 1877, entitled ``An act to provide for and regulate the counting of 
votes for President and Vice-President and the decisions of questions 
arising thereon, for the term commencing March 4, A. D. 1877.''

  Mr. Lucius Q. C. Lamar, of Mississippi, nominated Messrs. Payne, 
Hunton, J. G. Abbott, of Massachusetts, James A. Garfield, of Ohio, and 
George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts.
  The aforesaid were elected. the Journal recording the names of the 
Members voting for each.
  Then, on motion of Mr. Payne,

  Ordered, That the Speaker appoint two tellers on the part of the 
House of Representatives, as provided for in the aforesaid act.

  4465. The law providing that a committee of the House be ``chosen,'' 
the Speaker never appointed without special sanction of the House.--On 
December 22, 1847,\4\ the following resolution was offered by unanimous 
consent, and agreed to:

  Resolved, That the Speaker be authorized to appoint a committee on 
public printing, according to the provisions of the joint resolution 
entitled ``A joint resolution directing the manner of procuring the 
printing for the two Houses of Congress, approved August 3, 1846.''

  The Speaker,\5\ explained, when this resolution was adopted, that the 
joint resolution used the word `chosen' in regard to this committee, 
and he was therefore in some doubt as to whether he was authorized to 
appoint without the sanction of the House.
  4466. On April 13, 1852,\6\ during consideration of a report from the 
Committee on Printing, Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania, called 
attention to the following provision of law, which also was the 
provision of a joint rule of the two Houses at that time:

  A committee, consisting of three Members of the Senate and three 
Members of the House of Representatives, shall be chosen by their 
respective Houses, which shall constitute a committee on printing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, p. 265; Globe, p. 
550.
  \2\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 331-338; 
Record, p. 1113-1114.
  \4\ First session Thirtieth Congress, Journal, p. 144; Globe, p. 64.
  \5\ Robert C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \6\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, p. 1059.
Sec. 4467
  Mr. Stevens made the point of order that a committee appointed by the 
Speaker did not satisfy the requirement of this provision.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The joint resolution authorizes the two Houses to choose this 
committee. The House of Representatives passed a resolution authorizing 
their organ, the Speaker, to appoint the committee on their part. Even 
if that had not been done, the seventh rule of the House authorizes the 
Speaker to appoint the committee. But to remove all doubt about it, the 
House of Representatives, at the beginning of this session, ordered the 
Speaker to appoint the committee on their part. Such has been the 
practice of this body in every Congress since the joint resolution has 
been adopted. The Chair hopes that every gentleman will understand the 
course of the Speaker, and that the Committee on Printing of this body 
is duly authorized to act under the joint resolution.

  4467. Certain committees were increased in size in the Fifty-ninth 
Congress.
  Creation of the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of 
Commerce and Labor.
  As to proper ratio of majority and minority representation on 
committees.
  On December 11, 1905,\2\ the House agreed to the following:

  Resolved, That section 1 of Rule X be, and hereby is, amended as 
follows:
  By increasing by one member each of the following-named committees: 
Ways and Means, Judiciary, Banking and Currency, Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce, Rivers and Harbors, Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 
Agriculture, Foreign Affairs, Military Affairs, Naval Affairs, Post-
Office and Post-Roads, Public Lands, Indian Affairs, Territories, 
Insular Affairs, Railways and Canals, Mines and Mining, Public 
Buildings and Grounds, Militia, Patents, Invalid Pensions, Pensions, 
District of Columbia, Irrigation of Arid Lands, Census, Industrial Arts 
and Expositions.
  By increasing by two members the Committee on Manufactures and by 
three members the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization.
  By inserting after the designation of the Committee on Expenditures 
in the Department of Agriculture the following:

  ``On Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, to consist 
of seven members.''
  Resolved, That Rule XI be amended as follows:
  By inserting after paragraph 50 a new paragraph, as follows:
  ``51. In the Department of Commerce and Labor; to the Committee on 
Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor.''
  And by renumbering the succeeding paragraphs of Rule XI, and by 
amending in accordance with such renumbering the reference to clause 60 
of Rule XI contained in paragraph 2 of Rule XIII.

  Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, leader of the minority, stated 
that his party would acquiesce in the arrangement, which would permit 
the Speaker, in adjusting majority and minority representation on the 
committees, to approximate the ratio to that of the respective sizes of 
the two parties in the House.\3\
  4468. Instances wherein Members have not been appointed on 
committees.--On March 4, 1867,\4\ at the organization of the House, Mr. 
John Morrissey, of New York, appeared and answered on the call of the 
roll by States, and continued a Member during the Congress.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 296.
  \3\ On January 17, 1882 (First session Forty-seventh Congress, 
Record, p. 457 et seq.), the general subject of the size of the 
committees and an increase thereof was discussed.
  \4\ First session Fortieth Congress, Journal, p. 3.
                                                            Sec. 4469
  On November 25, 1867,\1\ the Speaker \2\ announced his committees, 
but the name of Mr. Morrissey does not appear as receiving an 
appointment.\3\
  On December 11, 1905,\4\ at the announcement of the committees, Mr. 
Claude A. Swanson, of Virginia, who had been elected governor of that 
State and was soon to retire from the House, was not appointed to any 
committee by the Speaker.\5\
  In rare instances Members have been left off of committees by 
inadvertence.\6\
  4469. On March 3, 1843,\7\ Mr. Charles Brown, of Pennsylvania, in 
giving his reason for opposing a motion thanking Mr. Speaker White for 
his impartial administration of the office, said that at the previous 
session he had been assigned to an obscure committee place, from which 
he had resigned. When the committees were made up for the present 
session his name did not appear. He considered this an injustice to his 
constituents.\8\
  4470. Since 1880 the appointment of select committees has by rule 
rested solely with the Speaker.
  Since 1890 the rule has provided that conference committees be 
appointed by the Speaker, although such has been the practice since the 
earliest days of the House.
  Form and history of section 2 of Rule X.
  Section 2 of Rule X, in further specifying the powers of the Speaker 
in the appointment of committees, provides:

  He shall also appoint all select and conference committees which 
shall be ordered by the House from time to time.

  This, so far at it applies to select committees, was reported as a 
new rule in the revision of 1880, and was apparently the result solely 
of an effort to improve the arrangement of the old rules by including 
the enumeration of the standing committees with the clause authorizing 
the Speaker to appoint unless otherwise ordered.\9\ After the 
enumeration it was necessary to add a new clause:

  He shall also appoint all select committees which shall be ordered by 
the House from time to time.

