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

 
                              Chapter CIX.

                REPORTS FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

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

   1. A series of bills considered in the order reported. Sections 
     4869, 4870.
   2. Amendments and their consideration. Sections 4871-4898.
   3. Amendment in the nature of a substitute. Sections 4899-4905.
   4. Paragraphs ruled out not reported. Section 4906.
   5. Irregular reports. Sections 4907-4912.\1\
   6. As affected by failure of a quorum. Sections 4913, 4914.
   7. House has no authority over bills in Committee of Whole. 
     Section 4915.
   8. As to reading of bills reported from. Section 4916.
   9. Discharge of Committee of Whole. Sections 4917-4922.

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

  4869. A series of bills reported from the Committee of the Whole 
should be considered in the House in the order in which they are 
reported.--On March 2, 1906,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House had 
risen and reported sundry bills, with favorable recommendations.
  As the bills were being acted on by the House, Mr. John N. Garner, of 
Texas, asked if the bills were being acted on in the order in which 
they passed the Committee of the Whole, and made the demand that such 
order should be observed.
  The Speaker \3\ said:

  The Chair is informed that they are not, strictly speaking, and the 
Chair supposes that, strictly speaking, they ought to be so taken up. * 
* * The Clerk will proceed with the remainder of the bills and call 
them in the order in which they were considered and reported. Those 
that have already passed are beyond the control of the Speaker or of 
the House, except by unanimous consent. The Clerk will proceed, as 
stated by the Chair.

  4870. On February 8, 1899,\4\ the House proceeded to the 
consideration of a series of bills for the erection of public 
buildings, reported from the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union on the preceding day.
  Mr. Eugene F. Loud, of California, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, 
asked in what order the bills would come before the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Speaker entertains only reports made by the Chairman. (Sec. 6987 
of Vol. V.)
  \2\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 3303.
  \3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \4\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 1628.
                                                            Sec. 4871
  The Speaker \1\ replied that they would come up in the order in which 
they were reported, as shown by the Journal, which would not, as he 
understood, be the order in which they were considered in Committee of 
the Whole.
  Then, by unanimous consent, it was arranged that the bills should be 
taken up in the order in which they were considered in Committee of the 
Whole.
  4871. All amendments to a bill reported from the Committee of the 
Whole stand on an equal footing and must be voted on by the House.--On 
December 15, 1900,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union had risen and had reported with sundry amendments the bill 
(H. R. 12394) ``to amend an act entitled `An act to provide ways and 
means to meet war expenditures, and for other purposes.' ''
  A separate vote being demanded on several amendments, Mr. H. Henry 
Powers, of Vermont, raised the point that one amendment on which a 
separate vote had been demanded was in the Committee of the Whole 
accepted on behalf of the Committee on Ways and Means,\3\ and no notice 
was given that a separate vote would be called for.
  The Speaker \4\ said:

  The gentleman from Vermont makes the parliamentary inquiry if the 
fact that this amendment was accepted by or agreed to by the Committee 
on Ways and Means or the chairman in charge of the bill, and that no 
notice of a separate vote was given in the Committee of the Whole, 
would not make it out of order to be considered now. The Chair does not 
know anything about what transpired in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union, except as reported by the Chairman. It is a 
pending amendment, and in respect to that a separate vote may be 
demanded.

  4872. When a bill is reported from the Committee of the Whole with 
amendments it is in order to submit additional amendments, but the 
first question is on the amendments reported.--On May 28, 1846,\5\ the 
civil and diplomatic appropriation bill was reported from the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union with amendments. The House 
proceeded to the consideration of these amendments, when Mr. George W. 
Jones, of Tennessee, proposed a new amendment. Thereupon Mr. Robert C. 
Winthrop, of Massachusetts, raised the question of order that a motion 
to amend the original bill is not in order until the amendments 
reported from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union shall have been acted on.
  The Speaker \6\ decided that the proposition to amend the original 
bill was in order, but that the question must first be taken on the 
amendments of the committee and then on the amendment proposed to the 
original bill.\7\
  On an appeal the decision of the Chair was sustained.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 346.
  \3\ The acceptance of an amendment by those in charge of a bill on 
the floor amounts to no more than notice that they do not oppose it. 
The amendment must be voted on like any other before it is adopted.
  \4\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 865; Globe, p. 
876.
  \6\ John W. Davis, of Indiana, Speaker.
  \7\ Of course, if the previous question is moved at once, amendments 
by Members are cut off.
Sec. 4873
  4873. On January 18, 1810,\1\ the House was considering the 
amendments reported by the Committee of the Whole House to the bill 
respecting the commercial intercourse between the United States and 
Great Britain and France.
  Mr. Edward St. L. Livermore, of Massachusetts, moved to amend the 
bill by striking out the fifth section thereof.
  The Speaker \2\ decided that the motion was not in order until after 
the consideration of the amendments reported by the Committee of the 
Whole House.
  Mr. Livermore having taken an appeal, the decision of the Chair was 
overruled, 65 to 48.
  Thereupon the question was put on the amendment proposed by Mr. 
Livermore.
  4874. On February 18, 1833,\3\ the House was considering the tariff 
bill, which had been reported from the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union, with amendments.
  During consideration of these amendments, and before they had all 
been disposed of, Mr. Thomas T. Bouldin, of Virginia, proposed to offer 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The Speaker \4\ held that it would not be in order until the 
amendments were disposed of.
  4875. On February 26, 1839,\5\ the Journal records that the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union rose and reported, with 
certain amendments, the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill.
  The bill being taken up in the House, the following procedure is 
recorded:

  And then, by unanimous consent, and before acting on the amendments 
reported from the Committee of the Whole House, the said bill was, on 
motion of Mr. Chambers, amended.

  The amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union were then in part concurred in by the House.
  4876. On April 17, 1844,\6\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 
126) making appropriations for the improvement of certain rivers and 
harbors, the question being on agreeing to the amendments to the bill 
reported from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union.
  A motion was made by Mr. Andrew Kennedy to amend the bill by striking 
out all after the enacting clause and inserting the text of a new bill.
  Mr. George C. Dromgoole, of Virginia, raised the question of order 
that, according to the parliamentary practice, an amendment was not in 
order, except to an amendment of the Committee, until the House had 
first acted upon the amendments of the Committee.
  The Speaker pro tempore \7\ decided that, as the amendments proposed 
by the Committee were embraced in the part proposed to be stricken out, 
the question would be first put on the amendments of the Committee, 
under the usual parlia-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Eleventh Congress, Journal, p. 180 (Gales and 
Seaton ed.); Annals, p. 1219.
  \2\ Joseph B. Varnum, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Twenty-second Congress, Debates, p. 1729.
  \4\ Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, Speaker.
  \5\ Third session Twenty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 652.
  \6\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 807; Globe, p. 
552.
  \7\ George W. Hopkins, of Virginia, Speaker pro tempore.
                                                            Sec. 4877
mentary practice of perfecting what was proposed to be stricken out. He 
held that the amendment of Mr. Kennedy was in order, but the question 
was put first on the Committee amendments.
  Mr. Dromgoole having appealed, the decision of the Chair was 
sustained.
  4877. Amendments rejected in Committee of the Whole are not reported 
to the House.--On May 12, 1880,\1\ the legislative appropriation bill 
was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union, when Mr. William J. Samford, of Alabama, moved an amendment 
reducing the salary of the President of the United States to $25,000 
yearly.
  The amendment being disagreed to by the Committee of the Whole, Mr. 
James A. McKenzie, of Kentucky, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, 
asked if it would be possible to get the yeas and nays in the House on 
this proposition.
  The Chairman \2\ said:

  Amendments rejected in Committee of the Whole do not go to the House.

