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

 
                             Chapter CVII.

                     THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.\1\

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

    1. Rule for forming committee. Section 4704.
    2. Origin and development of. Section 4705.
    3. Nature and powers of. Sections 4706-4715.\2\
    4. Certain motions not in order in. Sections 4716-4721.
    5. Yeas and nays not taken in. Sections 4722-4724.
    6. After voting to go into committee no motions in order. 
     Sections 4725-4728.
    7. Order of business in. Sections 4729-4734.
    8. Unfinished business in. Sections 4735, 4736.
    9. Rules of proceeding in. Section 4737.\3\
   10. Reading of bills, Sections 4738-4741.
   11. Amendment under five-minute rule. Sections 4742-4751.
   12. Rising and reporting. Sections 4752-4766.
   13. The simple motion to rise. Sections 4767-4773.
   14. Various motions for disposition of a bill. Sections 4774-
     4782.
   15. Questions of order. Sections 4783, 4784.\4\
   16. Informal rising.Sections 4785-4791.\5\

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

  4704. In forming a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker leaves the 
chair, after appointing a Chairman to preside.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may cause the galleries or 
lobby to be cleared in case of disturbance or disorderly conduct 
therein.
  Present form and history of section 1 of Rule XXIII.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ In early practice given power to take testimony. (Sec. 1804 of 
Vol. III.) Subjects once considered in, irrespective of appropriations 
or revenue. (Sec. 1984 of Vol. III.) House sometimes attends 
impeachment trials in. (Secs. 2027, 2374 of Vol. III.) Motions to go 
into, to consider revenue and appropriation bills. (Secs. 3072-3085 of 
this volume.) Motions to go into, after call of committees. (Secs. 
3134-3141 of this volume.) Relations to special orders. (Secs. 3214-
3230 of this volume.) Conference reports not considered in. (Secs. 
6559-6561 of Vol. V.) Relations to Congressional Record. (Secs. 6986-
6988 of Vol. V.) Rule of admission to floor applies to. (Sec. 7285 of 
Vol. V.)
  \2\ In early years matters originated in. (Secs. 1507, 1541 of Vol. 
II.) Articles of impeachment considered in. (Secs. 2415, 2420 of Vol. 
III.)
  \3\ As to debate in. (Chapter CXV, secs. 5203-5211 of Vol. V.) 
Failure of quorum in. (Secs. 2966-2979 of this volume.)
  \4\ See also sections 6927-6937 of Vol. V. Speaker sometimes takes 
the chair to restore order. (Secs. 1348-1351 of Vol. II.) Extreme 
disorder in. (Secs. 1649-1653, 1657 of Vol. II.) Questions of privilege 
in. (Secs. 2540-2544 of Vol. III.)
  \5\ Reception of messages while sitting. (Sec. 6590 of Vol. V.)
                                                            Sec. 4705
  Section 1 of Rule XXIII provides:

  In all cases, in forming a Committee of the Whole House, the Speaker 
shall leave his chair after appointing a Chairman \1\ to preside, who 
shall, in case of disturbance or disorderly conduct in the galleries or 
lobby, have power to cause the same to be cleared.

  This form of the rule was adopted in the revision of 1880.\2\ It was 
derived from two old rules, each dating from 1794: \3\

  Rule 105. In forming a Committee of the Whole House, the Speaker 
shall leave his chair, and a Chairman, to preside in committee, shall 
be appointed by the Speaker.
  Rule 9. In case of any disturbance or disorderly conduct in the 
galleries or lobby, the Speaker (or Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole House) shall have power to order the same to be cleared.

  Rule 105 dates in reality from April 7, 1789,\4\ and was modified in 
1794 by the addition of the words ``by the Speaker.'' Until those words 
were added the Chairman was nominated from the floor and elected. The 
inconvenience of the practice \5\ led to its abandonment.\6\
  4705. The origin and development of the Committees of the Whole.
  Distinction between the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union and the Committee of the Whole House.
  The rules and practice of the House of Representatives contemplate 
two Committees of the Whole, the ``Committee of the Whole House'' and 
the ``Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.'' In the 
former are considered bills of a private nature, and its business is 
kept on the Private Calendar. To the latter go public bills requiring 
an appropriation of money or property of the Government, and its 
business is kept on the Union Calendar.\7\
  The Committee of the Whole is a very ancient parliamentary 
institution; \8\ but the two Committees of the Whole of the House, each 
with its own individuality, functions, and jurisdiction, are the 
results of development in the last century. The Continental Congress 
used the Committee of the Whole frequently, considering its important 
business and giving private audiences to foreign ministers therein.\9\ 
In the early days of the struggle for independence it resolved itself 
into a ``Committee of the Whole to take into consideration the state of 
America.'' \10\ The Federal Con-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole has power to 
administer oaths to witnesses in any case under its examination. (R. 
S., sec. 101.) Act of May 3, 1798, second session Fifth Congress, 
Journal, pp. 203, 250; Annals, p. 1069. The law was proposed to obviate 
the inconvenience that had been experienced in the examination of 
witnesses, notably in the contempt case arising out of the affray 
between Messrs. Lyon and Griswold, which had been considered in 
Committee of the Whole a few weeks before. (See sec. 1642 of Vol. II of 
this work.) The House has not, for many years, recurred to this early 
practice of conducting examinations in Committee of the Whole.
  \2\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 205, 1208.
  \3\ Third and Fourth Congresses, Journal, p. 92. (Gales and Seaton 
ed.)
  \4\ First session First Congress, Journal, p. 10.
  \5\ Constitution, Manual, Rules, edition of 1859, p. 190.
  \6\ In the Continental Congress the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole was elected by ballot whenever the House went into committee. 
(See Journal of Continental Congress, January 29, 1783.)
  \7\ See section 3115 of this volume.
  \8\ See Reed's Parliamentary Rules, section 86.
  \9\ Continental Congress, Journal, February 13, 1779.
  \10\ Continental Congress, Journal, May 15, 1775.
Sec. 4705
vention, called to frame the Constitution, met May 14, 1787, and 
adjourned from day to day until the delegates arrived. On May 29 it 
was--

  Resolved, That the House will meet to-morrow to resolve itself into a 
Committee of the Whole House to consider of the state of the American 
Union.