  As the words ``unless otherwise specially ordered by the House'' were 
not included, the apparent effect is to deprive the House of the 
authority which the rule gives it as to standing committees. While the 
House has not cared to exercise the authority as to standing 
committees, it did formerly exercise it on important occasions as to 
select committees; and on other occasions the exercise has been 
attempted.\10\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Journal, pp. 261-265.
  \2\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
  \3\ Mr. Morrissey, according to report, had requested that he be 
given no committee assignment.
  \4\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 120.
  \5\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \6\ Case of Mr. Robert L. Henry, of Texas, in the first session of 
the Fifty-fifth Congress.
  \7\ Third session Twenty-seventh Congress, Globe p. 397.
  \8\ In the Senate May 21, 1880 (second session Forty-sixth Congress, 
Record, p. 3601), Mr. George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts, recalled how 
early Republicans in the Senate were denied committee places as being 
``outside of any healthy political organization.'' Of course such 
instances are extremely rare.
  \9\ See first session Forty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 624, and 
Journal of second session, p. 1541.
  \10\ See sections 4471-4476 for instances.
Sec. 4471
  The provision as to conference committees was added in the revision 
of 1890,\1\ the Committee on Rules deeming the provision necessary and 
proper, as a conference committee was neither a standing nor a select 
committee. Conference committees were omitted from the rule in the 
Fifty-second and Fifty-third Congresses, but restored in the Fifty-
fourth and Fifty-fifth Congresses.\2\
  4471. In 1821 the House ordered that its members of the select 
committee on the admission of Missouri be elected by ballot.
  A joint committee was chosen in 1821 to consider and report to the 
two Houses whether or not it was expedient to make provision to admit 
Missouri to the Union.
  During the second session of the Sixteenth Congress there was a 
prolonged parliamentary struggle over the passage of a joint resolution 
admitting Missouri into the Union. A resolution originating in the 
House for that purpose had, after long debate, been disagreed to by the 
House, and the same fate had befallen a joint resolution passed by the 
Senate and sent to the House. After the House had finally rejected the 
resolution sent from the Senate, Mr. Henry Clay, of Kentucky, on 
February 22, 1821,\3\ proposed in the House this resolution:

  Resolved, That a committee be appointed on the part of this House, 
jointly with such committee as may be appointed on the part of the 
Senate, to consider and report to the Senate and to the House, 
respectively, whether it be expedient or not to make provisions for the 
admission of Missouri into the Union, on the game footing as the 
original States, and for the due execution of the laws of the United 
States within Missouri; and if not, whether any other, and what, 
provision adapted to her actual condition ought to be made by law.

  This resolution having been agreed to, on motion of Mr. Clay it was--

  Ordered, That the said committee consist of twenty-three members; and 
that they be elected by ballot, pursuant to the rules and orders of the 
House.

  On motion of Mr. Samuel C. Allen, of Massachusetts, the House voted 
to proceed to the election on the succeeding day at 12 o'clock.
  On February 23 the ballot was taken, a committee of three being 
appointed to count the ballots and report the result to the House. This 
committee retired by leave of the House as soon as the ballot had been 
taken, and the House proceeded with business, resolving itself into 
Committee of the Whole.
  The Committee of the Whole having risen, the committee made report of 
the result of the ballot. Seventeen members had received a majority of 
the whole number of votes cast, and there remained six members to be 
chosen. Mr. Clay, in order to avoid the delay of another ballot, asked 
unanimous consent that the remaining six be selected from those 
standing next highest of the ballot already taken. It was suggested 
that the Speaker appoint the remaining six, and the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ See House Report No. 23, first session Fifty-first Congress.
  \2\ Conference committees have been appointed by the Speaker from the 
earliest years. Thus, in 1798 Mr. Speaker Dayton said that the managers 
of conferences were appointed like other committees, i. e., by the 
Speaker (second session Fifth Congress, Annals, Vol. I, p. 952), and 
this seems to have been the unbroken practice from that time, whether 
the rule existed or not. The omission of the rule in the Fifty-second 
and Fifty-third Congresses resulted in no change in the practice.
  \3\ Second session Sixteenth Congress, Journal, pp. 70, 227, 262-264, 
266, 267 (Gales & Seaton ed.); Annals, pp. 1219, 1223
                                                            Sec. 4472
Speaker having intimated that he should, were the duty to devolve on 
him, select the six from those standing highest among the names of 
those balloted for but not elected, it was so arranged, and the Speaker 
made the appointment.
  The resolution of the House was taken up in the Senate on February 
24,\1\ and some question was raised as to the course of procedure. Mr. 
William Smith, of South Carolina, said that if the House had sent back 
the resolution of the Senate with an amendment on which the two Houses 
could not agree, a committee of conference would be proper on the 
disagreeing votes; but a conference on an original proposition seemed 
to him a novelty. Mr. James Barbour, of Virginia, denied that the 
course proposed by the other House was a novelty, either in the 
proceedings of Congress or of the English Parliament. It was proper 
that when the two Houses could not agree on the principles of a public 
act there should be a joint committee to devise a course in which the 
two Houses would probably meet.
  The Senate then agreed to the proposition--yeas 29, nays 7. A 
committee of seven were then appointed on the part of the Senate to 
join the committee of twenty-three on the part of the House.
  On February 26 \2\ Mr. Clay, chairman of the joint committee, 
reported a joint resolution providing for the admission of Missouri 
into the Union. Mr. Clay said the committee on the part of the Senate 
was unanimous on the subject and that on the part of the House nearly 
so.\3\ The resolution was considered by the House and on its final 
passage received 87 yeas, 81 nays.
  The bill being carried to the Senate, was considered there, and 
passed on February 28,\4\--yeas 28, nays 14.
  4472. In 1839 and 1840 committees of investigation were elected by 
ballot.--On January 17, 1839,\5\ the House agreed to the following 
resolution:

  Resolved, That the communication from the President of the United 
States of December 8, 1838, relating to the defalcation of the late 
collector of the port of New York, except so much as relates to the 
modification of the revenue laws, be referred to a select committee of 
nine members, to be appointed by the House by ballot, whose duty it 
shall be to inquire into the causes and extent of the late 
defalcations, etc.

  As originally presented this resolution provided for the appointment 
of this committee by a viva voce vote, but an amendment striking out 
that provision and providing for the appointment of the committee by 
ballot was agreed to--yeas 113, nays 106.
  The House having agreed to a motion to proceed to ballot for the 
committee, the committee were elected in accordance with the provisions 
of the rule relating to balloting. Several who had been chosen were, at 
their own request, excused from serving, and their successors were 
elected by additional ballotings.
  4473. On January 30, 1840,\6\ the House agreed to the following 
resolution:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Annals, p. 382.
  \2\ Journal, pp. 270, 277; Annals, pp. 1228, 1236-1238.
  \3\ This indicates what must have been the fact, that the two 
portions of the joint committee voted separately.
  \4\ Annals, pp. 388, 390.
  \5\ Third session Twenty-fifth Congress, Journal, pp. 312-320; Globe, 
pp. 123, 126.
  \6\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 260, 266, 268; 
Globe, pp. 158, 160.
Sec. 4474
  Resolved, That the House proceed instanter to the election of a 
printer, and that as soon as the election shall have taken place a 
committee of five members be elected viva voce by the House to consider 
and investigate the subject of public printing, etc.

  On January 31 and February 3 the election of the committee took 
place, a majority of the whole number of votes being required for the 
choice of members. Three members were elected on the first vote and two 
on the second.
  4474. In 1832 a motion that the committee to investigate the Bank of 
the United States be chosen by ballot was defeated by a tie vote.
  The report of the select committee on the Bank of the United States, 
submitted to the House in 1832, was accompanied by minority views and 
individual views.
  On February 23, 1832,\1\ Mr. Augustin S. Clayton, of Georgia, 
presented this resolution:

  Resolved, That a select committee be appointed to examine into the 
affairs of the Bank of the United States, with power to send for 
persons and papers, and to report the result of their inquiries to this 
House.