  4878. The fact that a proposition has been rejected by the Committee 
of the Whole does not prevent it from being offered as an amendment 
when the subject comes up in the House.
  An instance where the Committee of the Whole reported a new 
resolution in lieu of the one referred to it.
  On January 10, 1878,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union, to whom had been referred a series of two resolutions 
providing for a general investigation of the Executive Departments of 
the Government, reported as a substitute \4\ an independent resolution 
relating to the same subject.
  On January 11, the substitute resolution being under consideration, 
Mr. Eugene Hale, of Maine, demanded the previous question. The House 
refused to second \5\ this demand.
  Thereupon Mr. Fernando Wood, of New York, moved as an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, a series of two resolutions identical with 
those referred to the Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. Hale made the point of order that the amendment was not in order, 
it being the identical proposition rejected by the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union.
  The Speaker \6\ overruled the point of order, on the ground that the 
House, having practically rejected the report of the Committee of the 
Whole by refusing to second the demand for the previous question, left 
the subject open to debate and amendment.
  4879. On February 12, 1902,\7\ the previous question had been ordered 
on the bill (H. R. 9266) relating to oleomargarine and other imitation 
dairy products,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3291.
  \2\ S. S. Cox, of New York, Chairman.
  \3\ Second session Forty-fifth Congress, Journal, pp. 150, 151, 160; 
Record, pp. 287, 288.
  \4\ Not as an amendment in the nature of a substitute. In this case 
the Committee of the Whole assumed the right often exercised by a 
standing committee of reporting a new measure in place of the one 
referred to it by the House. Such action by the Committee of the Whole 
is very rare.
  \5\ The second of the previous question is no longer required.
  \6\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
  \7\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 1659.
Sec. 4880
when Mr. James W. Wadsworth, of New York, moved to recommit the bill 
with instructions to report an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, 
said:

  This proposition was voted on after consideration in Committee of the 
Whole and was defeated, and this is simply for the purpose of securing 
another vote on an amendment offered in Committee of the Whole.

  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The House knows nothing about what was done in the Committee of the 
Whole except as was reported by the Chairman of the Committee. Besides, 
the point of order would be too late.

  4880. On March 11, 1896,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union rose and the Chairman reported that they had had 
under consideration the Post-Office appropriation bill and reported it 
favorably with certain amendments.
  Thereupon Mr. Jacob H. Bromwell, of Ohio, offered an amendment to 
strike out these lines of the bill--

  For necessary and special facilities on trunk lines from Boston, 
Mass., by way of New York and Washington, to Atlanta and New Orleans, 
$196,614.22: Provided, That no part of the appropriation made by this 
paragraph shall be expended unless the Postmaster-General shall deem 
such expenditure necessary in order to promote the interest of the 
postal service.

  Mr. Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, made the point of order that the 
express question raised by the amendment was voted on by the Committee 
of the Whole.
  The Speaker \3\ said:

  The Chair can not know about that. * * * The question is on the 
amendment of the gentleman from Ohio.

  4881. Amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole should be 
voted on in the order in which they are reported although they may be 
inconsistent one with another.--On February 1, 1894 \4\ the House was 
considering the amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole on 
the bill (H. R. 4864) to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the 
Government, and for other purposes.
  Among these amendments were two which were reported as separate 
amendments, because they were adopted at different times, but one of 
which was in reality an amendment to the other.
  The first one was to the wool schedule, as follows:

  Amend paragraph 686 by adding at the end of the paragraph the words 
``Provided, That this paragraph shall take effect immediately upon the 
passage of this act.''

  The second, adopted after the first had been agreed to, was:

  In paragraph 686, amend by striking out all after the words ``take 
effect,'' and insert the words ``on or after August 2, 1894.''

  When the question came on the first amendment, Mr. Clifton R. 
Breckinridge, of Arkansas, made the point that the amendment was not 
before the House, for the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 2710.
  \3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 129; Record, pp. 
1794, 1795.
                                                            Sec. 4882
reason that the Committee of the Whole, by a subsequent amendment, had, 
in effect, amended the aforesaid amendment, and that the only question 
thereon was upon the subsequent amendment of the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The Speaker\1\ held that the amendments must be voted on in the order 
in which they were reported from the Committee of the Whole, regardless 
of any irregularity of the proceedings thereon or of any inconsistency 
between such amendments:

  It seems from the reading that the committee first adopted an 
amendment providing that the bill should take effect immediately as to 
wool, and that subsequently an amendment was offered to that amendment 
and agreed to, which struck out all of it except the words ``shall take 
effect,'' and inserted another date as the time at which the bill 
should go into operation. * * * The trouble that the Chair finds arises 
from the fact that it has never been the custom or the rule that the 
Committee of the Whole should reconsider its action, therefore its 
action takes the form of a subsequent amendment to the first amendment, 
which accomplishes the same purpose as reconsideration, and yet gives 
effect and force to the change of mind in the committee on the 
question. * * *
  It seems to the Chair that every amendment which has been agreed to 
by the committee must be reported from the committee to the House, and 
that it is in the power of any Member of the House to have a separate 
vote on any amendments so reported. In the case before the House, it 
seem that there was an amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio, 
and agreed to, which fixes a given time for the tariff on the woolen 
schedule to go into effect, and subsequently that amendment was amended 
so as to strike out that part of it which fixed the time and fixed 
another time. Now, it seems that the two reports from the Committee of 
the Whole on the question of the time when the bill should go into 
operation are inconsistent one with the other. One report is that it 
shall immediately take effect, and the other is that it shall take 
effect at another time, so that it seems to the Chair that perhaps the 
best solution of the question would be for the House to vote upon what 
it called the last amendment, the amendment to amend the first 
amendment that fixes the time. If that should be agreed to by the 
House, that would dispose of the question; if it should not, then the 
other amendment could be voted upon.

  4882. On July 16, 1842,\2\ the House considered the bill (H. R. 472) 
to provide revenue from imports, etc., which has been reported from the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union with a series of 
amendments. These amendments were taken up in order and acted on.
  4883. A proposition reported from the Committee of the Whole as an 
entire and distinct amendment may not be divided, but must be voted on 
in the House as a whole.--On June 8, 1844,\3\ the House was considering 
the bill (H. R. 22) to amend and continue in force the act to 
incorporate the inhabitants of the city of Washington, which had been 
reported from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union with an amendment striking out all after the enacting clause and 
inserting a new bill.
  Mr. Cave Johnson, of Tennessee, requested a division of the 
amendment, so as to take the question, first on all thereof except the 
twenty-sixth section, and then on that section alone.
  The Speaker\4\ decided that at this stage of the bill the amendment 
was not divisible, it having been adopted in committee and reported to 
the House as one entire amendment to strike out and insert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 1081-1106; 
Globe, p. 761.
  \3\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 1061; Globe, p. 
653.
  \4\ John W. Jones, of Virginia, Speaker.
Sec. 4884
  On an appeal the decision of the Chair was sustained.\1\
  4884. On February 9, 1846,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union reported with an amendment the joint resolution (H. 
J. Res. 5) of notice to Great Britain to ``annul and abrogate'' the 
convention between Great Britain and the United States of the 6th of 
August, 1827, relative to the country ``on the northwest coast of 
America, westward of the Stony Mountains,'' commonly called Oregon.
  The House proceeded to the consideration of the resolution, the 
question being on agreeing to the amendment reported from the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  This amendment was a substitute of two sections, the first to give 
notice of the annulment of the convention between the United States and 
Great Britain, and the second declaring that nothing herein was 
intended as interfering with the right and discretion of the proper 
authorities of the two contracting parties to renew negotiations for an 
amicable settlement.
  A division of the question was demanded by Mr. Allen G. Thurman, of 
Ohio, so as to take the question on each branch of the resolution 
separately.
  The Speaker stated that, in conformity with the usual practice of the 
House, the amendment was divisible, and was about proceeding to put the 
question on striking out the original resolution and inserting the 
first branch of the amendment, when
  Mr. Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, raised the question of order that, as the 
amendment was reported from the Committee of the Whole House as an 
entire and distinct proposition, it could not be divided.
  The Speaker \3\ decided against the point of order raised by Mr. 
Boyd, but on appeal the House reversed the decision of the Chair.
  On April 7, 1846 \4\ the House was considering a bill (H. Res. 46) to 
provide for the construction of the Cumberland road in the States of 
Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, which had been reported by the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union with an amendment of six 
new sections.
  Mr. James Graham, of North Carolina, called for a division of the 
amendment, so as to take the question separately on portions of the 
amendment proposed to be inserted in lieu of the original bill.
  The Speaker \3\ decided that, in conformity with the decision of the 
House made on the 9th day of February last, on the Oregon question, 
wherein the decision of the Speaker, in a similar case, that the part 
to be inserted was divisible was overruled and reversed by the House, 
the division asked for by Mr. Graham was not in order.
  From this decision an appeal was taken. The appeal was laid on the 
table; so the Chair was sustained.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Before this, on February 24, 1841 (second session Twenty-sixth 
Congress, Journal, p. 311; Globe, p. 205), this principle was invoked 
and apparently recognized, although Mr. Speaker Hunter admitted a 
division of the amendment, there being doubt as to whether or not it 
had been adopted by the Committee of the Whole as an entire and 
distinct proposition.
  \2\ First session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, pp. 366, 642; 
Globe, pp. 348, 349.
  \3\ John W. Davis, of Indiana, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 641; Globe, p. 
622.
                                                            Sec. 4885
  4885. On July 18, 1848,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union rose and the chairman reported the civil and 
diplomatic appropriation bill with amendments. The House proceeded to 
the consideration of these amendments, among them being the following:

  Insert between the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh lines of the 
printed bill the following:
  ``For the purchase of the unpublished papers of Thomas Jefferson, 
late President of the United States, twenty thousand dollars; and for 
the purchase of the manuscript papers of the late Alexander Hamilton, 
twenty thousand dollars.''

  Mr. Howell Cobb, of Georgia, called for a division of the question 
upon the amendment.
  The Speaker \2\ decided that the clause having been reported from the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, as a whole, it 
could not be divided.
  From this decision Mr. Cobb appealed. The decision of the Chair was 
sustained.
  4886. The House, on March 1, 1849 \3\ proceeded to the consideration 
of the Senate amendments to the Indian appropriation bill, which had 
been considered in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union and reported therefrom.
  The tenth amendment of the Senate related to an appropriation for 
carrying into effect the provisions of a treaty with the Cherokees. To 
this Senate amendment the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union recommended a single amendment in form, providing, however, 
not only for carrying into effect the provisions of the treaty with the 
Cherokees, but also providing for the issue of Treasury notes to meet 
the expenses of the appropriation for the payment to the Cherokees and 
also the expenses of two installments called for by the treaty with 
Mexico.
  The question being upon agreeing to this amendment to the tenth 
amendment of the Senate, Mr. Richard Brodhead, of Pennsylvania, asked 
for a division of the question so as to take a separate vote upon each 
subject of the amendment, the Cherokee treaty and the provision for 
Treasury notes.
  The Speaker \2\ stated that the question was not divisible.
  On an appeal, the decision was sustained.
  4887. On January 13, 1862,\4\ the House resumed, as the regular order 
of business, the consideration of the bill of the House (H. R. 154) 
making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for 
the year ending June 30, 1863, and additional appropriations for the 
year ending June 30, 1862, reported on Friday last from the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union with sundry amendments, 
the pending question when the House adjourned on that day being on 
agreeing to the amendments.
  The fifteenth amendment having been read, as follows:

  Add at the end of the first section:
  ``Provided, That the appropriation of $178,000 for Atlantic and Gulf 
survey, $100,000 for western coast survey, and $11,000 for Florida 
reefs and keys, shall not be expended, nor any part thereof, while
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Thirtieth Congress, Journal, p. 1059; Globe, p. 
948.
  \2\ Robert C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Thirtieth Congress, Journal, p. 574; Globe, p. 
642.
  \4\ Second session Thirty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 170; Globe, 
p. 305.
Sec. 4888
the present insurrection exists: Provided further, That such portion of 
the Coast Survey appropriation as shall be deemed by the President 
important to the prosecution of the blockade and suppression of the 
rebellion, or for any other purpose, shall not be suspended.

  Mr. Francis P. Blair, jr., of Missouri, demanded a division of the 
question.
  The Speaker \1\ decided that no division was in order, the same 
having been reported as one amendment.
  From this decision of the Chair Mr. Blair appealed. And the question 
being put, ``Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of 
the House?'' it was decided in the affirmative.
  The record of debate shows that Mr. Blair contended that the two 
provisos of the amendment were adopted at different times and to 
different sections.
  The Speaker decided, however, that even though this might be so, the 
amendment was reported by the committee as a single amendment and could 
not be divided in the House.
  4888. On March 19, 1880,\2\ the House was considering amendments made 
to the deficiency appropriation bill by the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union, when this amendment was reached:

  For special deputy marshals of elections, the sum of $7,600: 
Provided, That hereafter special deputy marshals of elections for 
performing any duties in reference to any election shall receive the 
sum of $5 per day in full for their compensation, and that the 
appointments of such special deputy marshals shall be made by the judge 
of the circuit court of the United States for the district in which 
such marshals are to perform their duties or by the district judge in 
the absence of the circuit judge, such special deputies to be appointed 
in equal numbers from the different political parties; and the persons 
so appointed shall be persons of good moral character and shall be 
well-known residents of the voting precinct in which their duties are 
to be performed.

  Mr. Frank Hiscock, of New York, demanded a division of the question 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The Speaker \3\ held, in accordance with the uniform practice of the 
House, based upon decisions of former Speakers and sustained by the 
House on appeal, that an amendment reported from the Committee of the 
Whole House as an entire amendment was not divisible.
  Mr. Omar D. Conger, of Michigan, having appealed, the appeal was laid 
on the table, 167 yeas to 49 nays.
  4889. On January 21, 1891,\4\ the House was considering amendments of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to the 
District of Columbia appropriation bill.
  The question was on agreeing to the following amendment:

  Provided further, That the sum total of the accounts so allowed shall 
not exceed in amount $20,000, and that the Commissioners of the 
District of Columbia shall report to the next Congress the amounts so 
allowed and to whom.

  Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, demanded a division of the 
said-named amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Galusha A. Grow, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 816; Record, pp. 
1713-1715.
  \3\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 167.
                                                            Sec. 4890
  The Speaker \1\ ruled that an amendment reported from the Committee 
of the Whole was not divisible.
  4890. On February 1, 1894 \2\ the House was considering the tariff 
bill, the question being on the amendment reported from the Committee 
of the Whole relating to internal revenue.
  Mr. W. Bourke Cockran, of New York, demanded that the question be 
divided so as to enable the House to vote separately on so much thereof 
as provided for a tax on incomes. Objection being made, the Speaker \3\ 
held that under the practice of the House it was not in order to demand 
a division of the question on an amendment reported from the Committee 
of the Whole as a single amendment.
  4891. On June 22, 1894,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union rose and the Chairman reported favorably with 
amendments the antioption bill (H. R. 7007).
  Mr. William P. Hatch, of Missouri, demanded a division of an 
amendment providing that the terms of the act should not apply to 
contracts entered into by the actual owners of the articles sold. A 
portion of this amendment had been offered by Mr. Nicholas N. Cox, of 
Tennessee, and to it a second portion had been added as an amendment to 
the amendment by Mr. Charles J. Boatner, of Louisiana. Mr. Hatch 
demanded a division, so that the portion offered by each of these two 
gentlemen might be voted on separately.
  The Speaker pro tempore \5\ held that under the practice of the House 
of long standing it was not in order to demand a division of the 
question on an amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole as a 
single amendment, notwithstanding such amendment included distinct and 
independent propositions.
  4892. On February 4, 1895,\6\ the bill (H. R. 8705) to authorize the 
Secretary of the Treasury to issue bonds to maintain a sufficient gold 
reserve, etc., was reported from the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union with amendments.
  The question being on this amendment:

  And in lieu of all existing taxes every association shall pay to the 
Treasury of the United States in the months of January and July a duty 
of one-eighth of 1 per cent each half year upon the average amount of 
the notes issued to it by the Comptroller of the Currency. And banks 
with a capital of not less than $20,000 may, with the approval of the 
Secretary of the Treasury, be organized in any place the population of 
which does not exceed 6,000 inhabitants.