  Such a motion was agreed to thereafter from time to time during the 
work of preparing the Constitution.\1\ When the Constitution was framed 
it provided in section 3 of Article II that the President should ``from 
time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the 
Union.'' When, in 1789, the First Congress met and the Committee on 
Rules reported a system of rules for the House,\2\ it was established 
that it should be a ``standing order of the day, throughout the 
session, for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union.'' \3\ The rules also contemplated the 
reference of bills to ``a Committee of the Whole House.'' Thus the two 
kinds of Committees of the Whole were recognized at that time. The use 
of the article ``a'' instead of ``the'' indicates what was the fact, 
that there was then no individuality and permanence to these 
committees.
  A Committee of the Whole was often known and designated by some 
important bill which had been referred to it. Thus, on February 8, 
1816,\4\ a revenue bill was reported by the Ways and Means Committee 
and referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and on March 15 the 
appropriation bill for the support of the Government was committed ``to 
the Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee of Ways and 
Means upon the subject of revenue.'' This usage is further illustrated 
on February 25, 1818,\5\ when Mr. Speaker Clay ruled that a vote 
discharging a Committee of the Whole from the consideration of the 
bankruptcy bill in effect dissolved that Committee of the Whole, with 
the result that a bill relating to the organization of the courts of 
the United States, which had been referred to the Committee of the 
Whole on the bankruptcy bill, was by that dissolution brought before 
the House. In 1817 \6\ the practice of referring several bills to a 
single Committee of the Whole had resulted in delays, and a rule was 
adopted that no more than three bills should be referred to the same 
Committee of the Whole, and such bills should be analagous in their 
nature. When the rules were revised, in 1860, this rule was dropped, 
Mr. Israel Washburn, jr., of Maine, who presented the report, stating 
that the Committee on Rules ``were unable to understand what the rule 
meant, and saw no use in retaining it.'' \7\
  Mr. Washburn's statement affords a remarkable illustration of how a 
practice of the House may subvert a rule so thoroughly that the rule 
may in the course of time become an enigma. On April 18, 1822,\8\ Mr. 
Charles Rich, of Vermont, proposed a rule to provide that, exclusive of 
``the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union,'' there should 
be three Committees of the Whole House: One on bills
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ See Bulletin No. 3, Department of State, p. 55 (published 
January, 1894).
  \2\ This committee included several who had served in the Continental 
Congress.
  \3\ First session First Congress, Journal, pp. 9 and 10.
  \4\ First session Fourteenth Congress, Journal, pp. 298, 299, 492.
  \5\ First session Fifteenth Congress, Journal, p. 277; Annals, p. 
1028.
  \6\ First session Fifteenth Congress, Journal, p. 88; Annals, p. 514.
  \7\ First session Thirty-sixth Congress, Globe, p. 1181.
  \8\ First session Seventeenth Congress, Journal, pp. 469, 477; 
Annals, p. 1617.
Sec. 4705
of a public or general nature, one on private or local bills, and one 
for private matters unfavorably reported from a committee. The rule 
still further provided that reports of committees referred to the 
Committee of the Whole should be assigned to the appropriate one by the 
Speaker and be entered on the Calendar for the next succeeding day. In 
Committee of the Whole the subjects should be announced in their order 
on the Calendar, and any number might be considered at the sitting of 
the Committee of the Whole. The House, on April 22, declined to 
consider this rule, which was intended to supplant the rule that no 
more than three bills should be referred to the same Committee of the 
Whole. On January 24, 1824,\1\ Mr. Rich renewed his proposition. He 
said that in earlier days a general Committee of the Whole was 
appointed to which many subjects were often referred. This committee 
being overburdened, many matters failed. Hence the rule that not more 
than three matters should be referred to the same Committee of the 
Whole. That had improved matters, but he believed this method would be 
better. The proposition does not seem to have been acted on; but in 
spite of this neglect to make a formal rule a practice similar to that 
proposed in 1822 and 1824 grew up, and in 1860 had been so long 
established that the most experienced Members of the House could 
remember no other.
  As the many Committees of the Whole, each created temporarily for the 
consideration of one, two, or three bills, gradually became, as the 
practice changed, two committees, each with an individuality and 
calendar of its own, so, also, there grew up a new and, in some 
respects, more marked distinction between the Committees of the Whole 
House and those of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  Originally matters were brought up in the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union without a reference of them to that 
committee by the House. Thus, on April 8, 1789, Mr. James Madison, of 
Virginia, brought up the subject of the first tariff law, and, after 
debate, the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
reported resolutions to the House giving it as the opinion of the 
committee that a select committee should be appointed to prepare a bill 
to regulate the duties, etc.\2\ In the same way the subject of 
organizing the Executive Departments of the Government was first 
introduced by Mr. Elias Boudinot, of New Jersey, who rose in Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union and proposed the 
subject.\3\ As late as 1850 a bill was originated in Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union, but jurisdiction had been 
conferred by the reference of a message of the President. For many 
years neither Committee of the Whole has considered a subject or 
originated a bill not referred to it; and as early as 1833 \4\ we find 
discussion of the general interests of the nation in Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union referred to as a usage of the 
past.\5\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Eighteenth Congress, Annals, p. 1179.
  \2\ First session First Congress, Annals, April 11, 1789.
  \3\ First session First Congress, Annals, May 19, 1789.
  \4\ Second session Twenty-second Congress, Debates, p. 1088.
  \5\ Distinctions should be made between the early discussions which 
began with nothing before the committee and ended in a recommendation 
for legislation, and the general discussion in Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union at the present time, which are made 
without reference to the subject of the pending measure and do not 
result in formulated action.
Sec. 4705
  So it is evident that in the First Congress, and for several 
subsequent Congresses, the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union was an arrangement for consultation chiefly. Whenever the 
House referred a matter they generally sent it to a Committee of the 
Whole House. Even the addresses of the Presidents went to a Committee 
of the Whole House until 1801. In that year President Jefferson, 
instead of addressing the Congress, sent a message,\1\ and this was 
referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union.\2\ This has been the practice since with the annual messages of 
the President. Formerly, also, special messages of great importance 
were sometimes referred at once to this committee instead of to a 
standing committee.\3\
  But the committees of the Whole House continued for many years to 
receive the public as well as the private bills. The ``orders of the 
day'' for Monday, December 2, 1822,\4\ shows that the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union received resolutions relating to 
appropriation of land for educational purposes, proposed amendments to 
the Constitution, reports from Cabinet officers and committees of the 
House, and a few bills for public purposes. On February 17, 1836,\5\ we 
find a proposition to refer the joint resolution for erecting a 
monument to Nathan Hale to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union antagonized by Mr. Samuel F. Vinton, of Ohio, who 
deprecated the growing practice of sending ``ordinary matters'' to the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. He proposed to 
refer it to a Committee of the Whole House.
  This idea that the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union should receive what may be called the greater matters of 
legislation has gradually resulted in the usage now crystallized in 
rule \6\--that private bills shall go to the Committee of the Whole 
House, while the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
receives public bills. But in the early usage the Committee of the 
Whole House received the greater proportion of the public bills, as 
well as all the private bills. Excepting one bill in 1822,\7\ both 
revenue and appropriation bills went to the Committee of the Whole 
House until 1828, when bills of both classes were referred to the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.\3\ But all the 
public bills did not at once follow the revenue and appropriation 
bills; and as late as 1838 a bill relating to repairs of vessels of the 
Navy went to the Committee of the Whole House,\9\ which had not yet 
become devoted exclusively to private business.
  Under the later usage and rule of the House the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union considers only those public bills 
which involve the, expenditure of money or authorize appropriation of 
money or property. But it
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Seventh Congress, Journal, p. 7, for President 
Jefferson's letter giving his reasons for sending a message.
  \2\ First session Seventh Congress, Journal, p. 11; Annals, pp. 313, 
326.
  \3\ First session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 532, 544, 659, 
1430.
  \4\ Reports of Committees on Rules, Fourteenth to Forty-ninth 
Congresses (McKee's Compilation).
  \5\ First session Twenty-fourth Congress, Debates, p. 2557.
  \6\ See rule as to Calendars (sec. 3115 of this volume).
  \7\ Second session Seventeenth Congress, Journal, p. 172.
  \8\ First session Twentieth Congress, Journal, pp. 232, 233, 236.
  \9\ Second session Twenty-fifth Congress, Journal, pp. 484, 485.
                                                            Sec. 4706
is evident that as late as 1844 \1\ important matters were referred to 
the committee without regard to this distinction.
  Formerly the reports from the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union recognized the relations of this committee to the 
state of the Union generally.
  4706. The Committee of the Whole has been held to be but a committee 
of the House.--On February 14, 1826,\2\ in a debate in Committee of the 
Whole on a point of order, Mr. Speaker Taylor said that the Committee 
of the Whole was but a committee of the House, though a large one.
  4707. Only in exceptional and early cases has the Committee of the 
Whole originated legislative propositions.--On February 24, 1847,\3\ 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rose and the 
Chairman reported that the committee having, according to order, had 
the state of the Union generally under consideration, particularly the 
bill (No. 638) to establish certain post routes, had directed him to 
report the same to the House with amendments. And the committee had 
also directed him to report an original bill (No. 691) to amend the act 
entitled ``An act to reduce the rate of postage,'' etc.
  The record of debates shows that Mr. George W. Hopkins, of Virginia, 
proposed in the Committee of the Whole to report the original bill. It 
was objected that the Committee of the Whole might not originate a 
bill, but Mr. Hopkins contended that one committee bad as much right to 
report and prepare a bill for the House as another, and the bill was 
strictly appropriate to a committee sitting on a post-office bill. The 
Chairman \4\ ruled the bill in order on the ground of a former 
precedent.
  4708. On December 29, 1851,\5\ Chairman George W. Jones, of 
Tennessee, in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
ruled out of order an original resolution, presented first in Committee 
of the Whole that day, to provide for welcoming Louis Kossuth. Mr. 
Jones made his decision on the ground that the Committee of the Whole 
could originate nothing itself. The committee overruled him, and 
proceeded to the consideration of the resolution for several days, but 
did not succeed in getting action on it in the committee. Mr. Jones, at 
each rising, reported that the committee had had the state of the Union 
under consideration, and had come to no resolution thereon. This report 
was questioned on the ground that he ought to have referred to the 
Kossuth resolution, but the Speaker \6\ sustained the Chairman.
  4709. The House may refer a subject to a Committee of the Whole as 
well as to a standing committee.--On December 10, 1833,\7\ the House 
committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
the report of the Secretary of the Treasury received by the House on 
December 4, and relating to the removal of deposits of money from the 
Bank of the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 353; Globe, p. 
235.
  \2\ First session Nineteenth Congress, Debates, p. 1358.
  \3\ Second session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 421; Globe, p. 
504.
  \4\ James B. Bowlin, of Missouri, Chairman.
  \5\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, pp. 158, 168.
  \6\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \7\ First session Twenty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 26, 31, 53, 87.
Sec. 4710
  On December 11, Mr. James K. Polk, of Tennessee, moved to reconsider 
this vote, stating that the subject needed a more careful investigation 
than the Committee of the Whole could give it.
  On December 17 the motion to reconsider was agreed to; and Mr. Polk 
at once moved that the report be referred to the Committee on Ways and 
Means.\1\ On February 18, 1834,\2\ the motion was agreed to.\3\
  4710. A Committee of the Whole may not authorize or appoint a 
committee.--On April 11, 1789,\4\ the House resolved itself into 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  During a discussion of the subject of duties on imports, Mr. George 
Clymer, of Pennsylvania, proposed the appointment of a subcommittee to 
collate the material and bring them before the House.
  The Chairman \5\ was of the opinion that a motion of the kind just 
mentioned would be out of order, because a committee could not appoint 
another committee. The House appointed all committees.
  4711. The Committee of the Whole may not grant authority to a 
standing committee to amend its report, or order the reprint of a 
bill.--On January 7, 1897,\6\ the Pacific Railroad funding bill (H. R. 
8189) was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union, when Mr. H. Henry Powers, of Vermont, requested 
leave to make certain changes in the bill as reported by the Committee 
on Pacific Railroads, and to have the bill as changed reprinted.
  The Chairman \7\ ruled that the Committee of the Whole could not make 
the order requested. The reprinting of a bill could only be ordered by 
the House.
  4712. The Committee of the Whole has no authority to modify an order 
of the House.--On December 16, 1899,\8\ the bill (H. R. No. 1) ``to 
define and fix the standard of value,'' etc., was under consideration 
in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, under the 
terms of the following special order: \9\

  Resolved, That on Monday, December 11, immediately after the reading 
of the Journal, the House shall resolve itself into the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of H. 
R. No. 1, entitled ``A bill to define and fix the standard of value, to 
maintain the parity of all forms of moneys issued or coined by the 
United States, and for other purposes;'' general debate thereon shall 
continue to not later than 5 o'clock p. m. of Friday, the 15th day of 
December, and thereafter debate under the five-minute rule until 5 
o'clock p. m. of Saturday, the 16th day of December, at which time the 
committee shall rise and report the bill to the House, with any 
amendments adopted by the com-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Debates, p. 2170.
  \2\ Journal, p. 345.
  \3\ In modem practice the House rarely by motion and vote refers 
anything except the annual message of the President to the Committee of 
the Whole. Ordinary legislation is referred to the Committee of the 
Whole by rule.
  \4\ First session First Congress, Annals, pp. 121, 122.
  \5\ John Page, of Virginia, Chairman.
  \6\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 576.
  \7\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
  \8\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 555.
  \9\ This order was adopted December 8, 1899, first session Fifty-
sixth Congress, Record, pp. 160-163; Journal, p. 69.
                                                            Sec. 4713
mittee, and a vote shall be taken on the bill and amendments, if any, 
without intervening motion, to final passage, immediately after the 
reading of the Journal on Monday, the 18th day of December.
  And during said debate the House shall on each day adjourn not later 
than 5 o'clock p. m.

  The hour having arrived for the committee to rise and report the 
bill, Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, asked unanimous consent to offer 
an amendment for the free and unlimited coinage of silver at the ratio 
of 16 to 1.
  The Chairman \1\ held that the Committee of the Whole had no power to 
modify or change an order of the House.
  4713. In Committee of the Whole a rule of procedure prescribed by the 
House may not be set aside.--On January 25, 1901,\2\ the House was in 
Committee of the Whole House considering business on the Private 
Calendar, under the rule making in order bills granting pensions and 
removing charges of desertion and political disabilities.\3\
  A question arising as to the consideration of a bill (H. R. 5931, for 
the relief of Henry L. McCalla) not strictly within the terms of the 
rule, Mr. Eugene F. Loud, of California, made the point of order that 
the Committee of the Whole House were operating under a mandatory rule 
of the House of Representatives, which the committee might not set 
aside. Therefore the Chairman was not permitted to entertain a request 
that the bill be taken up.
  The Chairman \4\ held that this was so and that the bill was not in 
order.
  4714. A Committee of the Whole sometimes reports a bill with the 
recommendation that it be recommitted to a standing committee with 
certain instructions.--On July 14, 1890,\5\ the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union reported the bill (H. R. 8243) relating 
to the construction of the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad in the 
District of Columbia, with the recommendation that it be recommitted to 
the Committee on the District of Columbia, with instructions to report 
a substitute for it. This substitute was specified in the report from 
the Committee of the Whole.
  The Speaker \6\ at once put the question on agreeing to the 
recommendation of the Committee of the Whole, and, the motion being 
agreed to, the bill was recommitted with the specified instructions.
  4715. The authority of the Committee of the Whole to recommend 
instructions to the managers of a conference is doubtful.--On April 23, 
1897,\7\ the Senate amendments to the Indian appropriation bill were 
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union. The committee having voted to recommend nonconcurrence in an 
amendment relating to the gilsonite mineral lands, Mr. John F. Lacey, 
of Iowa, moved the following:

  The Committee of the Whole recommend that the conference committee be 
instructed to insist upon a provision for leasing the gilsonite mineral 
lands, with such limitations and restrictions as will
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, Chairman.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1491.
  \3\ See section 3281 of this volume.
  \4\ Adin B. Capron, of Rhode Island, Chairman.
  \5\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 7263.
  \6\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \7\ First session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 833, 840.
Sec. 4716
prevent the control of the said mineral by trusts or combinations of 
any kind, such leases to be for limited amounts and for limited periods 
upon a royalty to the Government.

  Mr. William H. King, of Utah, raised the point of order against 
recommending instructions to a committee of conference that had not 
been appointed.
  The Chairman \1\ said:

  This is simply a motion to recommend to the House certain 
instructions. The House would be competent to instruct even before a 
conference committee had been appointed.