  On March 7 \2\ Mr. Erastus Root, of New York, moved to amend the 
resolution so that the committee therein proposed to be appointed 
should be chosen by ballot \3\ and consist of seven members.
  Mr. Root explained that he intended to express no distrust of the 
Speaker, but he thought the resolution ought to go to a committee the 
majority of whom were friendly to the institution of some national 
bank. It was argued, on the other hand, that the investigation should 
be in the hands of those favoring the inquiry. Some argued that the 
attitude of the majority of the committee was not material, since, 
under the custom that had pertained of late on important matters, it 
had been usual to have reports both from the committee and the minority 
of the committee. The rule of Jefferson's Manual was quoted as to the 
constitution of committees, and it was alleged that the intention of 
the amendment proposed by Mr. Root was to violate the parliamentary 
usage by electing a committee friendly to the bank, and therefore not 
in sympathy with the purposes of the resolution.\4\
  On March 8 Mr. Root's amendment was decided in the negative--yeas 88, 
nays 92. But on March 9 the House reconsidered this vote, 98 yeas to 93 
nays, and on March 13 \5\ the question was taken again on the 
proposition to appoint the committee by ballot and limit it to seven 
members. And there were, yeas 100, nays 100. Thereupon the Speaker 
voted with the nays.\6\
  On March 14,\7\ after the resolution had been amended, it was agreed 
to, and the Speaker appointed a committee of seven. Mr. Clayton was 
made chairman, and Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, who had 
proposed an essential amendment (which had been agreed to) was named 
second.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Twenty-first Congress, Journal, p. 402; Debates, p. 
1846.
  \2\ Journal, p. 449; Debates, p. 2042.
  \3\ On May 14, 1832, on another question, a motion was made that a 
committee be chosen by ballot, but the House decided adversely. 
Journal, p. 740, first session Thirty-second Congress.
  \4\ For this debate see pages 2098, 2101, 2103, 2113.
  \5\ Journal, p. 479; Debates, p. 2128.
  \6\ This was unnecessary.
  \7\ Journal, p. 494; Debates, p. 2163.
                                                            Sec. 4475
  On May 1 \1\ Mr. Clayton presented the report of the committee; and 
Mr. Adams, in the course of debate, announced his intention of 
submitting his observations in the form of a report.
  On May 11,\2\ Mr. George McDuffie, of South Carolina, from the 
minority, presented a statement of their grounds of dissent.
  A motion to print an extra number of the report and the views of the 
minority was withheld until Mr. Adams should present his views.
  On May 14,\3\ Mr. Adams presented his views, and the whole matter \4\ 
was ordered printed.
  Mr. Adams, besides presenting his own views, signed the minority 
views with Messrs. McDuffie and Watmough. Mr. Watmough also signed a 
note of concurrence in the individual views presented by Mr. Adams.
  The majority of the committee presented a report not friendly to the 
bank.
  4475. Instances wherein the House declined to take from the Speaker 
the appointment of select committees.--On March 31, 1808,\5\ the House 
having authorized a select committee to inquire into the conduct of 
Judge Inness, Mr. Richard Stanford, of North Carolina, moved that the 
committee be appointed by ballot. After discussion as to former 
practice, the motion was disagreed to.
  On April 4, 1810,\6\ the House having authorized a select committee 
to inquire into the conduct of Gen. James Wilkinson, Mr. Timothy 
Pitkin, jr., of Connecticut, moved that the committee be appointed by 
ballot. This motion was decided in the negative, yeas 52, nays 64.
  On April 19, 1824,\7\ a motion that a committee be appointed by 
ballot and not by the Speaker was negatived.
  4476. On February 9, 1827,\8\ the House had voted to refer to a 
select committee the message of the President communicating a letter of 
the Governor of Georgia in relation to the Creek treaties, when Mr. 
Wiley Thompson, of Georgia, moved that the committee be appointed by 
ballot. He declared that the motion proceeded from a sense of the 
importance of the subject and not from lack of confidence in the 
Speaker.
  Mr. Joseph Vance, of Ohio, opposed the motion, as tending to 
unnecessary delay.
  The question being taken by yeas and nays, the motion was disagreed 
to, yeas 90, nays 104.
  The Speaker \9\ thereupon appointed the committee.
  On September 19, 1837,\10\ a proposition was made that an 
investigating committee be appointed by ballot, Mr. Henry A. Wise, of 
Virginia, the mover, saying that the rules provided that the Speaker 
should appoint only when not otherwise specially directed by the House. 
The motion was not carried.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Journal, p. 676; Debates, pp. 2651, 2663.
  \2\ Journal, p. 720; Debates, p. 2940.
  \3\ Journal, p. 744; Debates, p. 3036.
  \4\ For these reports, see Appendix of Debates, pp. 33, 46, 54.
  \5\ First session Tenth Congress, Annals, p. 1886.
  \6\ Second session Eleventh Congress, Journal, p. 347 (Gales & Seaton 
ed.); Annals, p. 1756.
  \7\ First session Eighteenth Congress, Annals, p. 2455.
  \8\ Second session Nineteenth Congress, Journal, p. 273; Debates, pp. 
1052, 1053.
  \9\ John W. Taylor, of New York, Speaker.
  \10\ First session Twenty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 76; Globe, p. 
46.
Sec. 4477
  4477. A Member may be named of a committee before he is sworn.
  The old rule of Parliament that none but those friendly to a bill 
should be of the committee and the practice of party representation on 
the standing committees of the House. (Footnote.)
  The ratios of majority and minority representation on the committees 
is determined by the Speaker. (Footnote.)
  Jefferson's Manual has the following provisions as to the appointment 
of committees:

  Section. III. Before a return be made a Member elected may be named 
of a committee, and is to every extent a Member, except that he can not 
vote until he is sworn.\1\
  Section XXVI. Those who take exceptions to some particulars in the 
bill are to be of the committee, but none who speak directly against 
the body of the bill, for he that would totally destroy will not amend 
it (Hakew., 146; Town., col. 208; D'Ewes, 634, col. 2; Scob., 47); or, 
as is said (5 Gray, 145), the child is not to be put to a nurse that 
cares not for it (6 Gray, 373). It is therefore a constant rule ``that 
no man is to be employed in any matter who has declared himself against 
it.'' And when any Member who is against the bill hears himself named 
of its committee he ought to ask to be excused.\2\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ It is the general practice for the Speakers in appointing the 
standing committees to name the Members who have been returned, without 
inquiry as to whether or not they have yet taken the oath.
  \2\ This is not the practice of the House at present, nor has it been 
for many years. The standing committees are made up on party lines, the 
majority party in the House having a majority of the membership of each 
committee, and the minority representation being arranged in proportion 
to the relative size of the minority. In recent Congresses the ratio of 
majority and minority representation on the Ways and Means Committee as 
related to party majorities on the floor of the House shows in a 
general way the usage in this matter:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Party                                                Party
                                   majority   Proportion on                             majority   Proportion on
            Congress.                 on        committee.            Congress.            on       committee.
                                    floor.                                               floor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifty-first......................         6  8 to 5           Fifty-sixth.............        13  10 to 7
Fifty-second.....................       129  10 to 5          Fifty-seventh...........        34  11 to 6
Fifty-third......................        84  11 to 6          Fifty-eighth............        30  11 to 6
Fifty-fourth.....................       133  11 to 6          Fifty-ninth.............       116  12 to 6
Fifty-fifth......................        50  11 to 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The same ratios have not been followed exactly in other committees; 
but the ratios on the Ways and Means Committee are a fair example of 
the divisions.
  In select and conference committees the party divisions are not 
considered so strictly, but the principle that the opposition, whether 
of party or principle, should be represented, is always followed in 
making up the committees.
  The arrangement of the proportion of majority and minority members on 
committees is made by the Speaker, and party considerations have 
entered into the exercise of this duty for many years. As early as 
January 28, 1828 (first session Twentieth Congress, Debates, p. 1222): 
the debates contain intimations that the Speaker had in constituting 
the principal committees considered somewhat the lines of difference 
between those who favored and those who opposed the Administration. On 
April 8, 1836 (first session Twenty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 653; 
Debates, p. 3226), a rule was proposed that it should be the duty of 
the Speaker to appoint a majority, at least, of the members of each 
standing committee, without respect to party, and of competent 
individuals. This rule was not adopted. At this time (Debates, p. 3228) 
a brief debate indicates that the drawing of party lines in making up 
the committees was at that time recognized as a long-established usage. 
On March 3, 1843 (third session Twenty-seventh Congress, Globe, p. 
398), Mr. Charles J. Ingersoll, of Pennsylvania, said that the 
committees had been selected on party and political grounds during the 
thirty years in which he had had experience of the House. On March 3, 
1839 (third session Twenty-fifth Congress, Globe, p. 236), Mr. Sargent 
S. Prentiss, of Mississippi, criticised Mr. Speaker Polk, not for 
making up partisan committees, for that was admitted to have been the 
custom; but for having given too small minority representation.
                                                            Sec. 4478
Thus, March 7, 1606, Mr. Hadley was, on the question being put, excused 
from being of a committee, declaring himself to be against the matter 
itself. (Scob., 46.)

  4478. On January 14, 1902,\1\ in the Senate, while discussing a 
resolution proposing a committee to investigate the condition of 
affairs in the Philippines, Mr. George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts, said:

  I do not expect, and I do not think it would be reasonable to desire, 
that a committee of that kind should be appointed by the Senate which 
did not represent in its formation the prevalent opinion on the subject 
with which it has to deal of the majority of the Senate, let that 
opinion be right or wrong. It is of course proper that in all 
legislative bodies great public questions should be committed to 
instrumentalities composed of persons in accord with the prevalent 
policy, and I do not expect anything else.

  4479. Instance wherein Members-elect were appointed on committees 
before taking the oath.
  Members-elect unofficially known to be under indictment or actually 
convicted after indictment were yet appointed on committees.
  Instance wherein a Senator accused of crime was omitted from 
committees at his own request.
  A Senator having died while under conviction of crime no announcement 
of his death was made to the Senate.
  Instance wherein a Senator's name was dropped from the roll on 
unofficial information of his death.
  At the beginning of the fifty-ninth Congress, when the House 
assembled on December 4, 1905,\2\ two Members-elect of the House from 
Oregon--Messrs. Binger Hermann and John N. Williamson--did not appear. 
It was generally known, through the public prints, that Mr. Hermann was 
under indictment in Oregon and that Mr. Williamson had been convicted, 
after indictment, and was awaiting the result of an appeal.
  When the Speaker \3\ announced his committees on December 11 \4\ it 
appeared that he had named Mr. Hermann as a member of the Committee on 
Election of President, Vice-President, and Representatives in Congress, 
and Indian Affairs, and Mr. Williamson on Mines and Mining and 
Irrigation of Arid Lands.\5\
  Mr. John H. Mitchell, a Senator from Oregon, had been indicted and 
convicted of an offense similar to that alleged against Messrs. Hermann 
and Williamson, but had died pending an appeal and after the assembling 
of the Senate. Also Mr. Joseph R. Burton, a Senator from Kansas, had 
been tried and convicted and was awaiting the result of an appeal when, 
on December 18,\6\ certain proceedings took place in the Senate.
  Mr. Eugene Hale, of Maine, had reported the assignment of Senators to 
committees, saving:

  Mr: President, every Senator upon the roll has been assigned upon 
different committees by the committees from both sides to make up the 
committees, with the exception of the Senator from Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 649.
  \2\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 40.
  \3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \4\ Record, p. 297.
  \5\ Of course these Members had not taken the oath. Mr. Hermann 
appeared and took the oath January 15, 1906. (First session Fifty-ninth 
Congress, Record, p. 1110.) Mr. Williamson did not appear during the 
session.
  \6\ Record, pp. 538-544.
Sec. 4479
[Mr. Burton], who himself desired--and made his wish known to the 
committee having the matter in charge--that during the pendency of 
examination into the case against him no assignment be made him upon 
any committee; and upon that no assignment was made in his case. That 
is the only exception.

  Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, announced that he was opposed to the 
English practice of allowing the courts to dispose of such a matter 
before the taking of it up by the legislative body. Mr. Bailey said 
also:

  Mr. President, it is an exceedingly disagreeable duty to raise a 
question as to the rights of any Senator in this body, but I am not 
able to see how the Senate can leave a Senator upon the roll of the 
Senate and still not assign him to a committee. So long as a man is a 
Senator he ought to be permitted to exercise his privileges as a 
Senator and he ought to be required to perform the duties of a Senator.
  I sympathize with the delicacy of the task which the committee had 
before it. I also appreciate the force of the argument that when a 
question affecting the character and conduct of a Senator is under 
investigation by the courts it might be well for the Senate to withhold 
any judgment or proceeding until the final disposition of the criminal 
charge in the courts of the country. But, sir, there is another side of 
that question. Whenever a Senator can not come to his seat in this 
Chamber, can not attend the meetings of our committees, and can not 
answer to his name on the roll call, the effect of it is to deprive the 
State which he represents of at least a part of its representation in 
this body.
  I believe the rule ought to be that when a charge affecting the 
fitness of a Senator to continue in this body is made in such a way as 
to challenge the attention of the Senate, a committee ought to be 
appointed, or the matter ought to be referred to some standing 
committee of the Senate, and they ought to report without delay upon 
the right of that Senator to continue as a Member of this body. If he 
is found unfit, the Senate owes it to the State which he represents, 
the Senate owes it to the country which it represents, and the Senate, 
most of all, owes it to itself to dispose of that question without the 
least delay.
  I do not concede to any court the right to decide who is entitled to 
a seat in this body. The Constitution commits that to us in the first 
instance and in the last instance. We are to judge of their election 
and qualifications when they come; and, under our power of expulsion, 
we are to judge how long they may remain.
  The rule is different here from that which prevails in the courts. 
There, as a safeguard for the liberty of the citizen, he must have his 
guilt established beyond a reasonable doubt; here the rule ought to be 
that he must free himself from all appearance of wrongdoing beyond 
reasonable doubt.
  Mr. President, this is not the time to discuss this question on its 
merits. I simply embrace the opportunity to declare my belief that the 
Senate should determine this question without waiting longer on the 
courts.
  We are already in a most awkward attitude. The death of a Member of 
this body has not yet been announced to it. His successor will soon 
appear at that bar to take upon himself the obligations of the office, 
and yet the credentials of that successor will be the first formal 
notice the Senate will have received of the death of the predecessor.
  Mr. President, we can not afford to be too tender with these 
questions. I would be the last man here or elsewhere to stain an 
honorable name by even proposing an unjust inquiry; but Senators who do 
behave themselves ought not to rest under the shadow of a suspicion 
cast upon the Senate by those who do not behave themselves.
  Without any formal motion, I protest against recognizing the right of 
a Senator to remain upon the roll and yet denying him the right of an 
assignment to a committee.