  Mr. William J. Bryan, of Nebraska, demanded that the question be 
divided, so as to permit the House to vote separately on each of the 
two propositions therein contained.
  The Speaker \3\ held that the amendment having been reported from the 
committee as an entire amendment it was not in order to demand that it 
be divided.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 130; Record, p. 
1795.
  \3\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 445; Record, pp. 
6736, 6737.
  \5\ Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, Speaker pro tempore.
  \6\ Third session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 105, 110, 111, 
114.
Sec. 4893
  4893. It is a frequent practice for the House, by unanimous consent, 
to act at once on all the amendments to a bill reported from the 
Committee of the Whole, but it is the right of any Member to demand a 
separate vote on any amendment.--On February 2, 1898,\1\ the Committee 
of the Whole rose and the Chairman reported that the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union had had under consideration the 
bill (H. R. 6897) making appropriations to provide for the expenses of 
the government of the District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1899, and for other purposes, and had directed him to report 
the same back with amendments, and with the recommendation that the 
bill as amended be passed.
  The Speaker having, in the usual form, stated to the House the report 
of the Chairman, Mr. William W. Grout, of Vermont, asked for a separate 
vote upon the amendment striking out the provision for the bridge 
across Rock Creek Park.
  Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, thereupon made this parliamentary 
inquiry:

  The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Grout] moved that the committee rise 
and report the bill with amendments to the House with a favorable 
recommendation. Is it now competent for him to make this motion for a 
separate vote upon this amendment? The amendments all came in on his 
motion.

  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair can not know on whose motion it was done. Even if he did, 
every Member of the House has a right to call for a separate vote upon 
any amendment. Is there a separate vote asked for upon any other 
amendment? \3\

  4894. On February 23, 1855,\4\ when the civil and diplomatic 
appropriation bill was reported with amendments from the Committee of 
the Whole, and came before the House for action, Mr. Speaker Boyd said:

  For convenience sake, and to facilitate the action of the House upon 
the bill, it is usual to vote upon such amendments as are not objected 
to in gross. The amendments therefore will be read, and as to such 
amendments as any gentleman on the floor may desire a separate vote 
upon, he will so declare when it is read from the Clerk's desk, and it 
will be reserved for such separate vote.

  4895. The right to debate and amend a bill reported from the 
Committee, of the Whole depends upon the will of the House.--On July 
20, 1841,\5\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
rose and reported the fortifications appropriation bill with 
amendments. The question being on the amendments, and the previous 
question having been demanded, Mr. James W. Williams, of Maryland, 
submitted the following as a question of order:

  That, by the one hundred and ninth rule of the House, ``every bill 
shall receive three several readings in the House;''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 1363.
  \2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \3\ It is usual to put the question first on the amendments on which 
no separate vote is asked. These are voted on together. Then the 
separate votes are taken, as requested. But it has always been in order 
to have a separate vote on amendments reported from the Committee of 
the Whole. Thus see an instance in the case of the bill (H. R. 439) to 
organize a Territorial government in the Oregon Territory, considered 
by the House February 3, 1845. (Second session Twenty-eighth Congress, 
Journal, p. 318.)
  \4\ Second session Thirty-third Congress, Globe, p. 914.
  \5\ First session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 260, 342 
Globe, pp. 233, 313.
                                                            Sec. 4896
  That, by the one hundred and nineteenth rule, ``after report (from 
the committee) the bill shall again be subject to be debated and 
amended by clauses, before a question to engross it be taken; \1\
  That, by the one hundred and nineteenth rule, ``after report (from 
the committee) the bill shall again be subject to be debated and 
amended by clauses, before a question to engross it be taken;''
  That, by the one hundred and twenty-ninth rule, the rules of practice 
comprised in Jefferson's Manual ``shall govern the House in all cases 
in which they are applicable and not inconsistent with the standing 
rules and orders of the House;''
  That, in the Manual, it is stated that ``when through the amendments 
of the committee, the Speaker pauses, and gives time for amendments to 
the body of the bill, as he does, also, if it has been reported without 
amendments, putting no question but on amendments proposed; and, when 
through the whole, he puts the question whether the bill shall be read 
a third time;''
  That, according to the Manual, ``the Speaker reads it by paragraphs, 
pausing between each, but putting no question but on amendments 
proposed; and, when through the whole, he puts the question whether it 
shall be engrossed and read a third time.''

  Mr. Williams contended that this rule of practice, as laid down in 
the Manual was not inconsistent with the rules and standing orders of 
the House, and therefore could not be dispensed with or suspended 
unless by a vote of two-thirds of the Members present.
  The Speaker \2\ decided the question against the position assumed by 
Mr. Williams.
  Mr. Williams having appealed, the decision of the Chair was 
sustained.
  Again, on August 9, Mr. Williams raised the same point of order, and 
again the Speaker overruled it, being sustained by the House.
  4896. The recommendation of the Committee of the Whole being before 
the House, the motion is considered as pending without being offered 
from the floor.--On December 23, 1851 \3\ the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union rose and reported a joint resolution 
(No. 1) in relation to bounty land warrants, with the recommendation 
that it be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  No motion having been made to carry out the recommendation of the 
Committee of the Whole, Mr. William H. Bissell, of Illinois, made the 
point of order that the question could not come before the House except 
by a motion.
  The Speaker \4\ said:

  The Chair decides that the recommendation of the Committee of the 
Whole is now before the House, and the question pending therefore is to 
refer the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary.

  4897. There is a question as to whether or not the recommendation of 
the Committee of the Whole that a bill do lie on the table may be 
accepted in the House as a pending motion.
  When a bill is reported from the Committee of the Whole with an 
adverse recommendation, an opponent of it is recognized to make a 
motion as to its disposition.
  On January 22, 1897,\5\ the House had under consideration a bill (S. 
90) for the relief of William P. Buckmaster, reported from the 
Committee of the Whole House with the recommendation that it do lie 
upon the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ This rule was long ago rescinded.
  \2\ John White, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, p. 148.
  \4\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \5\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1069.
Sec. 4898
  A question arising as to time for debate on the bill, the Speaker\1\ 
said:

  The Chair does not know that a report of the Committee of the Whole 
House that the bill do lie on the table is itself a motion to lay upon 
the table. It may be a question of whether the chairman of the 
committee should not carry out the direction of the committee by making 
the motion to lay upon the table.

  After some discussion the motion to lay the bill on the table was 
made by Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, who was recognized as an 
opponent of the bill in Committee of the Whole to make the motion.
  4898. If a Committee of the Whole amend a paragraph and subsequently 
strike out the paragraph as amended, the first amendment falls and is 
not reported to the House or voted on.
  The old form of report from the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union.
  Modern forms and ceremony of the report by the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole and the reception thereof by the Speaker. 
(Footnote.)
  On February 25, 1851,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union rose and its Chairman \3\ reported that the 
committee having, according to order, had the state of the Union 
generally \4\ under consideration, and particularly the bill of the 
House (H. R. 461) ``making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic 
expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1852, and for 
other purposes,'' had directed him to report the same with sundry 
amendments.\5\
  The Speaker stated the question to be on agreeing to the amendments.
  An amendment striking out a paragraph of the bill providing for a 
survey of the public lands having been reached, and the Speaker having 
stated the question to be upon agreeing thereto, Mr. George W. Jones, 
of Tennessee, made the point of order, that, inasmuch as the committee 
had struck out the said paragraph upon two separate and distinct 
motions, it should have been reported as two amendments, and the 
question should be taken in the House upon each, as in the committee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 346; Globe, p. 
679.
  \3\ Armistead Burt, of South Carolina, Chairman.
  \4\ This is the old form of report. The phrase relating to the state 
of the Union generally is no longer included in the form.
  \5\ In the present practice a chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
takes his place in the area in front of the Clerk's desk as soon as the 
Speaker takes the chair, and reports in form as follows:
  ``Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole House [or Whole House on 
the state of the Union, as the case may be] have had under 
consideration the bill [giving number and title] and have directed me 
to report the same with amendments, with the recommendation that the 
amendments be agreed to and that the bill do pass.''
  If there are no amendments the Chairman shortens the report in that 
particular.
  If the Committee of the Whole has recommended that the bill do not 
pass, or be laid on the table, etc., the Chairman modifies his report 
to conform to the fact.
  As soon as the Chairman has reported to the Speaker the latter 
repeats the report to the House, beginning:
  ``The gentleman from ------, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
House [or Whole House on the state of the Union] reports that that 
committee have had under consideration,'' etc.
                                                            Sec. 4899
  The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order, and stated that, 
notwithstanding the committee had first amended the paragraph by 
striking out the proviso, the fact of their afterwards striking, out 
the rest of the paragraph must necessarily bring the House to vote upon 
the question of striking out the whole. The second vote was to strike 
out the paragraph as amended; and, under the uniform practice of the 
House, the amendments previously adopted thereby fell.
  From this decision of the Chair Mr. Robert Toombs, of Georgia, 
appealed. And the question being put, Shall the decision of the Chair 
stand as the judgment of the House? it was decided in the affirmative, 
yeas 104, nays 71.
  4899. A Committee of the Whole, like any other committee, may adopt 
and report an amendment in the nature of a substitute.--The Committee 
of the Whole, like any other committee, may report to the House an 
amendment striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting a 
new text. Thus, on April 29, 1846,\2\ this was done with the bill for 
establishing the Smithsonian Institution.
  4900. An amendment in the nature of a substitute is reported from the 
Committee of the Whole in its perfected form, amendments to the 
substitute not being noted in the report.
  An amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole may not be 
withdrawn, and a question as to its validity is not considered by the 
Speaker.
  On March 1, 1907 \3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union arose and reported the merchant marine bill (S. 529) with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute and a pending amendment 
thereto.\4\
  Mr. James E. Watson, of Indiana, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, 
asked if a separate vote might be demanded on certain amendments which 
the Committee of the Whole had adopted to perfect the substitute.
  The Speaker \5\ said:

  The Chair reads from the Manual:
  ``An amendment in the nature of a substitute is reported from the 
Committee of the Whole in its perfected form, amendments to the 
substitute not being noted in the report.''
  Not being noted, the Chair has no knowledge of them.

  Thereupon Mr. Joseph W. Fordney, of Michigan, who had offered in 
Committee of the Whole the amendment which was reported as pending, 
asked if he might withdraw it.
  The Speaker said:

  The Committee of the Whole House has reported it to the House and the 
gentleman has no more control over it than any other Member.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 732; Globe, p. 
749.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 4371, 4372.
  \4\ The bill and substitute with pending amendment were reported in 
accordance with the provisions of a special order. Ordinarily a pending 
amendment would be disposed of in committee before a report could be 
made.
  \5\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 4901
  Thereupon Mr. Watson made the point of order that in fact Mr. Fordney 
had never actually offered the amendment reported as pending, but that 
it had merely been read in Committee of the Whole for information.
  The Speaker said:

  The Chair must depend upon the report made by the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House, and this amendment is reported as a 
pending amendment.

  4901. On January 17, 1903,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union rose, and its chairman \2\ reported that that 
committee had had under consideration the bill (S. 569) to establish 
the department of commerce and labor, and had directed him to report 
the same back with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, with the 
recommendation that the substitute be agreed to, and that the bill as 
amended do pass.
  Mr. William C. Adamson, of Georgia, rising to a parliamentary 
inquiry, asked if a separate vote might be asked on certain amendments 
which the Committee of the Whole had incorporated in the substitute 
amendment.
  The Speaker pro tempore \3\ said:

  The Chair will state to the gentleman from Georgia that there are no 
amendments upon which separate votes could be had. The report of the 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House was upon an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute which had been perfected. * * * The Chair 
will state the parliamentary situation: The Senate passed a bill (S. 
569) to establish a department of commerce and labor and sent it to the 
House. The House sent the bill to its Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce. That committee reported the bill to the House, 
striking out all after the enacting clause, and offering one single 
amendment by way of a substitute. The Committee of the Whole, in the 
consideration of that amendment by way of substitute, perfected it by 
various amendments, but of those amendments the House knows nothing. 
The House knows nothing except what it has learned from the report of 
the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and he reported that the 
Committee of the Whole had agreed upon an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to the Senate bill.

  4902. On April 6, 1900,\4\ the House was considering in Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union, the bill (S. 222) to provide 
a government for the Territory of Hawaii, with an amendment reported 
from the Committee on Territories to strike out all after the enacting 
clause and insert a new text.
  The text of the substitute having been read through by paragraphs and 
amended the question recurred on agreeing to the substitute as amended.
  Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, rising to a parliamentary 
inquiry, asked if the adoption of the substitute would prevent a 
separate vote in the House on each of the amendments to the substitute 
agreed upon in the Committee of the Whole.
  The Chairman \5\ said:

  The question will arise in the House and there be disposed of. * * * 
The Chair has no authority to express an opinion upon what will arise 
in the House.

  The substitute having been agreed to, the Committee of the Whole 
voted to rise and report the bill and amendment to the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 924, 925.
  \2\ George P. Lawrence, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
  \3\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Speaker pro tempore.
  \4\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 3865, 3866.
  \5\ William H. Moody, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 4903
  Thereupon the committee rose and the chairman reported that the 
committee had had under consideration the bill S. 222, and had directed 
him to report the same with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
with the recommendation that the bill as thus amended do pass.
  The question was then taken on agreeing to the substitute, no report 
having been made as to the amendments to this substitute, and a 
separate vote on them being therefore impossible.
  4903. On December 6, 1900,\1\ the bill (S. 4300) ``an act increasing 
the efficiency of the military establishment of the United States'' was 
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union. This bill had been reported from the House Committee on Military 
Affairs with an amendment striking out all after the enacting clause 
and inserting a new text. The new text of this substitute amendment was 
under consideration by sections, and Mr. Charles E. Littlefield, of 
Maine, as an amendment to the amendment, offered the following, which 
was agreed to:

  The sale of or dealing in beer, wine, or intoxicating liquors by any 
person in any post, exchange, or canteen, or army transport, or upon 
any premises used for military purposes by the United States, is hereby 
prohibited. The Secretary of War is hereby directed to carry the 
provisions of this section into full force and effect.

  The new text having been gone through for amendment, the question 
recurred on agreeing to the substitute as amended, and it was agreed 
to.
  The committee having risen, the Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. 
Dalzell reported that the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union, having had under consideration the bill S. 4300, a bill to 
increase the efficiency of the military establishment of the United 
States, had instructed him to report the same to the House with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute and with the recommendation 
that as so amended the bill do pass.
  The bill being before the House, Mr. John F. Fitzgerald, of 
Massachusetts, as a parliamentary inquiry, raised the question as to 
whether or not it would be in order to have a separate vote on the 
amendment to the substitute adopted in Committee of the Whole on motion 
of Mr. Littlefield.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  It is not, the Chair will state, because that question is not before 
the House in a separate form, not being reported as a separate 
amendment, as the Chair understands it, from the Committee of the 
Whole. * * * The Chair understands from the report of the chairman of 
the committee that no separate amendment was reported to the House, but 
that a substitute was presented for its action. * * * The Chair will 
state to the gentleman that the House can only vote upon the perfected 
amendment which has been reported from the Committee of the Whole--that 
is, the substitute for the Senate bill as amended.

  4904. The practice of reporting Committee of the Whole amendments 
only in their perfected forms had its origin in an old rule.--It was an 
old rule \3\ of the House that ``all amendments made to an original 
motion in committee shall be incorporated with the motion and so 
reported.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 112-122.
  \2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \3\ Rule 76, First session Nineteenth Congress, Journal, p.789.
Sec. 4905
  4905. The Committee of the Whole having reported two amendments as 
distinct, the one from the other, the Speaker held that they should be 
considered independently although apparently one was a proviso 
attaching to the other.--On July 19, 1876,\1\ the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union rose and the chairman reported 
that the committee, having had under consideration the joint resolution 
of the House (H. Res. 96) to provide for the protection of the Texas 
frontier on the lower Rio Grande, had directed him to report the same 
with sundry amendments.
  The House having proceeded to its consideration, the question was 
taken on this amendment:

  Add to the first section the following words: ``And the measuress 
herein directed shall be carried out without any restrictions or 
limitations in the laws in regard to the Amy notwithstanding.''