  The recommendation having been adopted and reported to the House, the 
Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair desires to say with regard to this question of instructing 
the conference committee that it is, perhaps, a question whether the 
committee have a right to make such a recommendation as that, but it 
can be made by the indorsement of the individual Member.

  Thereupon the instructions were moved by Mr. Lacey individually.
  4716. The motions to reconsider, for the previous question, and to 
adjourn are not in order in Committee of the Whole.--Jefferson's Manual 
has these provisions in relation to certain motions not in order in 
Committee of the Whole:
  In Section XXVI:

  When a vote is once passed in a committee, it can not be altered but 
by the House, their votes being binding on themselves.\3\ (1607, June 
4.)

  In Section XII:

  No previous question \4\ can be put in a committee, nor can this 
committee adjourn as others may.

  4717. The motion to reconsider is not in order in Committee of the 
Whole.--On February 8, 1901,\5\ a bill (H. R. 13049) granting a pension 
to Elizabeth Fury, was under consideration in Committee of the Whole 
House, an amendment had been agreed to, and the bill was laid aside 
with a favorable recommendation.
  Mr. George W. Steele, of Indiana, having obtained unanimous consent 
to recur to the bill, moved to reconsider the action of the committee 
in agreeing to the amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
  \2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \3\ It has long been the practice of the House that a motion to 
reconsider may not be entertained in Committee of the Whole, and the 
Manual and Digest has referred to a precedent of the first session of 
the Twenty-seventh Congress (Globe, p. 305), although there seems at 
that time to have been no actual ruling by the Chair. On August 7, 
1841, the House was in Committee of the Whole on the state of the 
Union, Mr. Joseph L. Tillinghast, of Rhode Island, in the chair. After 
the failure of a motion to take up for consideration Senate bill No. 1, 
to repeal the independent treasury act, it was moved and voted that the 
committee take up the Senate bill to provide for a uniform system of 
bankruptcy. After the bill had been read, Mr. George N. Briggs, of 
Massachusetts, moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was taken 
up. Mr. James W. Williams, of Maryland, submitted to the Chair that the 
committee had no power to reconsider a vote. After some debate, Mr. 
Francis W. Pickens, of South Carolina, declaring that he had never 
heard of such a thing as the reconsideration of a vote in committee, 
Mr. Briggs withdrew the motion to reconsider and moved to lay aside the 
bill, the Chairman deciding that the latter motion was in order.
  \4\ This referred to the previous question of the early days of the 
House, which was essentially different from the previous question as 
developed by the modern practice. (See secs. 5443-5446 of Vol. V of 
this work.) But is held to apply to the present motion.
  \5\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2171.
                                                            Sec. 4718
  The Chairman \1\ said:

  There can be no reconsideration in Committee of the Whole.

  4718. On April 23, 1902,\2\ the House in Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 9206) 
relating to oleomargarine and other dairy products, and the third 
amendment of the Senate was considered, and the Committee of the Whole 
voted to recommend concurrence.
  Thereupon, Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, moved to reconsider the 
vote.
  Mr. E. Stevens Henry, of Connecticut, made the point of order that 
the motion to reconsider was not in order in Committee of the Whole.
  The Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order.
  4719. The motion to lay on the table is not in order in Committee of 
the Whole.--On February 3, 1852,\4\ in Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union, an appeal was taken from a decision of the 
Chair.
  Mr. Orin Fowler, of Massachusetts, moved to lay the appeal on the 
table.
  The Chairman \5\ ruled this motion not in order in Committee of the 
Whole.
  4720. On March 10, 1902,\6\ while the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 11728) relating 
to free rural delivery service, Mr. Ebenezer J. Hill, of Connecticut, 
moved to lay two pending amendments on the table.
  The Chairman \7\ held that the motion was not in order in Committee 
of the Whole.
  4721. The simple motion to recommit is not in order in Committee of 
the Whole.--On January 4, 1828,\8\ the bill ``for the relief of Marigny 
D'Auterieve'' was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House, 
when Mr. Thomas R. Mitchell, of South Carolina, moved that the bill be 
recommitted.
  The Chairman \9\ decided that such a motion could not be received 
until the Committee of the Whole had risen and reported.
  4722. The yeas and nays may not be taken in Committee of the Whole.
  Instance wherein the former theory that the quorum was to be 
determined by those voting was set forth in 1840.
  On March 24, 1840,\10\ the House was in Committee of the Whole on the 
state of the Union, considering the Treasury-note bill. A quorum having 
failed to vote on a motion to rise, Mr. George C. Dromgoole, of 
Virginia, inquired if it was not in order to have a count of the 
Members who were within the bar, as he thought that a quorum was 
present.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John F. Lacey, of Iowa, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4594.
  \3\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
  \4\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, p, 451.
  \5\ Edson B. Olds, of Ohio, Chairman.
  \6\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2588.
  \7\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
  \8\ First session Twentieth Congress, Debates, p. 909; Journal, p. 
123.
  \9\ Lewis Condict, of New Jersey, Chairman.
  \10\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Globe, p. 285.
Sec. 4723
  The Chairman \1\ said that, as a quorum had not voted, the committee 
must rise and report that fact to the House. The yeas and nays could 
not be taken in committee, and there was no way of ascertaining whether 
a quorum was present but by an actual count.
  4723. On May 23, 1844,\2\ the House was in Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union, considering the naval appropriation 
bill. Mr. James McKay, of North Carolina, offered an amendment making 
certain appropriations to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for 
the naval service for the current Year.
  Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, objected to the amendment as 
out of order, on the ground that all appropriations must be considered 
in Committee of the Whole.
  The Chair said that the House was acting in Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. Adams replied that no discussion was allowed, and therefore the 
amendment was out of order.
  The Chair \3\ said that the amendment was in order, and that 
discussion was not in order.\4\
  Mr. Adams was proceeding to discuss the point of order, when he was 
called to order by the Chair, and asked if he appealed from the 
decision just made.
  Mr. Adam said that he did, and called for the yeas and nays.
  The Chair said that the yeas and nays could not be taken in Committee 
of the Whole.
  4724. It is not in order for the Committee of the Whole to arrange 
for a yea-and-nay vote to be taken in the House.--On February 21, 
1891,\5\ the House was in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union considering the agricultural appropriation bill. There having 
been debate and a division on a question relating to the distribution 
of seeds, Mr. Edward P. Allen, of Michigan, asked unanimous consent 
that when the bill should be reported to the House there should be a 
yea-and-nay vote upon the paragraph.
  There being objection, the Chairman \6\ said:

  There is manifest objection, and besides, the Chair will say it would 
remain for the House to order it.

  4725. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole has declined to 
consider a question of order arising in the House just before the 
committee began to sit.--On May 22, 1906,\7\ the House was in the act 
of resolving itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union to consider the consular and diplomatic appropriation bill, 
when Mr. Augustus P. Gardner, of Massa-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ William C. Dawson, of Georgia, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, Globe, p. 618.
  \3\ George C. Dromgoole, of Virginia, Chairman.
  \4\ This was before the development of the five-minute rule, and 
after general debate had been closed in Committee of the Whole all 
amendments had to be voted on without debate.
  \5\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 3270.
  \6\ Nelson Dingley, jr., of Maine, Chairman.
  \7\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 7249.
                                                            Sec. 4726
chusetts, demanded the floor for a parliamentary inquiry, but was not 
recognized by the Speaker.
  Mr. Gardner continued to demand recognition until after the Committee 
of the Whole had began its sitting, but was not recognized until the 
Chairman had called the committee to order and announced:

  The House is in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union for the consideration of the diplomatic and consular 
appropriation bill.

  Then Mr. Gardner was recognized, and proceeded to state his object in 
demanding recognition.
  The Chairman \1\ said:

  The present occupant of the chair was not in the chair in the House 
and knows nothing of what occurred then. We are now in Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union.

  Mr. Gardner then moved that the committee rise. The Chairman 
recognized the motion as in order.
  4726. On May 25, 1906 \2\ the Speaker, after a vote, declared the 
House in Committee of the Whole House for consideration of bills on the 
Private Calendar, and the Chairman \3\ took the chair and called the 
committee to order, announcing that the House was in Committee of the 
Whole House, etc.
  Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, rising to a question of order, 
said he arose--

  To make the point of order that the House is not in Committee of the 
Whole, because it was thrown into the Committee of the Whole upon the 
supposition that the last division of the House showed the presence of 
a quorum, whereas as a matter of fact the last division of the House 
showed that there was no quorum present.

  The Chairman said:

  Undoubtedly the gentleman from Mississippi fully appreciates the fact 
that the present occupant of the chair has no information upon the 
point that he has raised. * * * The present occupant of the chair can 
not pass upon what took place in the House, as he was not in the chair 
at the time. The Clerk will report the first bill.

  4727. A request for unanimous consent may not be entertained after 
the House has voted to go into Committee of the Whole.--On July 14, 
1882,\4\ the House had voted to go into Committee of the Whole House.
  Mr. Waldo Hutchins, of New York, asked unanimous consent to submit a 
report.
  The Speaker \5\ declined to entertain the request, saying:

  The House having decided to go into Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
thinks that ends for the present the session of the House. The 
gentleman may be recognized later in the day.

  4728. The House having voted to resolve itself into Committee of the 
Whole, the Chair declined to entertain a motion to adjourn but did 
entertain an appeal from his decision.--On February 20, 1903,\6\ the 
yeas and nays
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Charles Curtis, of Kansas, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 7434, 7435.
  \3\ Adin B. Capron, of Rhode Island, Chairman.
  \4\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6060.
  \5\ J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \6\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 271; Record, 
pp. 2428, 2429.
Sec. 4729
had been taken on a motion to go into the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union to consider the bill (H. R. 16228) relating 
to the currency, and there appeared yeas 118, nays 89.
  Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, moved to reconsider; but the 
Speaker pro tempore ruled the motion dilatory.
  Thereupon Mr. James Hay, of Virginia, moved that the House adjourn.
  The Speaker pro tempore \1\ declined to put the motion, saying:

  In the absence of any precedent, the Chair is of opinion that the 
House having determined to resolve into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union, and the announcement having been 
partially made, the motion of the gentleman from Virginia is not in 
order. * * * The Chair will state that he now finds he is sustained by 
precedent. The Chair will call the gentleman's attention to what has 
been called to his attention. The Chair will state to the gentleman 
from Virginia that this very question was passed upon by Mr. Speaker 
Carlisle in the Forty-ninth Congress, and he held that the House having 
determined by a yea-and-nay vote to resolve itself into the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, a motion to adjourn was 
not in order.

  Mr. Hay proposed an appeal from the decision of the Chair.
  Mr. Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, made the point of order that, as 
the House had decided to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, an 
appeal would not be in order.
  After the debate the Speaker pro tempore said:

  The House having determined by a vote of 118 to 89 to resolve itself 
into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, the Chair 
proceeded to announce that the ayes had it, and was going to make the 
further formal announcement, when interrupted by the gentleman from 
Tennessee with a motion to reconsider. The point of order was made that 
the gentleman's motion was dilatory, and in view of what had taken 
place prior thereto the Chair sustained the point of order.
  Now, whatever may be the theoretical view of the functions of the 
Speaker at that stage of the proceedings, there is no doubt at all that 
he still continued de facto to be exercising the functions of the 
Speaker; and the clerk to the Speaker's table informs the Chair that a 
great many Speakers--Mr. Carlisle, Mr. Keifer, and the present Speaker 
of the House--have entertained points of order at that stage of the 
proceedings.
  The Chair is clearly of the opinion that the motion of the gentleman 
from Virginia to adjourn is out of order, and has so decided; but, 
having thus far exercised the function of Speaker, and passed on the 
question of order, it seems to him that when the appeal has been taken 
it must be entertained. The Chair will put the question. The question 
is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?