  Mr. John C. Spooner, of Wisconsin, said:

  The embarrassment and mortification arising through the indictment of 
Senators for violating the law of the land are of course confined to no 
Senator nor to one side of the Senate. It is a feeling which is shared 
by all of us. The subject, to my knowledge, has had much consideration 
on the other side of the Chamber and on this side, as to the proper 
course which in dignity and justice the Senate should pursue in such 
cases.
  I agree with the Senator from Texas [Mr. Bailey] that the action of 
the committee and the Senate, if the report shall be adopted, in 
omitting the Senator from Kansas from all committees is anomalous, for 
he is a Member of the Senate. His name is on the roll--as legally there 
as that of any other Senator.
                                                            Sec. 4479
He is entitled to vote; he is entitled to act upon committees, for a 
State which is entitled to send a Senator into this body, as all the 
States are--and it can not be deprived of that right by the Senate or 
by any law--is entitled to have the Senator it sends here participate 
in the important legislative duties involved in committee action. But 
this is all changed by the request of the Senator not to be included in 
committee assignments.
  So when it was suggested to this committee that the Senator from 
Kansas should, under the circumstances, be omitted from the list of 
committees, we were confronted at once by the suggestion which his been 
made by the Senator from Texas, and we were only relieved from the 
embarrassment by the request of the Senator from Kansas. The Senator 
from Kansas has acted with great propriety in absenting himself from 
the Senate under the circumstances. It has been, I am bound to assume 
and believe, out of a proper sense of delicacy and deference to his 
colleagues. No Senator is ever displaced from a committee, when once 
placed there by the Senate, without his consent, except, so far as I 
remember, Mr. Sumner; and we were relieved and gratified that the 
Senator from Kansas should have supplemented his absence from the 
Senate Chamber, pending the determination in the courts of his case, by 
a request that he be not assigned, until that determination, to any 
positions on committees.
  Now, if the State of Kansas is deprived for the time of a Senator it 
is not by the Senate. She is deprived of a part of her representation 
here for a time by the position in which one of the Senators finds 
himself. That is embarrassing. There is only one man I know who can 
relieve the Senate in such a case of its embarrassment, unless we 
abandon the English rule on the subject, and that is the Senator who is 
involved. A Senator might leave his place in the Senate, if he were so 
minded, fight out the battle in the courts, establish his innocence, if 
possible, and then go to his State and ask to be returned in 
vindication to this body. That is a remedy we can not control.
  The Senator from Texas referred to the case of Senator Dietrich, of 
Nebraska. Senator Dietrich asked for no investigation by the Senate 
while his case was sub judice. After the circuit court of the United 
States for the district of Nebraska had dismissed the indictment and 
discharged Senator Dietrich, holding the indictment to be bad, he came 
into the Senate, made a statement, and presented a resolution for the 
appointment of a select committee to investigate his case. * * *
  Mr. President, whatever the Senate might do, whatever its 
determination might be, the jurisdiction of the court would remain 
unaffected. The officers of another branch of the Government would not 
deem themselves obstructed in the regular prosecution of that 
indictment. This indicted Senator, with his case prepared to be 
presented in the usual way in a court of justice, would be summoned to 
his defense before a committee of the Senate and called upon to give to 
the committee and to his prosecutors in the court all the evidence 
gathered for his defense. That, Mr. President, would be unjust. it 
would handicap him in his defense unless there were some way to bring 
about an acquiescence by the other department of the Government, the 
judicial, in the action or judgment of the Senate.
  Then, too, in prosecuting this investigation the Senate would be 
entitled, and ought to be entitled, to the evidence possessed by the 
Government against the Senator. We could not very well ask the 
Department of Justice to send here the whole case. And the whole case 
ought to be before the Senate--just as it should be before a court--
before judgment, either of acquittal or condemnation. We could not very 
well summon the Department of Justice and the district attorney of the 
district to bring before a Senate committee all the evidence gathered 
by the Government and upon which it relied for conviction. That would 
embarrass the judicial and executive departments of the Government in 
the discharge of public duty.
  And, Mr. President, there is another and worse feature about such a 
course. Men sometimes are indicted not so much upon the truth as by way 
of conspiracy or in obedience to public clamor. In a criminal case, 
pending trial before a common-law jury in the tribunal created by the 
Constitution for the determination of such cases, an expulsion from the 
Senate and judgment arrived at upon a partial knowledge of the case 
would go with crushing and inexpressible weight against a possibly 
innocent man.
  In support of the English rule, what the Senator from Texas says is 
absolutely true, that this body in determining who shall leave it and 
who may remain in it is above the courts and it is above the Congress. 
It is a part of the penalty denounced by the statute in cases like the 
one pending in Missouri that upon conviction the defendant shall be 
disqualified forever from holding any office of trust, honor, or profit 
under the United States. Of course, as to a Senator or a Member of the 
House of Representatives, that part of the penalty denounced by the 
statute is absolutely void and ineffective.
Sec. 4480
* * * This provision of the statute can not by any human possibility 
operate to vacate a Senator's seat or the seat of a Member of the 
House, because the Constitution has made each body the sole judge of 
the election, qualifications, and return of its Members. It requires 
two-thirds to expel a Member and two-thirds to expel a Senator, and a 
majority only to enact this law. It is impossible that it could apply 
or could operate to vacate the seat of a Senator.

  Mr. Bailey, as to this part of the argument, said:

  I thoroughly agree with the Senator from Wisconsin that it is beyond 
the power of the Congress to prescribe who is qualified and who is 
disqualified to sit in this Chamber. The Constitution fixes that, and 
under the Constitution the Senate is the judge of it. All that the law 
meant--I assume all that the lawmakers intended it to mean--is that if 
a Senator or Representative should be convicted under that statute he 
is disqualified forever after, not to sit in this body or in the House 
at the other end of this Capitol--because Congress had no power to 
determine that--but he is disqualified from holding any other office of 
profit or trust. If the judgment of a court were, brought to the bar of 
this Senate and tendered as a reason why we should unseat one Senator 
and seat another I would never recognize the validity of that statute 
to such an extent. If a Senator or a Member, having been convicted of a 
violation of that statute, sought an appointment under the Government 
to some other place then I should say the statute would operate as a 
bar against him. I admit the right of no court to determine who may or 
who may not sit in this Chamber.