  The said amendment was agreed to.
  The question then being on the adoption of the following amendment:

  Add at the end of the first section the following proviso: 
``Provided, That no part of the troops provided for by this resolution 
shall be taken from any State or service where troops may now or 
hereafter be stationed, if in the judgment of the President the public 
service requires a continuance of troops in such localities.''

  Mr. William S. Holman, of Indiana, made the point of order that the 
amendment to which the aforesaid proviso was attached having been 
disagreed to, the proviso was also disagreed to.
  The Speaker pro tempore \2\ overruled the point of order, holding 
that the proviso attached to the section and not to the amendment 
thereto.
  The record of debate quotes the Chair as saying:

  The Chair is informed by the Clerk that the amendment, and what is 
apparently a proviso to it, were entertained in the Committee of the 
Whole as entirely different propositions.

  4906. Paragraphs ruled out in Committee of the Whole on points of 
order are not reported to the House.--On May 2, 1906,\3\ the Military 
Academy appropriation bill was considered in Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union, and no amendments were made thereto; 
but one paragraph was ruled out on a point of order.
  When the committee rose, the Chairman \4\ reported the bill with the 
recommendation that it be passed; but made no mention of the paragraph 
stricken out.
  The bill coming up for action in the House, Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, 
of Alabama, suggested that a paragraph had gone out on a point of 
order.
  The Speaker \5\ said:

  Paragraphs that go out on points of order are not reported. The 
question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

  4907. A Committee of the Whole may not report a recommendation which, 
if carried into effect, would change a rule of the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 1297; Record, p. 
4746.
  \2\ Milton Saylor, of Ohio, Speaker pro tempore.
  \3\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 6295.
  \4\ John F. Lacey, of Iowa, Chairman.
  \5\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 4908
  Where a Committee of the Whole reported a recommendation which was 
ruled out as in excess of its powers, it was held that the accompanying 
bill stood recommitted to the Committee of the Whole.
  On April 18, 1890,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House rose, and the 
Chairman reported that the committee, having had under consideration 
the bill of the House (H. R. 7616) for the allowance of certain claims 
for stores and supplies taken and used by the United States Army, as 
reported by the Court of Claims under the provisions of the act of 
March 3, 1883, known as the Bowman Act, had directed him to report the 
same back with the following recommendation, viz:

  Resolved, That House bill 7616 be reported back to the House with the 
recommendation that the same be recommitted to the Committee on War 
Claims with instructions to consider the evidence obtainable as to the 
loyalty of each of the claimants and as to the justice of each of the 
claims, and to report the bill and amendments back for consideration 
within two weeks, including also claims of a similar character in which 
favorable findings of the Court of Claims have been sent to the House 
of Representatives since the bill was reported by the committee, and 
when so reported back said bill shall be placed at the head of the 
Private Calendar, and shall be considered on the next private-bill day, 
and until disposed of, a separate vote to be taken when demanded on 
each separate claim, the said claims to be reported back in this bill 
and amendments in the order in which they were reported to Congress by 
the Court of Claims.

  The same having been read, Mr. Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, made 
the point of order that the resolution was not in order, for the reason 
that its effect was to change a standing rule of the House; also, the 
further point of order that the Committee of the Whole could not 
originate and report a resolution fixing the order in which the House 
should vote upon the several provisions of the bill.
  Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made the additional point of order 
that the said resolution was a recommendation for the adoption of a 
rule, and that under clause 51 of Rule XI \2\ it should go to the 
Committee on Rules.
  After debate on the question of order,
  The Speaker \3\ sustained the points of order raised and held the 
resolution out of order; and in reply to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. 
W. C. P. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, held that the bill stood 
recommitted to the Committee of the Whole House.
  4908. On February 4, 1896,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union had concluded the consideration of the District of 
Columbia appropriation bill, and Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, moved 
that the committee rise and report the bill to the House, with the 
recommendation that it be recommitted to the Committee on 
Appropriations with instructions to strike out all paragraphs making 
appropriations to purely private charitable institutions and objects, 
and to insert a provision appropriating an amount equal to the sum of 
the appropriations striken out to be expended under the direction of 
the Board of Children's Guardians.
  Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, suggested the point of order that 
the motion was broad enough to authorize legislation on a general 
appropriation bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 495; Record, p. 
3504.
  \2\ Now section 53 of Rule XI. (See sec. 4321 of this volume.)
  \3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1310.
Sec. 4909
  The Chairman \1\ said:

  The Chair is ready to rule upon the question. The Chair reads from 
the Digest:
  ``A recommendation reported from the Committee of the Whole which, if 
carried into effect, would change a rule of the House is not in 
order.''
  The resolution as drawn would authorize the Board of Children's 
Guardians, if adopted, to expend all this fund as they please. It would 
enlarge their powers and would be a change of existing law without 
question in the mind of the Chair; and the point of order is sustained.

  4909. A Committee of the Whole having reported not only what it had 
done, but by whom it had been prevented from doing other things, the 
Speaker held that the House might not amend the report, which stood.--
On June 24, 18421 \2\ the Committee of the Whole House rose, and the 
Chairman \3\ reported certain bills which had been acted on favorably, 
and further reported that he was instructed specially to report that 
the committee, in obedience to the rule, had gone through the entire 
calendar of private bills; but that, owing to objections interposed by 
a gentleman from Georgia, the committee had been unable to do any 
business except as above reported.
  A question was raised as to this report, and considerable debate 
ensued. The Speaker \4\ held that the House might not amend the report, 
and that the Committee of the Whole had the right to report what they 
pleased.
  On the succeeding day a motion was made to amend the Journal by 
striking out the portion of this report which gave the reasons why the 
Committee of the Whole were unable to act on certain bills.
  This motion to amend the Journal was laid on the table.
  4910. The hour for taking a vote having arrived, an amendment pending 
and undisposed of in Committee of the Whole at the time is not acted on 
by the House.--On January 31, 1899,\5\ the bill (H. R. 11022) was under 
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, when the hour of 3 o'clock, which had been fixed for voting on 
the bill in the House, arrived. The Chairman \1\ accordingly directed 
the committee to rise, and made his report to the House. In the course 
of that report he mentioned ``one amendment pending,'' which was an 
amendment recommended by the Committee on Military Affairs and which 
had been amended but not voted on when the Committee of the Whole rose.
  Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, made the point of order that such 
pending amendment could not be reported to the House and was not before 
the House for its consideration.
  After debate the Speaker \6\ held:

  The Chair would say that, inasmuch as the order of the House was to 
the effect that the vote should be taken at 3 o'clock, and while there 
is no exact precedent, it seems that in accordance with the practice, 
as far as the Chair has had an opportunity to examine it, the point 
made by the gentleman from Texas should be sustained.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
  \2\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 1011, 1013; 
Globe, pp. 680, 685, 686.
  \3\ John C. Clark, of New York, Chairman.
  \4\ John White, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \5\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 1332.
  \6\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 4911
  4911. A Committee of the Whole, directed by order of the House to 
consider certain bills, reported also certain other bills, whereupon 
the Speaker held that so much of the report as related to the latter 
bills could be received only by unanimous consent.--On January 26, 
1836.\1\ the House agreed to a special order providing that after a 
certain date the general appropriation bills should have precedence 
each day. On March 3, the House, in pursuance of the provisions of this 
order, resolved itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union, and, after some time spent therein, the committee rose 
and the Chairman reported that the committee had had the state of the 
Union generally under consideration, and particularly the naval 
appropriation bill, and had come to no resolution thereon. He further 
reported that the committee did, by common consent, also take into 
consideration other bills, viz, a bill relating to the functions of the 
bank of the United States in performing the duties of commissioner of 
loans, and a bill to carry into effect a convention between the United 
States and Spain.
  The Speaker \2\ stated that as the last-mentioned bills had not been 
included in the special order under which the House had, this day, 
resolved itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, the report, so far as it related to those bills, could only be 
received by the unanimous consent of the House.
  No objection being made, and it being stated that the bills were 
acted on by general consent in the committee, the report was received.
  4912. A matter alleged to have arisen in Committee of the Whole but 
not reported by the chairman may not be brought to the attention of the 
House even on the claim that a question of privilege is involved.--On 
April 26, 1900,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union had risen and reported the post-office appropriation bill to the 
House.
  Mr. Eugene F. Loud, of California, asked for the previous question on 
the bill and amendments to the final passage.
  Mr. John F. Fitzgerald, of Massachusetts, claiming the floor for a 
question of personal privilege, stated that he had been deprived of an 
opportunity of offering a certain amendment in Committee of the Whole, 
although the gentleman in charge of the bill had assured him that he 
should have such opportunity.
  The Speaker \4\ interrupting Mr. Fitzgerald, said:

  The gentleman will suspend. No such matter has been referred from the 
committee to the House, and the gentleman will readily see that the 
Chair can take no cognizance of any matter except it takes place in the 
House.