  The question being taken, there appeared yeas 110, nays 74.
  So the decision of the Chair was sustained.
  Thereupon, in pursuance of the former vote, the House resolved itself 
into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  4729. Unprivileged business on the Calendars of the Committee of the 
Whole is taken up in the Calendar order or in such order as may be 
determined in the committee.
  Former method of securing precedence of revenue, general 
appropriation, and river and harbor bills in Committee of the Whole.
  Form and history of section 4 of Rule XXIII.
  Section 4 of Rule XXIII provides:

  In Committees of the Whole House, business on their Calendars may be 
taken up in regular order, or in such order as the committee may 
determine, unless the bill to be considered was determined by
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Speaker pro tempore.
                                                            Sec. 4729
the House at the time of going into committee, but bills for raising 
revenue, general appropriation bills, and bills for the improvement of 
rivers and harbors shall have precedence.\1\

  This rule applies both to the Union and the Private Calendars. The 
consideration of bills in the order that the Committee of the Whole 
might determine seems to have been the early method. But in 1844, in 
order to save much time wasted in motions to take bills up out of 
order, a rule was adopted that bills should be taken up in the order of 
reference, but that general appropriation bills and, in time of war, 
bills raising money or men and bills concerning a treaty of peace might 
be preferred, at the discretion of the committee.\2\ This rule left all 
other bills on the Calendar to be taken up in order, without power on 
the part of the committee to change that order. So on July 28, 1848 \3\ 
a rule was adopted that--

  In Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union the bills 
shall be taken up and disposed of in their order on the Calendar; but 
when objection is made to the consideration of a bill a majority of the 
committee shall decide, without debate, whether it shall be taken up 
and disposed of or laid aside.

  The provision of the former rule in regard to appropriation bills and 
war measures was continued, with the additional requirement that the 
question in regard to them should be put when demanded by any Member.
  In the revision of 1880 \4\ the House adopted this form of rule:

  In Committees of the Whole House, business on their Calendars shall 
be taken up in regular order, except bills for raising revenue, general 
appropriation bills, and bills for the improvement of rivers and 
harbors, which shall have precedence; and when objection is made to the 
consideration of any bill or proposition the committee shall thereupon 
rise and report such objection to the House, which shall decide, 
without debate, whether such bill or proposition shall be considered or 
laid aside for the present; whereupon the committee shall resume its 
sitting without further order of the House.

  The Committee on Rules, in their report,\5\ commended this rule on 
the ground that it would expedite business and save the large amount of 
time wasted in struggles to secure precedence of a certain bill. In 
their opinion, a bill committed to a Committee of the Whole was given a 
place entitling it to precedence over business committed later, and 
ought not to be displaced therefrom except by the House.
  In 1885 the rule was changed by substituting for ``when objection is 
made to the consideration of any bill'' the words ``when objection is 
made to passing over any bill.'' This change was made to give greater 
control over business in committee, enabling the committee to pass over 
such as it might not wish to take up.\6\ The rule as amended remained 
in the Fiftieth, Fifty-second, and Fifty-third Congresses.
  In the revision of 1890,\7\ the present form was adopted and has 
continued in the Fifty-fourth, Fifty-fifth, and succeeding Congresses.
  On January 25, 1839,\8\ a rule was adopted that ``on the first and 
fourth Fridays of each month the Calendar of Private Bills shall be 
called over (the Chairman of the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ As revenue and appropriation bills are usually designated in the 
privileged motion to go into Committee of the Whole, as prescribed in 
section 9 of Rule XVI (see sec. 3072 of this volume), the latter 
portion of this rule is rather a survival of an old practice than of 
present use.
  \2\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, Globe, p. 367; first 
session Thirtieth Congress, p. 47.
  \3\ First session Thirtieth Congress, Globe, p. 1006; Journal, p. 
1120.
  \4\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1208.
  \5\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 201.
  \6\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 170.
  \7\ House Report No. 23, first session Fifty-first Congress.
  \8\ Third session Twenty-fifth Congress, Globe, p. 146.
Sec. 4730
Committee of the Whole House commencing the call where he left off the 
previous day), and the bills to the passage of which no objection shall 
then be made shall be first considered and disposed of.''
  In 1860 \1\ the second and fourth Saturdays were added as objection 
days, and to avoid retaliatory objections it was provided that when a 
bill once objected to should be again reached it should require five 
Members to object to prevent its consideration. This was to prevent the 
waste of time caused by retaliatory objections. The rule remained thus 
until the revision of 1880, when the Committee on Rules reported 
against continuing the practice and in favor of putting all bills on an 
equality, it being doubtful whether one Member should have the power 
even temporarily of obstructing a bill recommended by a standing 
committee of the House.\2\ Since that time the same rule has applied to 
both the Union and Private Calendars.
  4730. The Committee of the Whole may on motion put and carried 
determine an order for taking up the business on its Calendar.--On 
March 27, 1896,\3\ the House resolved itself into Committee of the 
Whole House for the consideration of bills on the Private Calendar.
  Mr. John A. Pickler, of South Dakota, moved that business on the 
Private Calendar from the Committees on Claims and War Claims be passed 
over without prejudice, and that bills from the Committees on Invalid 
Pensions, Pensions, and Military Affairs be taken up for consideration 
in their order upon the Calendar.
  Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, made a point of order that the 
motion was not in order.
  The Chairman held: \4\

  Paragraph 4 of Rule XXIII provides that after the House has gone into 
Committee of the Whole House the committee can then determine the order 
of business that shall be pursued, and the Chair holds that it is 
clearly within the province of the committee to determine whether it 
will take up the bills in the order in which they are found on the 
Private Calendar, or whether, by motion, as proposed by the gentleman 
from South Dakota, Mr. Pickler, it will proceed to take up a certain 
class of private bills. The language of paragraph 4 of Rule XXIII, as 
it seems to the Chair, is clear upon the subject. The Chair therefore 
holds that the written motion submitted by the gentleman from South 
Dakota is in order.

  4731. In considering bills on the Calendar of the Committee of the 
Whole House, it is in order, on a motion made and carried, to take up a 
bill out of its order.--On May 22, 1896,\5\ the bills on the Private 
Calendar were under consideration in Committee of the Whole House, when 
Mr. David G. Colson, of Kentucky, moved to take up out of its order the 
bill (H. R. 4841) granting a pension to Silas Adams.
  Mr. Luther M. Strong, of Ohio, made the point of order that this 
motion was not in order.
  The Chairman \6\ overruled the point of order.\7\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Thirty-sixth Congress, Globe, p. 1179.
  \2\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 201.
  \3\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 3283.
  \4\ Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \5\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 5589.
  \6\ William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, Chairman.
  \7\ For rule governing this case, see section 4729.
                                                            Sec. 4232
  4732. On February 2, 1904,\1\ the House was in Committee of the Whole 
House considering bills on the Private Calendar, and had considered 
several bills in their order, when Mr. Thaddeus M. Mahon, of 
Pennsylvania, moved to take up ``A bill (H. R. 9548) for the allowance 
of certain claims for stores and supplies, reported by the Court of 
Claims under the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1883, and 
commonly known as the Bowman Act.''
  Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, raised the question of order that 
the Committee of the Whole House might not in this way depart from the 
regular order of the Calendar.
  The Chairman \2\ overruled the point of order, saying--

  The Chair understands that the rule so provides.

  4733. Except in cases wherein the rules make specific provision 
therefor, a motion is not in order in the House to fix the order in 
which business shall be taken up on the Calendars of the Committee of 
the Whole.--On January 27, 1897,\3\ at the Friday evening session for 
the consideration of bills under the special rule,\4\ and before the 
House had resolved itself into Committee of the Whole House, Mr. H. C. 
Loudenslager, of New Jersey, asked unanimous consent for the 
consideration of this resolution:

  Resolved, That bills be considered in the following order: The Clerk 
to call the first bill on the Calendar, Announce the number of it, the 
Calendar number, and the name of the Member who introduced it, and upon 
his failure to respond ``Present,'' the bill to be passed without 
prejudice and the next bill to be called in the same way; this not to 
apply to Senate bills.

  The Speaker pro tempore \5\ said:

  The Chair understands the proposition of the gentleman from New 
Jersey to be that this shall be adopted as a rule for this evening's 
session after the House resolves itself into Committee of the Whole. 
The Chair thinks it would not be a proper subject for action on motion, 
but must be adopted, if at all, by unanimous consent. If proposed as a 
resolution, it would have to go to the Committee on Rules but by 
unanimous consent it can be agreed upon in the House, so as to bind the 
Committee of the Whole.\6\ Is there objection?

  4734. When the House agrees to the privileged motion to go into 
Committee of the Whole to consider a particular revenue or 
appropriation bill, the Committee of the Whole may not consider a 
different bill.--On February 8, 1881,\7\ the House resolved itself into 
Committee of the Whole by agreeing to this motion, made by Mr. John D. 
C. Atkins, of Tennessee:

  That the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the 
state of the Union to consider the bill (H. R. No. 7101) making 
appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of 
the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1882, and for other 
purposes.\8\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 1542.
  \2\ David J. Foster, of Vermont, Chairman.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1079.
  \4\ See section 3281 of this volume.
  \5\ John F. Lacey, of Iowa, Speaker pro tempore.
  \6\ This should be taken in connection with section 9 of Rule XVI, 
section 4 of Rule XXIII, and section 5 of Rule XXIV. See sections 3072, 
4729, and 3134 of this volume.
  \7\ Third session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1357.
  \8\ This motion was made under what is now section 9 of Rule XVI (see 
sec. 3072 of this volume.), the Speaker (Mr. Randall) saying that it 
was in order under this rule to designate a particular bill.
Sec. 4735
  The session of the committee having begun, Mr. John H. Reagan moved 
to take up the river and harbor bill, which preceded this bill on the 
Calendar.
  On the point of order the Chairman \1\ ruled:

  The Chair was about to decide the point of order, and to suggest to 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reagan] the only way, in the judgment of 
the Chair, in which the order of the House can be avoided.
  It is undoubtedly true that the Committee of the Whole on the state 
of the Union bears the same relation to the House that every other 
committee does, and is bound just as much as any other committee is 
bound by any order or instruction which the House may give it. It is 
not in the power of the Chairman of the committee, or of the committee 
itself, to overrule an order which the House has made, no matter what 
the Chairman or the committee may think of the propriety of that order. 
Therefore, the House having resolved itself into Committee of the Whole 
on the state of the Union for the purpose of considering a particular 
bill, the Chairman of the committee can not lay before the committee 
for its consideration any other bill. If gentlemen are dissatisfied 
with that order of the House, a motion that the committee rise may be 
made and entertained; and, if agreed to, then, when in the House, the 
order may be made that the House may resolve itself into Committee of 
the Whole on the state of the Union generally, in which event the 
motion made by the gentleman from Texas in regard to the river and 
harbor appropriation bill would be in order; or it may resolve itself 
into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for the purpose 
of considering the river and harbor appropriation bill or any other 
bill pending in the committee. The sense of the House may be taken in 
that way, and when its will has been expressed the committee must obey 
it; and this is all that the Chair decides on the point now made.