  Mr. Spooner in conclusion said:

  So, Mr. President, if the court acquitted a Senator the Senate would 
be entirely at liberty, and if the circumstances seemed to justify it 
would be shamefully derelict if it failed to investigate the Senator 
acquitted by a jury and to try the case for itself, and if convinced 
that the man was unworthy of a seat in the body to pronounce and 
execute that judgment against him. That affords the remedy without at 
the same time prejudicing either the Government or the defendant by an 
abandonment of the English rule.
  Of course, every Member of this body wishes there were no such 
questions possible to be suggested. Now, as to the failure of the 
Senator from Oregon [Mr. Fulton]--for it was his duty under the 
custom--to announce the death of the late Senator from Oregon. He 
consulted his colleagues about it. It is just to him to say that in 
this public way since the question has been raised.

  No action was taken by the Senate on Senator Mitchell's death; and no 
announcement was made of it; but on a roll call of December 11, 
1905,\1\ it appears that his name had been dropped from the roll.
  4480. On December 11, 1905,\2\ the Speaker \3\ named Mr. Joseph C. 
Sibley, of Pennsylvania, as chairman of the Committee on Manufactures 
and a member of the Committee on Post-Office and Post-Roads; Mr. Binger 
Herman, of Oregon, a member of Indian Affairs and Election of 
President, etc.; and Mr. John N. Williamson, of Oregon, a member of 
Mines and Mining and Irrigation of Arid Lands. None of these gentlemen 
had taken the oath. Mr. Sibley took the oath on December 18.\4\ Mr. 
William G. Brantley, of Georgia, was appointed a member of Judiciary 
and Public Buildings and Grounds, although he did not appear to take 
the oath until December 19.\5\ Mr. Williamson did not appear during the 
session.
  4481. On February 3, 1902,\6\ Mr. Melville Bull, of Rhode Island, 
appeared and took the oath of office prescribed by law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Senate Journal, p. 42.
  \2\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 297.
  \3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \4\ Record, p. 546.
  \5\ Record, p. 591.
  \6\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 298; Record, p. 
1249.
                                                            Sec. 4482
  Mr. Bull was on the roll of Members elect at the organization of the 
House, and had been appointed to committee places, including the 
chairmanship of the Committee on Accounts, before being sworn.
  4482. On January 5, 1903,\1\ Mr. De Witt C. Flanagan, of New Jersey, 
was sworn in. He had previously been appointed a member of the 
Committee on Claims.
  4483. An instance wherein a Member-elect was appointed on a committee 
long before he took the oath.--On March 15,1869,\2\ Mr. Samuel S. Cox, 
of New York, was appointed a member of the Committee on Banking and 
Currency by Mr. Speaker Blaine, although he had not appeared and taken 
the oath or his seat. He was not on the roll during that session. At 
the beginning of the second session, when the roll of Members was 
called by States, Mr. Cox was not called, as the Clerk had not placed 
him on the roll, the authority of the Clerk to place names on the roll 
being given for the time of the organization of the House only. So, 
after the roll had been called, the credentials of Mr. Cox were 
presented, and he was sworn.\3\
  4484. A Member-elect who had been appointed on a committee before 
taking the oath, not having appeared, the Speaker, with the consent of 
the House, appointed another Member to the vacancy.
  Instance wherein a Member elect, being convicted in the courts on 
indictment, did not take his seat during the Congress. (Footnote.)
  On January 4, 1907,\4\ the Speaker \5\ made this announcement:

  The Chair appoints Mr. Englebright, of California, a member of the 
Committee on Mines and Mining in the place of Mr. Williamson, of 
Oregon, who has not appeared and taken his seat in this House.
  In connection with this appointment the Chair desires to say that Mr. 
Williamson was appointed as a member of the Committee on Mines and 
Mining at the beginning of the first session of this Congress. In 
accordance with the parliamentary law, as laid down in Jefferson's 
Manual, a Member elect may be named on a committee before he has 
qualified. There are quite a number of early precedents in similar 
cases where Members had been appointed to committees before taking 
their seats and afterwards were removed from the committees by the 
Speaker because of nonappearance, and in order to make room for the 
appointment of other Members in their places. The Chair is inclined to 
the opinion on all of the precedents that this appointment is in 
harmony with the precedents, but prefers to say that if there be no 
objection the appointment will stand. [After a pause.] The Chair hears 
no objection.\6\

  4485. In the early days the House was often particular that an absent 
Member should not be appointed or retained on a committee.--On February 
10, 1804 \7\--

  Ordered, That Mr. Baldwin be appointed of the Committee of Elections, 
in the room of Mr. Goddard, who hath obtained leave of absence for the 
remainder of the session.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 24, 75; 
Record, p. 501.
  \2\ First session Forty-first Congress, Journal, p. 46.
  \3\ Second session Forty-first Congress, Journal, p. 7. Globe, p. 9.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 635.
  \5\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois.
  \6\ Mr. J. N. Williamson, of Oregon, had been indicted in Oregon for 
an offense before the assembling of the Congress, and had been 
convicted. He had appealed, and that appeal was pending during the 
Congress. He had not appeared to take the oath in the House at the time 
the Speaker took this action; but the House had taken no action in 
relation to his case. Mr. Williamson did not appear during the 
Congress. No other action was taken by the House in his case.
  \7\ First session Eighth Congress, Journal, p. 572 (Gales and Seaton 
ed.).
Sec. 4486
  A similar instance is noted on March 10, 1804, when a vacancy on the 
Committee on Enrolled Bills was filled.\1\
  4486. On December 15, 1842,\2\ Mr. William A. Harris, of Virginia, 
was appointed of the Committee on Indian Affairs, in place of Mr. 
William M. Gwin, of Mississippi, ``who has not appeared in the House at 
the present session.''
  Mr. Gwin appeared December 17.\3\
  4487. On December 6, 1836,\4\ the usual order was presented ``that 
the standing committees be now appointed, according to the standing 
rules and orders of the House.''
  Thereupon a question arose as to the appointment of Members to 
committee places who had not yet attended.
  The Speaker \5\ declared that he could not appoint an absent Member 
to a committee.
  Thereupon Mr. Charles F. Mercer, of Virginia, moved to amend the 
proposed order by adding the words: ``and that the absence of a Member 
shall not be regarded as a disqualification for an appointment upon a 
committee.''
  The consideration of the matter being postponed until the next day, 
Mr. Mercer did not press his amendment, as more Members had arrived, 
and there seemed less need of it.\6\ So the amendment was disagreed to.
  4488. The fact that a Member's seat is contested is not necessarily 
taken into account in appointing him to committees.--On January 12, 
1897,\7\ Mr. Charles J. Boatner, of Louisiana, who had been unseated at 
the preceding session, and whose seat was again contested because of 
alleged frauds and irregularities at the second election, was appointed 
a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  4489. The Speaker in filling vacancies on a committee sometimes 
designates the rank of the appointee on the committee list.--On 
December 2, 1902,\8\ the Speaker \9\ announced the following committee 
appointments:

  Mr. Ebenezer J. Hill, of Connecticut, as a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, to be numbered 11 on the list, and the majority members 
below the vacancy caused by the death of Mr. Russell to be advanced one 
number each.
  Mr. Henry W. Palmer, of Pennsylvania, as a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary, to be numbered 11 on the list, and the other majority 
members to be advanced one number each.