  4913. The Committee of the Whole having risen because a quorum had 
failed, the bills that had been laid aside to be reported remained in 
the committee until the next occasion when the committee rose without 
question as to a quorum.--On May 6, 1896,\5\ the House, under a special 
order, considered the class of bills usually in order at a Friday 
evening session.\6\ A quorum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Twenty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 238, 461.
  \2\ James K. Polk, of Tennessee, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4730.
  \4\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 4914, 5011.
  \6\ See section 3281 of this volume.
Sec. 4914
having failed in the Committee of the Whole House, and the roll call 
having failed to disclose a quorum, the session of the committee closed 
without any report of the bills considered.
  On Friday evening, May 8, the same class of bills had been 
considered, and when the Committee of the Whole House rose the Chairman 
\1\ reported not only the bills acted on that evening, but also those 
that had been laid aside to be reported on May 6.
  When the report had been made, Mr. Constantine J. Erdman, of 
Pennsylvania, made the point of order that the Chairman had reported 
bills that had not been considered by the Committee of the Whole, and 
which were therefore improperly reported.
  The Speaker \2\ pro tempore overruled the point of order.\3\
  4914. The fact that the vote whereby the Committee of the Whole rose 
did not show a quorum was held not sufficient to prevent the reception 
of the report of the committee by the House.
  The Speaker can not review any matter in Committee of the Whole, not 
even the failure of a quorum, unless it be mentioned in the report to 
the House.
  A quorum is not required on a motion that the Committee of the Whole 
rise.
  On May 14, 1858,\4\ the Committee of the Whole having risen, and the 
House being engaged in receiving the report from the Committee of the 
Whole, Mr. Humphrey Marshall, of Kentucky, who was making the report, 
gave the list of measures severally, with a recommendation that the 
said report be concurred in, and reported that the committee had 
subsequently found itself without a quorum.
  The record of debates shows that in committee the bills had been laid 
aside to be reported with a favorable recommendation. The motion was 
made that the committee rise, and on a vote by tellers there were 48 in 
the affirmative and 46 in the negative. So the motion was agreed to.
  The point was made that no quorum had voted, \5\ and a demand was 
made that the roll must be called.
  The Chairman \6\ ruled that no quorum was necessary for the committee 
to rise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, Chairman.
  \2\ Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, Speaker pro tempore.
  \3\ Sometimes, when the Committee of the Whole has found itself 
without a quorum, it has risen according to the rule, and the Chairman 
has reported to the House such bills as had been acted on before the 
quorum failed, and then has reported to the House the fact that a 
quorum had failed, and the list of the absentees. See instances on May 
5, June 2, and June 23, 1848. (First session Thirtieth Congress, 
Journal, pp. 773, 869, 947.) The Speaker (Robert C. Winthrop, of 
Massachusetts), decided on May 5, the propriety of the course having 
been questioned, that less than a quorum could rise and report. (Globe, 
p. 728.) It seems evident, however, that should the point of no quorum 
be made at once in the House, this report might require to be delayed 
until the presence of a quorum should be ascertained. The House, 
evidently, may not receive a report in the absence of a quorum.
  \4\ First session Thirty-fifth Congress, Journal, pp. 814, 822; 
Globe, p. 2141.
  \5\ At that time the presence of the quorum was determined only by 
the vote. See sections 2895-2904, etc., of this volume.
  \6\ Humphrey Marshall, of Kentucky, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 4915
  The report of the Committee of the Whole having been made, Mr. Calvin 
C. Chaffee, of Massachusetts, by unanimous consent, moved that the 
bills be recommitted.
  Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, made the point of order that there 
was no quorum present, and that consequently it was not in order to 
receive the report of the committee.
  The Speaker \1\ stated that there was no evidence that a quorum was 
not present, and overruled the said point of order.
  The record of the debate shows that the Speaker expressed the opinion 
that the bills ordered to be reported back before the committee found 
itself without a quorum could be received.
  Mr. Jones made the point that less than a quorum could not make a 
report, and that even if it be made, less than a quorum of the House 
could not receive it. There was no legal and constitutional House to 
receive the report if there were not a quorum present.
  The Speaker said:

  The Chair has no knowledge of the fact that there is no quorum 
present. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House reports to 
the House that they have had the Private Calendar under consideration, 
and have directed him to report sundry bills to the House, some with 
and some without amendment.

  Mr. Jones having appealed, the appeal was laid on the table on the 
succeeding day.
  4915. It is not in order in the House to move to postpone or 
otherwise consider a bill which is still in the Committee of the 
Whole.--On July 22, 1892,\2\ during the call of committees for 
reports,\3\ when the Committee on Public Lands was called, Mr. Thomas 
C. McRae, of Arkansas, from that committee, submitted the question of 
order, whether it was not in order to move to postpone the bill (H. R. 
9072)--to fully adjust and settle the claims of Arkansas and other 
States under the swamp-land grants--until the 6th day of December next.
  The Speaker \4\ held that the motion was not in order, inasmuch as 
the bill was in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
and must have its first consideration in that Committee.
  On motion of Mr. McRae, the House resolved itself into the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union; and after some time spent 
therein, the Speaker resumed the chair, and the Chairman reported that 
the Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 9072) to 
fully adjust and settle the claims of Arkansas and other States, had 
come to no resolution thereon.
  Mr. McRae moved that the further consideration of said bill be 
postponed until December 6, 1892.
  Mr. Nelson Dingley, jr., of Maine, made the point of order that the 
motion was not in order, for the reason that the bill was still in 
Committee of the Whole.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ James L. Orr, of South Carolina, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 318; Record, pp. 
6591, 6592.
  \3\ Reports are now filed with the Clerk.
  \4\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
Sec. 4916
  The Speaker sustained the point of order, holding that the bill 
having been referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union, and not having been reported back, it was not now in 
order to postpone it or otherwise consider it in the House.
  4916. A bill presumed to have been read in Committee of the Whole and 
reported favorably therefrom is not read in full again when acted on by 
the House.
  When a bill is reported from the Committee of the Whole the Speaker 
must assume that it has passed through all the stages necessary for the 
report.
  On April 29, 1902,\1\ the bill (H. R. 14018) ``to increase the limit 
of cost of certain public buildings, to authorize the purchase of 
sites,'' etc., was reported from the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union, and the Speaker put the question on the 
engrossment and third reading.
  Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, made the point of order that 
the bill had not been read in the Committee of the Whole, and that it 
should be read before it was acted on by the House.
  Debate developed the fact that the reading of the bill in full, when 
it had been taken up in Committee of the Whole, had been dispensed with 
by unanimous consent. There had been no reading for amendment under the 
five-minute rule, since a special order adopted previously by the House 
had dispensed with amendment.
  After debate the Speaker \2\ said:

  The Clerk will read the first ruling found on page 647 of the Manual.
  ``A bill which has been read in Committee of the Whole and reported 
favorably therefrom is not read in full again when acted upon by the 
House.''
  * * * There is not the slightest difficulty about the situation, as 
the Chair views it. The Chair is bound to assume that every necessary 
step has been taken in the Committee of the Whole, including the 
reading of the bill. The gentleman from Tennessee knows very well that 
the reading under the five-minute rule is not one of the readings 
referred to in the rule, but is merely a matter of convenience for the 
Members in case they wish to offer amendments. The rule adopted by the 
House makes that unnecessary, and the bill comes to the House with 
every presumption in favor of all having been done that is required to 
be done by the rules of the House of Representatives.