  4735. In considering the bills before a Committee of the Whole the 
unfinished business is usually first in order.--On April 17, 1896,\2\ 
the House was in Committee of the Whole House, and the committee had 
decided to take up bills in their order on the Calendar, as the rule 
directs.\3\
  Thereupon the bill (H. R. 4510) for the reappointment of Frank M. 
Marshall as lieutenant on the retired list of the Army was presented as 
the unfinished business on which the committee was engaged when it last 
adjourned.
  Mr. Claude A. Swanson, of Virginia, made the point of order that the 
committee had just determined the order in which it would take up 
bills, and that this bill was not therefore in order.
  The Chairman \4\ overruled the point of order, holding that this bill 
was unfinished business on the Calendar, and was first to be taken up 
in proceeding with bills in their order on the Calendar.\5\
  4736. A bill unfinished at a session of the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union held under section 5 of Rule XXIV is 
again in order when the House goes into Committee of the Whole to 
consider it under that rule.--On January 29, 1900,\6\ the bill (H. R. 
3988) to reorganize and improve the United States Weather Bureau was 
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union under section 5 of Rule
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 4101.
  \3\ See section 4729 of this volume.
  \4\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
  \5\ Of course if the House had gone into Committee of the Whole under 
special order of the House to consider a particular bill, or under one 
of the privileged motions which provide for designating a particular 
bill for consideration, conditions would be presented entirely 
different from those on which this ruling is based.
  \6\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1286.
                                                            Sec. 4737
XXIV. The Committee of the Whole having risen, Messrs. Eugene F. Loud, 
of California, and James W. Wadsworth, of New York, as a parliamentary 
inquiry, asked when the bill would be in order again.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  When we are again in the Committee of the Whole in the morning hour. 
* * * The Chair think it will when the House is in Committee of the 
Whole and the House is pursuing the particular order that it has been 
this morning.

  4737. The rules of proceeding in the House shall be observed in 
Committee of the Whole so far as they may be applicable.
  Present form and history of section 8 of Rule XXIII.
  Section 8 of Rule XXIII provides:

  The rules of proceeding in the House shall be observed in Committees 
of the Whole House so far as they may be applicable.

  This is almost exactly the first clause of the old Rule 113, which 
dated from April 7, 1789.\2\
  4738. When a bill is taken up in Committee of the Whole its reading 
in full may be demanded, although it has just been read in the House.--
On February 8, 1897,\3\ Mr. Joseph W. Babcock, of Wisconsin, called up 
the bill (H. R. 10133) to amend the act to increase the water supply of 
the city of Washington, and moved that the House resolve itself into 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for its 
consideration. The bill having been read in full the Speaker put the 
question and the House voted to go into Committee of the Whole.
  It being suggested in Committee of the Whole that the reading of the 
bill be dispensed with, Mr. Alexander M. Dockery, of Missouri, 
objected.
  The Chairman \4\ then said:

  The Clerk will read the bill unless its reading is dispensed with by 
the action of the committee.

  4739. Appropriation and revenue bills are considered in Committee of 
the Whole by paragraphs, other bills by sections.
  Points of order may be made to the whole or to a part only of a 
paragraph.
  Construction of the law authorizing the employment of ``watchmen, 
laborers, and other employees'' in the Executive Departments.
  On March 27, 1906,\5\ the legislative appropriation bill was under 
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, when the Clerk read:

  Office of assistant treasurer at Cincinnati: For assistant treasurer, 
$4,500; cashier, $2,250; assistant cashier, $1,800; bookkeeper, $1,800; 
receiving teller, $1,500; interest clerk, and five clerks, at $1,200 
each; two clerks, at $1,000 each; clerk and stenographer, $720; clerk 
and watchman, $840; night watchman, $600; day watchman, $600; in all 
$23,810.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \2\ First session First Congress, Journal, p. 11.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1660.
  \4\ Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \5\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 4362-4366.
Sec. 4739
  Mr. George W. Prince, of Illinois, made the point of order that the 
law specifying the employees was as follows:

  There shall be appointed in the office of the assistant treasurer at 
Cincinnati one cashier at $2,000 a year, one clerk at $1,800, one clerk 
at $1,500, two clerks at $1,200 each, two clerks at $1,000 each, one 
messenger at $600, two watchmen, one at $720 and one at $240.

and that therefore a portion of the employees appropriated for were not 
authorized.
  Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, urged that by the act of August 6, 
1846, it was provided:

  Be it enacted, etc., That the rooms prepared and provided in the new 
Treasury building at the seat of government for the use of the 
Treasurer of the United States, his assistants, and clerks, and 
occupied by them, and also the fireproof vaults and safes erected in 
said rooms for the keeping of the public moneys in the possession and 
under the immediate control of said Treasurer, and such other 
apartments as are provided in this act as places of deposit of the 
public money, are hereby constituted and declared to be the Treasury of 
the United States.

  Therefore, as the Cincinnati office was declared to be the treasury, 
Mr. Tawney argued:

  Now, if it is the Treasury of the United States, Mr. Chairman, we are 
certainly, under section 169 of the Revised Statutes, entitled to 
provide--that is, this House can provide--for as many clerks--that is, 
the clerks designated, or other employees--as the Department may deem 
necessary to carry on this branch of the public business.
  Now, these subtreasuries, I repeat, being the Treasury of the United 
States, there would be no question, Mr. Chairman, of the right of this 
House to appropriate a lump sum for this service. We can appropriate a, 
lump sum for the carrying on of this service in every subtreasury in 
the United States, and it would be in order. Why? Because the Congress 
of the United States has authorized this service. The Congress of the 
United States has expressly authorized the service in each individual 
case, and thereby impliedly authorized the necessary appropriation for 
carrying on the service. If we can appropriate a lump sum for the 
purpose of carrying on this service, the Secretary of the Treasury, the 
head of the Department, would have authority to employ as many clerks 
as he deemed necessary for the performance of that service, and pay 
them such salaries as he in his judgment deemed necessary. There can be 
no question in regard to his authority to do this. Do you mean to tell 
me that an administrative officer of this Government can do that under 
a lump-sum appropriation which the Congress of the United States can 
not do? And yet to sustain the point of order made by the gentleman 
from Illinois would be equivalent to declaring that, although Congress 
may appropriate for this service in a lump sum, and the Secretary of 
the Treasury has the power to expend that appropriation by employing 
such clerks as the service, in his judgment, may demand, and pay them 
such salaries as he sees fit, yet the House of Representatives can not, 
under its rules, segregate the appropriation and designate the number 
of clerks and provide specifically for their salaries. The effect of 
such a ruling would be to say that the House of Representatives cannot 
exercise its constitutional function of appropriating specifically for 
a public service authorized by law which an administrative officer of 
the Government would have authority to provide for. Such a construction 
would be equivalent to saying that the House of Representatives, that 
must originate all appropriations, was not the power to provide 
specifically for a service that Congress has itself expressly 
authorized, which would be a reduction ad absurdum.

  After further debate the Chairman \1\ held:

  As the Chair understands it, the gentleman from Illinois invokes 
against this paragraph the provision of the second clause of Rule XXI 
of this House that--
  ``No appropriation shall be reported in any general appropriation 
bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure not 
previously authorized by law, unless in continuation of appropriations 
for such public works and objects as are already in progress; nor shall 
any provision changing existing law be in order in any general 
appropriation bill or in any amendment thereto.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 4740
  In opposition to the point of order it is urged that section 169 of 
the Revised Statutes applied. That section reads as follows:
  ``Each head of a Department is authorized to employ in his Department 
such numbers of clerks of the several classes recognized by law and 
such messengers, assistant messengers, copyists, watchmen, laborers, 
and other employees at such rates of compensation, respectively, as may 
be appropriated for by Congress from year to year.''
  It does not seem to the Chair that the fact stated that a year or two 
after the passage of that statute a general appropriation bill was 
passed appropriating a lump sum for one of the Departments would call 
for such a construction of section 169 as has been suggested, for 
section 169 itself distinctly says that the employees shall receive 
``such rates of compensation as may be appropriated for by Congress,'' 
not leaving it to the heads of Departments to determine. Now, it is 
suggested that this subtreasury at Cincinnati is, by reason of a 
provision in an act of 1846, which has been cited, a part of an 
Executive Department of the United States, namely, the Treasury 
Department, within the meaning of section 169.
  The Chair does not find it necessary to pass upon that point at this 
time, for a reason which will be stated. The highest grade specifically 
mentioned in section 169 of the Revised Statutes is clerk of the fourth 
class, and the salary is fixed in the same statute. If the effect to be 
given to the term ``other employees'' were entirely an open question, 
the present occupant of the chair would be inclined to give much weight 
to the argument of the gentlemen from Minnesota were it not for the 
fact that this precise question is found to have been decided in the 
first session of the Fifty-seventh Congress and the term held to apply 
only to employees below the grade, at least not above the grade, of 
clerks as classified in the act of which section 169 forms part.
  The Chair, while recognizing the susceptibility of that construction 
to argument on either side, feels bound by the ruling then made and 
acquiesced in.
  The Chair does not find it necessary to decide at this time whether 
or not the subtreasury at Cincinnati is a department or to be treated 
as part of the Treasury Department within the meaning of section 169, 
for it appears that in section 3612 of the Revised Statutes the salary 
of the cashier is specifically fixed at $2,000 a year.
  The paragraph complained of appropriates $2,250, an increase of $250 
above the salary provided by law for that officer. Some other items 
have been specified as also in violation of the rule. It is not 
necessary to pass upon them. Ordinarily a bill is read in the House by 
sections, but the custom has arisen--growing largely out of 
convenience--of reading appropriation bills in Committee of the Whole 
by paragraphs. It is a very old custom, founded almost upon necessity, 
certainly upon strong reasons of convenience, as may be seen from the 
fact that the first section of this bill covers 161 pages and embraces 
hundreds of paragraphs. This consideration of the bill by paragraphs, 
if not directly authorized, is clearly recognized in clause 6 of Rule 
XXIII.
  It has often been ruled that if a point of order be made against an 
amendment and part of it found out of order the whole amendment must be 
ruled out. In one or two instances it has been similarly ruled that if 
a paragraph in a pending bill be objected to and part of it found 
subject to the point, the whole paragraph falls, and, it seems to the 
present occupant of the chair, with good reason. If one item is clearly 
shown to be in violation of the rule, it can hardly be in the province 
of the Chair to go through and scrutinize the entire paragraph and see 
what items, if any, are entitled to stay in the bill. If there are 
such, it would be in order to put them in again by amendment, without 
the obnoxious matter. Of course, where a point of order is limited to a 
specific item in a paragraph that item only is affected by the ruling. 
But this point is aimed at the whole paragraph. Finding that it 
contains at least one item in violation of the rule, the Chair feels 
constrained, for the reasons stated, to sustain the point of order 
against the entire paragraph.