  4490. A Member may decline to serve on a committee only with 
permission of the House.--On August 11, 1842,\10\ Mr. W. W. Irwin, of 
Pennsylvania, asked to be excused from serving on the select committee 
appointed on the message
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Journal, p. 632.
  \2\ Third session Twenty-seventh Congress., Journal, p. 65.
  \3\ Journal, p. 67.
  \4\ Second session Twenty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 8, 9, 32; 
Debates, pp. 1043, 1046, 1047.
  \5\ James K. Polk, of Tennessee, Speaker.
  \6\ At this time it was the usage to appoint the committees at each 
session of Congress.
  \7\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 20, 78, 86.
  \8\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 8; Record, p. 
19.
  \9\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \10\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Globe, p. 882.
                                                            Sec. 4491
of the President returning with his objections the bill (H. R. 472) to 
provide revenue from imports, etc. Mr. Irwin asked if he was not at 
liberty to decline serving on the committee.
  The Speaker \1\ replied that he was not, and that it was for the 
House to say whether or not the gentleman was to be excused from 
serving.
  4491. On July 15, 1870 \2\ Mr. Noah Davis, of New York, resigned his 
position as a member of the Judiciary Committee, and the Speaker \3\ 
appointed another Member in his place without putting any question on 
allowing Mr. Davis to decline.
  Mr. Davis resigned from the House before the next session.\4\
  4492. On March 24, 1864,\5\ Mr. William H. Wadsworth, of Kentucky, 
resigned his position on the Committee on Public Lands under the then 
existing rule,\6\ that ``any Member may excuse himself from serving on 
any committee at the time of his appointment, if he is then a Member of 
two other committees.''
  4493. On June 8, 1860,\7\ Mr. George S. Houston, of Alabama, offered 
his resignation as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The Speaker \8\ said:

  In the opinion of the Chair no member can withdraw from a committee 
without the consent of the House, unless he is at the same time a 
member of two other committees.\9\

  Mr. Miles Taylor, of Louisiana, moved that Mr. Houston and himself be 
excused from further service on the Committee on the Judiciary.
  On June 9 the House laid this motion on the table, ayes 62, noes 57, 
thus in effect denying to the two Members their requests that they be 
allowed to resign.
  4494. While the House has usually granted requests of Members that 
they be excused from committee service, it has sometimes refused.--On 
November 2, 1807,\10\ on motion made by himself, Mr. David Thomas, of 
New York, was by the House excused from service on the Committee on 
Commerce and Manufactures.
  4495. On January 19, 1827,\11\ the Speaker laid before the House a 
letter from Mr. Louis McLane, of Delaware, asking that on account of 
ill health he be excused from service on the Committee on Ways and 
Means, of which he was chairman.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John White, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Forty-first Congress, Journal, p. 1290; Globe, p. 
5655.
  \3\ James G. Blaine, of Maine, Speaker.
  \4\ Third session Forty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 23, 24.
  \5\ First session Thirty-eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 425, 1042.
  \6\ Adopted April 13, 1789.
  \7\ First session Thirty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 1042, 1045; 
Globe, pp. 2776, 2777, 2797.
  \8\ William Pennington, of New Jersey, Speaker.
  \9\ Rule 69 at that time provided: ``Any Member may excuse himself 
from serving on any committee at the time of his appointment if he is 
then a member of two other committees.'' This rule, which dated from 
April 13, 1789, is no longer in force. Mr. Houston had been serving for 
some time on the Committee on the Judiciary. In fact, his resignation 
was prompted by certain proceedings relating to a report of that 
committee.
  \10\ First session Tenth Congress, Journal, p. 15 (Gales & Seaton 
ed.); Annals, p. 800.
  \11\ Second session Nineteenth Congress, Journal, p. 181; Debates, p. 
751.
Sec. 4496
  After debate the House, by a large majority--

  Ordered, That Mr. McLane be excused from further service on the 
Committee on Ways and Means, and that another member be appointed on 
said committee.
  And thereupon Mr. George McDuffie, of South Carolina, was appointed.

  4496. On December 14,\1\ the Speaker laid before the House a letter 
from Mr. John Randolph, of Virginia, asking to be excused from service 
on the Ways and Means Committee. The question being put, the House 
voted to excuse him. His letter is printed in full in the Journal.
  4497. On May 19, 1840,\2\ the House excused Mr. David Petrikin, of 
Pennsylvania, from service on the joint committee on the subject of the 
documentary history of the revolution.
  4498. On May 9, 1846,\3\ Mr. John Pettit, of Indiana, from the select 
committee appointed to investigate certain charges brought against the 
late Secretary of State, Daniel Webster, presented a resolution 
providing for a clerk for the committee.
  This proposition was disagreed to by the House.
  Thereupon Mr. Pettit asked to be excused from service on the 
committee; but the House declined to excuse him.
  On May 12 the Speaker laid before the House the following letter, 
which appears in full in the Journal:

                       House of Representatives, May 12, 1846.    
  Sir: Having been by the House refused a clerk to assist in doing the 
manual labor in the committee to investigate the charges against Mr. 
Webster, and the House having refused to excuse me from further service 
on that committee, thus seeming disposed to impose on me an undue 
degree of labor, I have felt it due to myself to refuse to serve on 
that committee. And I again most respectfully ask the House to excuse 
me, and that another may be appointed in my place.
 Your obedient servant,
                                                  John Pettit.    
To Hon. John W. Davis, Speaker, etc.