  4917. A motion to discharge the Committee of the Whole from the 
consideration of a matter committed to it is not privileged as against 
a demand for the regular order.--On March 8, 1878,\3\ the Committee of 
the Whole House rose and the Chairman reported that it had had under 
consideration the joint resolution (No. 20) to apply the amount 
appropriated by the act of Congress approved March 3, 1877, to pay 
certain southern mail contractors, and had come to no resolution 
thereon.
  Mr. Alfred M. Waddell, of North Carolina, moved to discharge the 
Committee of the Whole House from further consideration of the 
resolution.
  Mr. Omar D. Conger, of Michigan, called for the regular order and 
made the point that the motion of the gentleman from North Carolina was 
not in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 659; Record, 
pp. 4840, 4841.
  \2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Forty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 619; Record, p. 
1601.
                                                            Sec. 4918
  The Speaker,\1\ having first caused to be read a portion of Rule 109, 
as follows:

  The House may at any time, by a vote of a majority of the Members 
present, provide for the discharge of the Committee of the Whole House 
and the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union from the 
further consideration of any bill referred to it after acting without 
debate on all amendments pending and that may be offered.

said:

  The Chair thinks that the rule runs to this fact, that the Committee 
of the Whole did not act upon all the amendments pending as provided 
for in the rule read. The gentleman from Michigan raises the point of 
order that the motion of the gentleman from North Carolina under a 
demand for the regular order was not in order, and the Chair thinks 
that it was not in order pending such demand for the regular order.\2\

  4918. The motion to discharge a Committee of the Whole was frequently 
in use until the necessary adherence to an order of business destroyed 
its privileged character.--It is very evident that in the earlier 
history of the House a debate might be cut short in Committee of the 
Whole by a motion in the House that the Committee of the Whole be 
discharged from the consideration of the subject. Thus, on April 15, 
1826,\3\ during the prolonged debate in Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union on the resolutions relating to the mission to 
Panama, a Member gave notice of his intention to make such a motion. 
But on the next day the Committee declining to rise, he was precluded 
from making the motion. On April 18 \4\ the motion to discharge the 
committee was made in the House, and after debate, on April 19, was 
decided in the negative.
  4919. On April 1, 1826,\5\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union was considering a certain resolution proposing 
amendments to the Constitution relating to the method of electing the 
President of the United States, and after long debate Mr. Daniel 
Webster, of Massachusetts, moved that the committee rise.
  Mr. Henry R. Storrs, of New York, asked that the motion might be 
withdrawn in order that he might make an explanation.
  But Mr. Webster insisting on his motion, the committee voted to rise, 
and the Chairman reported that the committee had had the state of the 
Union generally
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
  \2\ While the principle of the decision is correct in accordance with 
the present practice of the House, the rule cited by the Speaker has 
not existed since the revision of 1880, and even then was obsolete. 
(See Record, second session Forty-sixth Congress, p. 201.) It was 
originally intended, before the five-minute rule of debate was devised, 
to afford a means of saving a bill from obstructive debate in Committee 
of the Whole. (See sec. 5221 of Vol. V of this work.) At present there 
is no rule whatever providing for discharging the Committee of the 
Whole from the consideration of a bill.
  In the earlier years of the House the motion to discharge the 
Committee of the Whole was frequently made, not being prevented by the 
rigid order of business compelled by pressure of business. (Second 
session Thirteenth Congress, Journal, pp. 276, 277.) On February 28, 
1818, Mr. Speaker Clay decided that a vote discharging a Committee of 
the Whole dissolved it, but of course the modern usage would prevent 
such a result. (First session Fifteenth Congress, Journal, p. 271; 
Annals, p. 1028.) In 1840 the Committee of the Whole could be 
discharged only by a two-thirds vote suspending the rule as to the 
order of business.
  \3\ First session Nineteenth Congress, Debates, pp. 2302, 2303.
  \4\ Debates, pp. 2371, 2376.
  \5\ First session Nineteenth Congress, Journal, p. 400; Debates, p. 
2003.
Sec. 4920
under consideration; but more particularly the resolution, etc., and 
had come to no decision thereon.
  Mr. Webster thereupon moved that the Committee of the Whole House be 
discharged from the consideration of the pending resolutions, and also 
several other resolutions.
  This motion being agreed to, the resolutions were considered by the 
House.
  4920. On February 2, 1841,\1\ Mr. Speaker Hunter decided that a 
motion to discharge the Committee of the Whole from the consideration 
of the bill authorizing the issuing of Treasury notes could only be 
presented by a motion to suspend the rules relating to the order of 
business.
  4921. On February 21, 1843,\2\ the House was considering a motion to 
discharge the Committee of the Whole House from the consideration of 
the bill (H. R. 692) to revive the act to enable claimants to land in 
Missouri and Arkansas to institute proceedings to try the validity of 
their claims, etc.
  The Speaker \3\ informed the House that a vote of two-thirds would be 
required to agree to the motion, as it was a proposition to change the 
order of business.\4\
  4922. When the Committee of the Whole is discharged from the 
consideration of a bill the House, in lieu of a report from the 
Chairman, accepts the minutes of the Clerk as evidence of amendments 
agreed to.--On February 25, 1845,\5\ on motion of Mr. Stephen A. 
Douglas, of Illinois, the rules were suspended, and the House agreed to 
this resolution:

  Resolved, That the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union be discharged from the further consideration of the Senate bill 
No. 46, and that the said bill, together with the amendments agreed to 
in committee, be brought before the House for immediate action 
thereon.\6\

  Mr. George C. Dromgoole, of Virginia, raised a question as to 
procedure under this resolution, the committee being discharged without 
making any report. The Journal has this entry, describing the procedure 
as it occurred:

  So the said resolution offered by Mr. Douglas was agreed to; and the 
said bill from the Senate (No. 46) entitled, ``An act to reduce the 
rates of postage, to limit the use and correct the abuse of the 
franking privilege, and for the prevention of frauds on the revenue of 
the Post-Office Department,''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 223; Globe, p. 
138.
  \2\ Third session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 419.
  \3\ John White, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \4\ It was formerly the custom for a Committee of the Whole to ask 
leave to sit again. Thus, on May 6, 1826, the Committee of the Whole 
House rose and the Chairman reported that the committee had had under 
consideration bills relating to the claims of the legal representatives 
of the Marquis de Maison Rouge and of De Bastrop, had made progress 
therein, and asked leave to sit again.
  The House decided in the negative the motion that the committee have 
leave to sit again.
  On May 8, the next legislative day, the House proceeded to consider 
the bills, without any action discharging the Committee of the Whole. 
(First session Nineteenth Congress, Journal, pp. 525, 528; Debates, pp. 
2605, 2606.)
  So in a similar case on December 15 and 16, 1825, when, the Committee 
of the whole having asked leave to sit again, the House adjourned 
before acting on the request. On the next day leave was refused. It 
seems to have been considered that the bill was reported from the 
committee with the rising. (First session Nineteenth Congress, Journal, 
pp. 61, 66; Debates, pp. 813, 819.)
  \5\ Second session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 476, 477; 
Globe, p. 349.
  \6\ A motion to discharge the Committee of the Whole is not 
privileged, and may only be offered under suspension of the rules, as 
in this case, by unanimous consent, or on report from the Committee on 
Rules.
                                                            Sec. 4922
as taken up by the House for immediate action thereon. And it appeared 
by the minutes of the Clerk, ``entered on a separate piece of paper,'' 
according to the provisions of the one hundred and twenty-sixth rule of 
the House \1\ while the House was in Committee of the Whole on the 
state of the Union, that the said committee had amended the bill by--
(here follows a statement of the amendments).

  The question was stated by the Speaker, in accordance with the said 
resolution offered by Mr. Douglas, on agreeing to the said amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ This rule provided, ``The body of the bill shall not be defaced 
or interlined; but all amendments, noting the page and line, shall be 
duly entered by the Clerk on a separate paper, as the same shall be 
agreed to by the committee, and so reported to the House.'' This rule 
dated from April 7, 1789. It no longer exists, except in the general 
provision of the Manual. For this rule, see Journal, second session 
Twenty-eighth Congress, p. 591.