  4740. On February 7, 1883,\1\ during the consideration of the bill 
(H. R. 7313) to impose duties on foreign imports, etc., in Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union under the five-minute rule, 
Mr. John A. Anderson, of Kansas, proposed a substitute amendment which 
was in fact a new schedule.
  Mr. William D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, made a point of order against 
the proposed amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 2227-2332.
Sec. 4741
  After debate the Chairman \1\ said:

  The Chair will state in reference to this matter that in the Digest 
of the Rules and Practice in committee it is provided that general 
appropriation, tariff, and tax bills shall be considered by clauses. 
That has been the universal practice of the committee, and the Chair is 
informed that that was the old rule.
  The Committee of the Whole are now considering lines 616 to 621, 
inclusive, as a paragraph. Now, any substitute for or any amendment to 
that paragraph would clearly be in order.
  The gentleman from Kansas offers a proposition which is not in the 
nature of an amendment to the paragraph at all. It is not an amendment 
to nor a substitute for the paragraph, but is an independent 
proposition. The Chair can not be blind to the fact that the amendment 
in substance is a substitute for the entire schedule. And without 
passing on the fact whether such a substitute will be in order or not 
when this schedule is completed, the Chair is clearly of the opinion 
that it is not under the guise of an amendment in order at this time to 
be voted on. The committee has the right in the first instance to 
perfect the original text of the bill before any substitute is voted 
on. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.\2\

  4741. A Senate bill with a proposed committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute being under consideration in Committee of the Whole, 
the bill was first read by sections for amendment, and then the 
substitute was perfected.--On June 6, 1902,\2\ the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union was considering the bill (S. 
3653) for the protection of the President of the United States, and for 
other purposes. This bill had been reported from the Committee on the 
Judiciary with the recommendation that it be amended by striking out 
all after the enacting clause and inserting a new text.
  Mr. Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, having made a parliamentary 
inquiry as to the method of considering the bill, the Chairman \4\ 
said:

  The Chair will state, in the first instance, that the Senate bill 
must be read by sections for amendment; that, however, can be waived by 
unanimous consent. Then amendments will be competent to the sections of 
the Senate bill. When that is disposed of the substitute offered by the 
House will be read, which is one amendment, and that amendment will be 
pending, and amendments may be offered to the amendment that is 
pending.

  Other inquiries being made, the Chairman said:

  The amendment reported by the Committee on the Judiciary is one 
amendment--to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert a 
substitute for the entire bill. Now, the rule is that we must perfect 
the original bill before the substitute is voted upon. * * * The 
gentleman from Missouri himself offers an amendment to perfect the 
original bill, which he has the right to do, just as it would be 
entirely competent to move to strike out any one of these sections as 
read, or to add words or to strike out words, or to insert a new 
section. When the end of the bill is reached, then the amendment 
proposed by the committee will be in order.

  4742. When, in considering a bill by paragraphs or sections, the 
Committee of the Whole has passed a particular paragraph or section it 
is not in order to return thereto.--On February 19, 1853,\5\ the House 
was in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, considering 
the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, Chairman.
  \2\ Later, on February 17, a motion was made to close debate on an 
entire section, comprising many paragraphs not yet read. This 
precipitated along debate on the subject, but the Speaker did not rule, 
as the bill was abandoned. (Second session Forty-seventh Congress, 
Record, pp. 2877-2884.)
  \3\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 6419, 6420.
  \4\ Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, Chairman.
  \5\ Second session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, p. 730.
                                                            Sec. 4743
  The committee had reached that section of the bill headed 
``Miscellaneous,'' when Mr. John S. Caskie, of Virginia, moved an 
amendment to provide an additional appropriation for the erection of a 
custom-house building at Richmond, Va.\1\
  Mr. George S. Houston, of Alabama, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not in order.
  Mr. Caskie contended that his amendment could not be declared out of 
order except on the ground that they had passed the part headed 
``Custom-houses.'' That, however, was a mere arbitrary division for 
convenience sake, made perhaps in printing the bill. But, he submitted, 
that division could not rule out an amendment clearly in order to the 
bill, particularly when they had reached the head of ``Miscellaneous 
items.''
  The Chairman \2\ stated that the effect of the amendment, if 
entertained, would be to recur to a clause \3\ of the bill which had 
been passed. This would be violating a rule which prevented a 
recurrence to a section of the bill already passed. The Chair therefore 
decided the amendment to be out of order.
  An appeal being taken, the Chair was sustained.
  4743. On February 26, 1859,\4\ the House was in Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union, considering the naval 
appropriation bill.
  When the bill had been gone through with for amendments, Mr. John U. 
Pettit, of Indiana, moved the following as an additional section:

  No money appropriated by this act shall be used or applied with 
respect to the fitting, sending out, or maintaining any hostile 
expedition against the Republic of Paraguay until the same shall be 
particularly directed by law.

  The Chairman \5\ said:

  The committee has gone through the bill by clauses. It would not now 
be in order to go back to amend the first clause, for the pay of 
persons in the Navy, or any other clause of the bill. The Chair is, 
therefore, of opinion that it is not in order to amend the entire 
provisions of the bill by an additional section at the end. * * * It 
would, perhaps, have been in order if it had been offered at the end of 
the section to which it is intended to apply; but the committee has 
passed all these sections, and the Chair thinks it is not now in order 
to amend them.

  Mr. Galusha A. Grow, of Pennsylvania, in appealing from the decision 
of the Chair, made the point that the bill was but a single section, 
and therefore that the proviso was in order.
  The Chairman said that appropriation bills were considered by 
clauses, as though they were different sections, and that when one was 
passed it was not in order to go back. * * * The Chair thought it not 
in order when a clause had been passed to go back and amend it, and 
that the object could not be attained by putting an amendment at the 
end of the bill to apply to the whole bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ For the rule relating to reading the bill for amendment under the 
five-minute rule, see section 5221 of Vol. V of this work.
  \2\ James L. Orr, of South Carolina, Chairman.
  \3\ The word ``paragraph'' is now generally used to describe the 
divisions on which consideration is based. Revenue and appropriation 
bills are considered by paragraphs, other bills by sections. See 
section 4739.
  \4\ Second session Thirty-fifth Congress, Globe, p. 1422.
  \5\ George W. Jones, of Tennessee, Chairman.
Sec. 4744
  Mr. Israel Washburn, jr., of Maine, asked what rule there was to 
prevent the addition of a second section to the bill, upon a subject 
which was entirely germane to the bill.
  The Chair replied that it made no difference about clauses or 
sections. The rule provided that no proposition to amend, different 
from the subject under consideration, should be in order. The clause 
immediately under consideration was one proposing to make an 
appropriation for the completion of sloops of war.
  On the appeal the decision of the Chair was sustained, 67 yeas to 60 
nays.
  4744. In Committee of the Whole amendments are not in order until 
general debate has been closed.--On January 18, 1901,\1\ a Friday, the 
bill (H. R. 1605) ``for the relief of The William Cramp & Sons Ship and 
Engine Building Company, of Philadelphia, Pa.,'' was under 
consideration in Committee of the Whole House.
  During general debate Mr. Charles H. Grosvenor moved an amendment.
  The Chairman \2\ said:

  That amendment is not in order until general debate is closed. * * * 
General debate must be closed by order of the House.

  Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Grosvenor, the committee rose and the 
House limited general debate.
  4745. In Committee of the Whole, no Member desiring to participate in 
general debate, the reading of the bill for amendment begins.--On 
January 20, 1901,\3\ the House resolved itself into Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the 
agricultural appropriation bill. The bill having been read, no Member 
addressed the Chair for recognition to debate the bill.
  The Chairman \4\ said:

  Does any gentleman wish to address the committee?

  No one arising, the Chairman directed the Clerk to read the bill by 
paragraphs for amendment. Thus general debate was closed.
  4746. In considering a bill for amendment under the five-minute rule 
it is in order to return to a paragraph already passed only by 
unanimous consent.--On March 31, 1904,\5\ the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union had completed the reading of the sundry 
civil appropriation bill for amendment under the five-minute rule, when 
Mr. William Sulzer, of New York, moved to strike out the last four 
lines on page 9.
  The Chairman \6\ said:

  The Chair would suggest to the gentleman from New York that the rule 
is perfectly clear that he must first ask unanimous consent to return 
to page 9.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1197.
  \2\ James A. Hemenway, of Indiana, Chairman.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1643.
  \4\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
  \5\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 4072.
  \6\ Theodore E. Burton, of Ohio, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 4747
  4747. On February 26, 1904,\1\ the naval appropriation bill was under 
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union; when Mr. Edward J. Livernash, of California, proposed as a new 
section an amendment relating to and limiting the provisions of a 
paragraph which had already been passed.
  Mr. George E. Foss, of Illinois, made a point of order as to the 
amendment.
  After debate the Chairman \2\ held:

  The Chair is of opinion that this amendment relates to, qualifies, 
and seeks to amend a part of the bill upon which the committee has 
already passed, and that to sustain this amendment as in order would 
practically open all the provisions of the bill to amendment. Therefore 
the Chair sustains the point of order that the amendment is not in 
order.

  4748. The reading of a bill for amendment being concluded in 
Committee of the Whole, and a motion to rise being negatived, a motion 
to return to a particular portion of the bill was offered and admitted.
  Instance wherein a decision of a Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole was overruled.
  On February 27, 1905,\3\ the sundry civil appropriation bill was 
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, and the reading by paragraphs for amendment had been completed, 
when Mr. Theodore E. Burton, of Ohio, asked unanimous consent to return 
to page 3.
  Mr. James A. Hemenway, of Indiana, moved that the committee rise, and 
insisted on the motion, thus displacing the request of Mr. Burton.
  On a vote by tellers the motion to rise was disagreed to, ayes 51, 
nays 97.
  Mr. Burton thereupon renewed his request to return to page 3, but 
there was objection.
  Mr. Burton moved to recur to the portion of the bill already 
described.
  Mr. Hemenway made the point of order that the motion to return to an 
item upon a bill after having been passed and read was not in order.
  After debate the Chairman \4\ said:

  It is true that this matter was called to the attention of the Chair 
yesterday, and the Chair looked for a direct ruling upon this point and 
failed to find one where the precise point was raised. But during a 
service in the House of better than fifteen years of the present 
occupant of the Chair he does not recollect a single instance where a 
motion made to return to a paragraph after passing it was held in 
order.
  Wherever that has been done, it has always been by unanimous consent; 
and although there is no special rule that so directly holds, that 
course should be followed. It does seem to the Chair that the orderly 
procedure is the ordinary procedure which dictates that there is but 
one course to follow, and that is when the reading of the bill has been 
begun that that must be continued to the end, and that that course can 
be deviated from only by unanimous consent of the committee. And the 
indicated ruling of the Chair seems very appropriate, because it does 
not end the matter; it is not final. Any gentleman thereafter has 
recourse in the House to bring up the matter which he desires disposed 
of when the bill is reported to the House itself.
  Even if the previous question were demanded, a negative vote would 
afford an opportunity to consider the proposition. Therefore, holding 
that opinion, the Chair sustains the point of order made by the 
gentleman from Indiana.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2447.
  \2\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
  \3\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 3576, 3577.
  \4\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman. 
Sec. 4749
  Mr. Burton having appealed from the decision of the Chair, on the 
question of sustaining the Chair there appeared on a vote by tellers, 
ayes 71, noes 89. So the decision was overruled by the committee.
  4749. An amendment to insert in a bill a new section having been 
presented and debated before an opportunity was given to amend fully 
the section last read, the Chairman held that it was in order to recur 
to the latter section.--On January 17, 1899,\1\ the naval personnel 
bill (H. R. 10403) was under consideration in Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union, and was being read for amendment under 
the five-minute rule. Section 18 of the bill had been read, and one 
amendment had been made to it, when Mr. Amos J. Cummings, of New York, 
a member of the Naval Affairs Committee, was recognized and offered an 
amendment to insert after section 18 a new section.
  This proposed new section having been presented and debate on it 
having begun, Mr. John J. Jenkins, of Wisconsin, asked the privilege of 
offering an amendment to section 18. Objection having been made, the 
Chairman \8\ held:

  The Chair was just about to state to the gentleman in charge of the 
bill that the amendment of the gentleman from New York relates to an 
entirely distinct section. The gentleman from Wisconsin was on his feet 
at the time the gentleman from New York offered his amendment, and the 
Chair recognized the gentleman from New York, because he is a member of 
the committee, and under the practice of the Committee of the Whole 
would be entitled to recognition before the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
who is not a member of the committee, as the Chair understands. Now, 
the amendment offered by the gentle man from New York relating to 
another section, the Chair will now recognize the gentleman from 
Wisconsin in his own right to offer an amendment that relates to 
section 18.