  On motion of Mr. Jacob Brinkerhoff, of Ohio, Mr. Pettit was excused 
from further service on the said committee.
  4499. On January 13, 1886,\4\ Mr. Andrew G. Curtin, of Pennsylvania, 
asked to be excused from service as chairman of the Committee on 
Banking and Currency. Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, objected, but 
the House on a vote excused Mr. Curtin. This was an excuse from the 
position of chairman merely. The Journal does not indicate how his 
successor as chairman was selected.
  4500. On January 19, 1839,\5\ Mr. David D. Wagener, of Pennsylvania, 
asked to be excused from service on the select committee elected by 
ballot to consider the subject of the defalcation of the late collector 
of the port of New York.
  After debate the question was put: ``Will the House excuse Mr. 
Wagener from serving as a member of the select committee on the subject 
of defalcations of public officers?'' and there were, yeas 102, nays 
106. So Mr. Wagener was not excused.
  4501. On June 3, 1858,\6\ the House excused Mr. James B. Clay, of 
Kentucky,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Twentieth Congress, Journal, p. 55; Debates, p. 
819.
  \2\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 963.
  \3\ First session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, pp. 774, 775, 804; 
Globe, p. 782.
  \4\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 357; Record, p. 
638.
  \5\ Third session Twenty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 324; Globe, p. 
127.
  \6\ First session Thirty-fifth Congress, Journal, pp. 1013, 1071 , 
Globe, p. 2904.
                                                            Sec. 4502
from service on the Committee on Foreign Affairs. On the succeeding day 
a motion was entered to reconsider that vote, and on June 10 the House 
reconsidered its action and decided the motion to excuse in the 
negative.
  4502. On December 6, 1860,\1\ the Speaker announced the select 
committee of one from each State to whom had been referred those 
portions of the annual message of the President relating ``to the 
present perilous condition of the country,'' whereupon Mr. George S. 
Hawkins, of Florida, who had been named as one of the committee, moved 
that he be excused from serving on the committee. Mr. Hawkins said 
that, after consultation with the oldest Members of the House, he had 
learned that a Member could not, without the liability of incurring 
rebuke, decline to serve where assigned by the House, unless excused by 
the House.
  After debate the motion to excuse Mr. Hawkins was decided in the 
negative, on December 11, by a vote of, yeas 95, nays 101.\2\
  On December 11, also, Mr. William W. Boyce, of South Carolina, asked 
to be excused from service on the committee, and after debate the 
question was taken, and it was decided in the negative, yeas 100, nays 
100.
  4503. On January 26, 1863,\3\ the House declined to excuse Mr. Henry 
L. Dawes, of Massachusetts, from service on the Committee on Elections, 
of which he was chairman.
  4504. On December 15, 1864,\4\ Mr. Henry Winter Davis, chairman of 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, asked to be excused from service on 
that committee. After debate the House declined to excuse him.
  4505. On December 2, 1872,\5\ Mr. Nathaniel P. Banks, of 
Massachusetts, presented his resignation of his appointment as a member 
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which committee he was 
chairman.
  After debate the House voted, ayes 59, noes 76, that Mr. Banks should 
not be excused.
  4506. A Member may be excused from service on a conference as on 
committees only by permission of the House.--On February 28, 1883,\6\ 
Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, as a privileged question, asked 
to be excused from service on the committee of conference on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to 
the bill of the House (H. R. 5538) to reduce internal-revenue taxation.
  The Chair thereupon presented the request to the House, and it was 
granted.
  4507. The request of a Member that he be relieved from service on a 
committee is submitted to the House for approval.--On June 12, 1890,\7\ 
the Speaker laid before the House a communication from Mr. Roger Q. 
Mills, of Texas, in which the latter resigned his position as a member 
of the Committee on Rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Thirty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 49, 57; Globe, 
pp. 22, 59-61.
  \2\ After the House had declined to excuse him, Mr. Hawkins declared 
that be would not serve on the committee. (Globe, p. 60.)
  \3\ Third session Thirty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 227, 230; 
Globe, pp. 491, 518.
  \4\ Second session Thirty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 50; Globe, pp. 
48-53.
  \5\ Third session Forty-second Congress, Journal, p. 7; Globe, pp. 
10, 11.
  \6\ Second session Forty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 522; Record, 
p. 3409.
  \7\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 5981.
Sec. 4508
  The communication having been read, the Speaker \1\ said:

  The question before the House is, ``Shall Mr. Mills be excused from 
service on the committee?''

  The question was taken and Mr. Mills was excused.
  On January 16, 1900,\2\ the Speaker laid before the House a 
communication from Mr. Loren Fletcher, of Minnesota, in which the 
latter requested that he be relieved from further service on the 
Committee on Claims.
  The communication having been read, the Speaker \3\ put the question 
and Mr. Fletcher was excused.
  4508. The request of a Member that he be excused from committee 
service has generally been treated as privileged, but as debatable to a 
very limited extent only.--On February 9, 1842,\4\ five members of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs asked to be excused from service on the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, because they did not approve the conduct 
of the chairman, Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts. A question 
was raised as to whether or not the applications to be excused 
constituted a question of privilege, but the Speaker \5\ declined to 
entertain them as such. The House voted to excuse the five Members.
  4509. On January 13, 1853,\6\ Mr. John A. Wilcox, of Mississippi, 
claiming the floor for a question of privilege, moved that he be 
excused from service on the Committee on Military Affairs. The 
Speaker,\7\ while not disputing his claim to the floor, held that he 
could speak in explanation of his motion only by unanimous consent. Mr. 
Wilcox having explained, the House voted not to excuse him.
  4510. On January 29, 1855,\8\ Mr. Thomas H. Bocock, of Virginia, 
moved that he be excused from further service on the Committee on Naval 
Affairs and proceeded to explain his reasons for the motion.
  Mr. Frederick P. Stanton, of Tennessee, raised the question of order 
as to the propriety of entertaining this motion.
  The Speaker \7\ said:

  The Chair decides that, according to the practice of the House since 
he has served in this body, a gentleman is allowed at any time to ask 
to be excused from serving on a committee. It is a convenient rule, at 
least; and, in the opinion of the Chair, it is courteous and proper 
that the question should be put whether the gentleman from Virginia 
will be excused.

  A question being raised as to the range of debate proper, the Speaker 
decided that it must be very limited.
  After debate as to the propriety of excusing Mr. Bocock, the House 
decided his motion in the negative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 885; Journal, p. 
166.
  \3\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Globe, p. 222.
  \5\ John White, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \6\ Second session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, p. 126, Globe, p. 
287.
  \7\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \8\ Second session Thirty-third Congress, Journal, p. 261; Globe, p. 
448.
                                                            Sec. 4511
  4511. The Speaker may not relieve a Member from service on the 
committee to which he has appointed him.--On March 16, 1832,\1\ Mr. 
John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, stated that in addition to his 
position on the Committee; on Manufactures he had been appointed a 
member of the Committee to Investigate the Bank of the United States. 
He has asked the Speaker to relieve him from the duties of the former 
committee, but the Speaker \2\ had informed him that it was not in his 
power to change the designation, and that it could be done only by 
application to the House itself.\3\ Therefore he asked to be excused 
from service on the Committee on Manufactures.
  Objections were made because of the need of Mr. Adams's services on 
the committee, and many Members announcing their intention of opposing 
the request Mr. Adams withdrew it.
  4512. The election of a Member as Speaker is assumed to vacate any 
positions on committees held by him previously.--On January 21, 
1814,\4\

  Ordered, That Mr. Loundes be appointed on the joint committee of the 
two Houses to have the application of the moneys appropriated for the 
Library of Congress, in the place of Mr. Cheves, elected Speaker.

  The Speaker does not appear by the Journal to have asked to be 
excused, and it seems to have been assumed that his election as Speaker 
vacated his committee place.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Twenty-second Congress, Journal, p. 502; Debates, 
p. 2175.
  \2\ Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, Speaker.
  \3\ Mr. Speaker Keifer took the view that the Speaker himself might 
excuse a Member from service on a committee, and acted on this view at 
least once. (First session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 248.) But 
such has not been the practice.
  \4\ Second session Thirteenth Congress, Journal, p. 243 (Gales and 
Seaton ed.); Annals, p. 1093.