  4750. During consideration of a bin by sections for amendment the 
Chair may direct a return to a section where, by error, no action has 
been had on a pending amendment.--On June 13, 1902,\3\ the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union was considering the bill (S. 
3057) for the reclamation of arid lands by irrigation, when the Clerk 
read an amendment proposed by the committee in the form of a new 
section, numbered 9.
  Then, before a vote was taken on agreeing to this amendment, the 
Clerk read the next section.
  Then the Chairman was proceeding to put the vote on the amendment, 
section 9.
  Mr. George W. Ray, of New York, made the point of order that the 
section 9 amendment had been passed, and that it was in order to return 
to it only by unanimous consent.
  The Chairman \4\ said:

  The Chair was under the impression that it was a regular section of 
the bill, and having been read, was adopted. The Chair is now informed 
that it was a committee amendment. The Chair does not think the 
gentleman from New York can take advantage of a wrong impression of the 
Chair as to the character of the provision. * * * This amendment is a 
committee amendment submitted by the committee, and the Chair thinks 
that it was his duty to put the amendment without attention being 
called to it. But under the impression that it was a part of the bill, 
and was agreed to when read, the Chairman directed the Clerk to read 
section 10. The question now is on agreeing to the committee
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 719.
  \2\ Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \3\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6767.
  \4\ James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 4751
amendment. * * * The Chair holds that it having been passed by an error 
of the Chair, and under a misunderstanding or misapprehension, the 
committee can go back--can return to the amendment and vote upon it.

  4751. In Committee of the Whole, under the five-minute rule, the 
right to explain or oppose an amendment has precedence over a motion to 
amend it.--On March 30, 1906,\1\ the legislative appropriation bill was 
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, under the five-minute rule, and Mr. James L. Slayden, of Texas, 
had debated an amendment proposed by him to the paragraph providing for 
the Bureau of Standards.
  Thereupon Mr. Choice B. Randell, of Texas, proposed an amendment to 
the amendment, and sought recognition for debate.
  The Chairman \2\ said:

  The Chair would feel bound first to recognize somebody desiring to be 
heard against the amendment, after which it would be in order for the 
gentleman to make his amendment.

  The amendment of Mr. Slayden having been disposed of, Mr. John W. 
Gaines, of Tennessee, offered another amendment to the same paragraph, 
and debated it five minutes.
  At the expiration of the five minutes, Mr. Gaines proposed to amend 
his own amendment by striking out the last two words, and by reason 
thereof sought recognition for another five minutes.
  The Chairman said:

  The Chair will read for general information of all Members:
  ``When general debate is closed by order of the House, any Member 
shall be allowed five minutes to explain any amendment he may offer, 
after which the Member who shall first obtain the floor shall be 
allowed to speak five minutes in opposition to it, and there shall be 
no further debate thereon; but the same privilege of debate shall be 
allowed in favor of and against any amendment that may be offered to an 
amendment.''
  Now, if any gentleman desires the floor to be heard against the 
amendment the gentleman from Tennessee has offered, it is the duty of 
the Chair to recognize him before he can recognize any one to offer an 
amendment to the amendment.

  4752. In Committee of the Whole a motion to amend a bill has 
precedence over a motion to rise and report it.
  The reading of a bill for amendment in Committee of the Whole was 
provided by a former rule and is continued by usage.
  On February 10, 1881,\3\ the House was in Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union, considering the river and harbor 
appropriation bill. Before the general debate had been closed Mr. John 
H. Reagan, of Texas, moved that the committee rise and report the bill 
to the House with the recommendation that it do pass.
  Mr. Samuel S. Cox, of New York, made the point of order that the bill 
had not been considered by paragraphs.
  Mr. Thomas Updegraff, of Iowa, also announced that he wished to 
propose an amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 4500-4504.
  \2\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
  \3\ Third session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1434, 1435.
Sec. 4753
  After debate, the Chairman \1\ held:

  There is no express rule, but the practice of this House which has 
existed for many years has been to allow amendments to be offered in 
Committee of the Whole. The old rule, Rule 107, as the gentleman will 
see by reference to the old edition of the rules, expressly provides 
that in Committee of the Whole the bill shall be read through by 
paragraphs or sections for debate and amendment. That clause of the 
rule is not contained in the new revision. But the revision contains in 
subdivision 5 of Rule XXIII \2\ this clause:
  ``When general debate is closed by order of the House, any Member 
shall be allowed five minutes to explain any amendment he may offer, 
after which the Member who shall first obtain the floor shall be 
allowed to speak five minutes in opposition to it, and there shall be 
no further debate thereon.''
  Now, the Chair thinks it is very clear that after the House has by an 
order closed general debate it would not be in the power of the Chair 
to entertain a motion that the Committee rise and report a bill without 
giving every gentleman an opportunity to offer and discuss amendments. 
But the Chair was inclined to think that, inasmuch as in this instance 
the House had not yet closed general debate, and no amendment had been 
offered, and no gentleman had asked for the reading of the bill by 
clauses, he could have entertained the motion, and he would undoubtedly 
have entertained the motion on that view of the case if the gentleman 
from Iowa [Mr. Updegraff] had not announced that he rose in his place 
with an amendment in his hand and said that he desired to offer it. 
Now, the Chair does not see how this Committee can prevent Members from 
offering amendments. The Committee can vote them down.

  Mr. Reagan having appealed, the Chairman, in stating the appeal, 
said:

  The Chair will state distinctly what he decided. The Chair decided 
that in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union a motion 
to amend a bill has preference over a motion that the Committee rise 
and report the bill to the House. That is all the Chair has decided, 
and from that decision the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reagan] has 
appealed.

  The decision of the Chair was sustained, 152 yeas to 6 nays.
  4753. On February 19, 1853,\3\ the civil and diplomatic appropriation 
bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union, when the second and last section of the bill was 
considered and stricken out.
  Thereupon Mr. Edward Stanly, of North Carolina, offered an amendment 
in the form of an additional section of the bill.
  Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, made the point of order that the 
bill had been considered and disposed of and that there was nothing 
left on which to attach an amendment. He therefore moved that the 
Committee rise and report the bill.
  The Chairman \4\ said:

  The Chair decides that that motion can not be put so long as any 
gentleman desires to offer an amendment. * * * The gentleman from 
Tennessee submits that inasmuch as the Committee have passed the first 
section of the bill, and stricken out the second, there is nothing left 
to amend, and that therefore no amendment whatever is in order. The 
Chair decides that according to the uniform practice in the Committee, 
so far as he recollects, and according to his understanding of the 
rules, amendments are in order at the end of the bill.

  An appeal being taken, the decision of the Chair was sustained.
  4754. On January 18, 1901,\5\ the bill (H. R. 1605) ``for the relief 
of the William Cramp & Sons Ship and Engine Building Company of 
Philadelphia,'' was
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Chairman.
  \2\ See section 5221 of Vol. V of this work.
  \3\ Second session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, p. 738.
  \4\ James L. Orr, of South Carolina, Chairman.
  \5\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1200-1202.
                                                            Sec. 4755
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House, general debate 
having been limited to one minute by order of the House.
  General debate being closed, Mr. Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, moved 
that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House 
with a favorable recommendation.
  The Chairman \1\ held that the bill would have to be read by sections 
for amendment.
  The reading of the bill being concluded, Mr. Charles H. Grosvenor, of 
Ohio, immediately moved that the Committee rise and report the bill to 
the House with a favorable recommendation.
  Mr. Edward Robb, of Missouri, a member of the committee reporting the 
bill, asked recognition to offer an amendment to the section just read, 
the last and only section of the bill.
  Mr. Grosvenor insisting on his motion, the Chairman held that Mr. 
Robb's motion was entitled to precedence, and that Mr. Grosvenor's 
motion was not in order while the Committee of the Whole chose to 
amend. And later, the question arising again, the Chairman reaffirmed 
his position, saying that the reading of a bill for amendment, as 
provided by the rules, implied the right to amend, and that as long as 
amendments, not dilatory in character, were offered to perfect sections 
of a bill, they were necessarily in order under the rule.
  4755. On March 11, 1898,\2\ the House was in Committee of the Whole 
House, considering the bill (H. R. 4936) for the payment of certain 
Bowman Act claims. Before the reading of the bill for amendments had 
been concluded Air. Thaddeus M. Mahon, of Pennsylvania, moved that the 
Committee rise and report the bill to the House with the recommendation 
that it do pass.
  Mr. George W. Steele, of Indiana, made the point of order that the 
bill had not been read the second time, and could not thus be taken out 
of Committee.
  The Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order.
  4756. On February 26, 1904,\4\ the naval appropriation bill was under 
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, and the reading by paragraphs had been concluded.
  Mr. George E. Foss, of Illinois, moved that the Committee rise and 
report the bill with a favorable recommendation.
  Mr. John F. Rixey, of Virginia, proposed an amendment as an 
additional section.
  The Chairman \5\ ruled that the motion to amend had precedence of the 
motion to rise and report.
  4757. On June 13, 1902,\6\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union was considering the bill (S. 3057) for the 
reclamation of and lands by irrigation. The bill had been read through 
for amendment, and the pending question
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ James A. Hemenway, of Indiana, Chairman.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2737.
  \3\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2440.
  \5\ Marlin E. Olmstead, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
  \6\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 6777, 6778.
Sec. 4758
was on the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute, when 
Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, moved that the Committee rise and 
report the bill.
  The Chairman \1\ said that the vote must first be taken on the 
substitute.
  Mr. George W. Ray, of New York, having raised a question of order, 
the Chairman said:

  The Chair will state that the simple motion that the Committee rise 
would be in order; but the gentleman from Wyoming made a motion that 
the Committee rise and report the bill, with the sundry amendments, 
favorably to the House, and that is not in order pending a vote upon 
the substitute. The question is on the substitute offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Robinson.]

  4758. On April 1, 1828,\2\ the tariff bill having been considered, 
and all amendments having been acted on, the only question natural to 
come before the committee was whether or not they should rise and 
report the bill.
  Mr. Peleg Sprague, of Maine, without making this motion, proceeded to 
debate the merits of the bill.
  Mr. James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, made a point of order as to 
whether it was permissible to debate the bill without any motion, or 
even upon the motion that the committee should rise and report.
  A long discussion followed, after which Mr. Sprague was allowed to 
proceed on moving an amendment to strike out the increased duty on 
hemp, etc.\3\
  4759. A bill may not be laid aside with a favorable recommendation in 
Committee of the Whole until the reading for amendment is completed.--
On January 20, 1899,\4\ the bill (H. R. 3754) for the relief of William 
Cramp & Sons was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House. 
After some time spent in general debate, but before the reading of the 
bill for amendments had begun, Mr. Charles N. Brumm, of Pennsylvania, 
moved that the bill be laid aside with a favorable recommendation.
  Mr. Alexander M. Dockery, of Missouri, made the point of order that 
the motion was not in order at this time.
  The Chairman \5\ held:

  The motion that the bill be laid aside with a favorable 
recommendation is not in order at this stage. * * * If no one desires 
to take the floor for further debate, the bill will be read.

  4760. On May 30, 1822,\6\ a tariff bill being under consideration in 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and the 
consideration for amendment not having begun, the Chairman held it to 
be in order to move to lay it aside to take up another bill.
  But he held also that a motion to amend had precedence, so a Member 
moved to amend by striking out the first section, and the debate 
proceeded.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Twentieth Congress, Debates, pp. 2053, 2054, 2055.
  \3\ On the next day, Mr. Sprague continuing the debate, the Chairman 
seems to have held that the whole subject was open to discussion on the 
motion that the committee rise and report the bill, but this is 
evidently an error, since subsequent proceedings show the debate to 
have been on Mr. Sprague's amendment.
  \4\ Third session Fifty-third Congress, Record, p. 867.
  \5\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
  \6\ First session Twenty-second Congress, Debates, p. 3188.
                                                            Sec. 4761
  At this time the general debate does not seem to have had a fixed 
time before the consideration for amendment.
  4761. A motion that the Committee of the Whole report a bill with the 
recommendation that it be referred may not be made until it has been 
read for amendments.--On January 2, 1852,\1\ a resolution of welcome to 
Louis Kossuth was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union, and general debate had been limited by order 
of the House.
  General debate having terminated and the offering and debate of 
amendments having begun, Mr. William A. Richardson, of Illinois, 
proposed a motion that the Committee rise and report the resolution 
with a recommendation that it be referred to the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs.
  The Chairman \2\ said:

  All debate is terminated by the latter branch of the one hundred and 
thirty-sixth rule. This rule provides:
  ``That the House may at any time, by a vote of a majority of the 
Members present, suspend the rules and orders for the purpose of going 
into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union; and 
also to provide for the discharge of the Committee of the Whole House, 
and the Committee of the Whole House 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.''
  This rule provides that the House itself may discharge the Committee 
of the Whole upon the state of the Union from the consideration of any 
proposition committed to it without debate after voting on all 
amendments which have been offered or may be offered. The committee, by 
this vote and decision, have determined that the debate on this 
resolution should terminate. Then, in the opinion of the Chair it can 
not be reported to the House until all the amendments pending and which 
may be offered shall be voted on. The Chair overrules the motion of the 
gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. Richardson having appealed, the decision of the Chair was 
sustained, ayes 78, noes 44.\3\
  4762. On January 14, 1901,\4\ the bill (H. R. 13189) ``making 
appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of 
certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes'' 
was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union.
  The reading by paragraphs for amendment had begun, when Mr. F. W. 
Cushman, of Washington, moved that the bill be reported back to the 
House with the recommendation that it be recommitted to the Committee 
on Rivers and Harbors.
  Mr. John W. Maddox, of Georgia, made the point of order that the 
motion was not in order.
  The Chairman \5\ held:

  In relation to this matter the Chair is of the opinion that the 
admission of the motion to report the bill with a recommendation of 
recommittal would be in violation of the spirit of the rules and 
precedents governing the consideration of bills in the Committee of the 
Whole. The Committee of the Whole is expected to complete consideration 
of a bill before it is reported to the House; and it is well understood 
that a motion to report a bill with a favorable recommendation is not 
in order until the consideration by sections or paragraphs for 
amendment has been completed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, p. 194.
  \2\ George W. Jones, of Tennessee, Chairman.
  \3\ On February 25 (Globe, p. 635), Chairman Edson B. Olds, of Ohio, 
affirmed this decision.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 996.
  \5\ Albert S. Hopkins, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 4763
  To admit the motion proposed by the gentleman from Washington would 
afford a means of taking a bill from the Committee of the Whole before 
it had been fully considered. By the motion to strike out the enacting 
clause the rules provide the only proper means for such an action, and 
the carefully guarded provisions of that rule satisfy the Chair that 
the framers of the rules intended it to be the only method whereby the 
Committee of the whole might escape the mandate of the House to 
consider a bill referred to it. The Chair is aware of the fact that in 
the Fifty-first Congress a motion like that made by the gentleman from 
Washington was admitted; but in that case there was a question as to 
the validity of the bill itself, whether it had been rightfully 
reported in the first instance from a standing committee. A question of 
privilege was raised; and the motion to recommend end recommittal was a 
part of that question. No such question is involved in the present 
case, and the Chair sustains the point of order.

  4763. The motion to lay a bill aside in Committee of the Whole is not 
debatable.--On April 5, 1860,\1\ in Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union, Chairman Israel Washburn, Jr., of Maine, held that 
a motion to lay aside a bill was a motion relating to priority of 
business, and therefore not debatable.
  4764. On March 28, 1902 \2\ while the Committee of the Whole House 
was considering the bill (H. R. 3379) to correct the military record of 
Calvin A. Rice, Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, moved that the bill 
be laid aside with a favorable recommendation.
  Mr. Mondell was proceeding to debate the motion, when the Chairman 
\3\ ruled further debate out of order, the motion to lay aside having 
been made.
  4765. A bill which is under consideration in Committee of the Whole 
may not be laid aside, except to be reported to the House.
  The Committee of the Whole having voted to consider a particular 
bill, and consideration having begun, a motion to reconsider or change 
that vote is not in order.
  A motion that a bill be reported with a recommendation to postpone is 
in order in Committee of the Whole.
  A motion to report a bill from the Committee of the Whole with a 
recommendation that it do pass has precedence of a motion recommending 
postponement.
  On January 21, 1898,\4\ the House was in Committee of the Whole 
House. The bill (S. 629) to confer jurisdiction on the Court of Claims 
in the case of the Book Agents of the Methodist Episcopal Church South 
against the United States was before the committee. Its consideration 
had began on the previous Friday, and it came up as unfinished business 
in the committee.
  Mr. Samuel B. Cooper, of Texas, moved to lay aside the bill and to 
substitute therefor the House bill (No. 4829) relating to the same 
subject.
  Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, having made a point of order, the 
Chairman \5\ ruled:

  The Committee of the Whole may undoubtedly take up any bill, or 
change the order, but on Friday it voted to take up this particular 
bill and entered upon consideration of it. Now, the Committee of the 
Whole can not reconsider its order. A motion to reconsider is not in 
order. It can not
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Thirty-sixth Congress, Globe, p. 1563.
  \2\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 3372.
  \3\ Adin B. Capron, of Rhode Island, Chairman.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 843.
  \5\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 4766
change the order until the order is executed. The Chair thinks there is 
no power to do it, except by unanimous consent of the committee. The 
Chair must sustain the point of order.

  Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, moved that the bill be 
reported to the House with the recommendation that it be postponed 
until Friday next.
  Mr. Dalzell having made the point of order that the motion was not 
admissible, the Chairman ruled that the motion was in order.
  Mr. Dalzell moved that the bill be laid aside, with the 
recommendation that it do pass.
  Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, made the point of order that 
there was a motion pending.
  The Chairman ruled that the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Dalzell] was entitled to preference, for the reason that if 
adopted it would dispose of the bill finally, as far as the Committee 
of the Whole was concerned.
  4766. In Committee of the Whole the motion to rise and report has 
precedence of a motion to take up another bill.
  In Committee of the Whole the motion to rise and report is not 
debatable.
  On July 5, 1838,\1\ the House was in Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union, and had completed the consideration of several 
bills.
  Mr. Charles F. Mercer, of Virginia, had moved to take up a certain 
bill, when Mr. Churchill C. Cambreleng, of New York, moved that the 
committee rise and report the bills already acted on.
  Mr. Mercer insisted that his own motion should be put, and that the 
motion to rise was debatable.
  The Chairman \2\ overruled him. Thereupon Mr. Mercer took an appeal, 
and after debate the decision of the Chair was sustained by the 
committee.
  4767. A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is not 
debatable.--On February 15, 1901,\3\ Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, 
moved that the Committee of the Whole House rise.
  Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, rising to a parliamentary 
inquiry, asked if that motion was debatable.
  The Chairman \4\ replied that it was not.
  4768. On February 16, 1831,\5\ the House was in Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union considering the bill (H. R. 567) 
for the relief of certain surviving officers and soldiers of the 
Revolution.
  A question of order being raised as to whether or not a motion that 
the committee rise was debatable, the Chairman \6\ decided that it was 
not debatable.
  4769. A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is not in order 
while a Member has the floor in debate.--On February 15, 1901,\7\ the 
bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Twenty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 1246; Globe, p. 
497.
  \2\ Zadok Casey, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2492.
  \4\ James A. Hemenway, of Indiana, Chairman.
  \5\ Second session Twenty-first Congress, Debates, p. 726.
  \6\ Robert P. Letcher, of Kentucky, Chairman.
  \7\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2491.
Sec. 4770
(H. R. 4303) for the relief of the heirs of Aaron Van Camp and 
Virginius P. Chapin was under consideration in committee of the Whole 
House, and Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, held the floor in debate.
  Mr. Joseph V. Graff, of Illinois, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, 
asked if it was proper at this time to make a motion that the committee 
rise.
  The Chairman \1\ replied that it would be in order if the gentleman 
having the floor should yield for that purpose.
  4770. In Committee of the Whole the simple motion that the committee 
rise has precedence of the motion to amend.--On June 6, 1902,\2\ the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union were considering 
the bill (S. 3653) for the protection of the President of the United 
States and for other purposes, when Mr. Malcolm R. Patterson, of 
Tennessee, sought recognition to propose an amendment.
  Mr. George W. Ray, of New York, moved that the committee rise.
  Mr. Patterson having claimed the right to offer his amendment, the 
Chairman \3\ said:

  The gentleman from New York at the same time moved that the committee 
do now rise. That is a preferential motion, and if the gentleman will 
withhold his amendment he will be recognized in the morning.

  4771. In Committee of the Whole a motion that the committee rise may 
not be made until a demand for tellers on the pending question has been 
disposed of.--On March 2, 1904,\4\ the District of Columbia 
appropriation bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union, and a rising vote had been taken and 
declared on an amendment.
  Thereupon Mr. James T. McCleary, of Minnesota, moved that the 
committee rise.
  The Chairman put the question.
  Thereupon Mr. McCleary gave notice that he would demand tellers on 
the vote on the amendment.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that a demand 
for tellers might not be made after the motion to rise.
  Thereupon Mr. Elmer J. Burkett, of Nebraska, demanded tellers.
  Pending that Mr. McCleary insisted on his motion that the committee 
rise.
  The Chairman \5\ held that the motion to rise might not be made until 
the demand for tellers had been disposed of.
  4772. On March 2, 1906,\6\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union had considered various bills on the Private Calendar 
when a motion was made to lay aside, with a recommendation that it lie 
on the table, the bill (H. R. 850) for the relief of the estate of 
Samuel Lee. On a division there appeared ayes 61, noes 56.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ James A. Hemenway, of Indiana, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6426.
  \3\ Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, Chairman.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 2709, 2710.
  \5\ George P. Lawrence, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
  \6\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 3301.
                                                            Sec. 4773
  Mr. James M. Miller, of Kansas, called for tellers, and, pending that 
call, proposed to move that the committee rise.
  Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, made a point of order.
  The Chairman \1\ held:

  In the Committee of the Whole a motion that the committee rise may 
not be made until a demand for tellers on the pending question has been 
disposed of.

  4773. Tellers having been ordered and appointed, it is not in order 
to move that the Committee of the Whole rise until the vote has been 
announced.--On May 26, 1890,\2\ on a vote in Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union, tellers were ordered and appointed.
  Thereupon Mr. Louis E. Atkinson, of Pennsylvania, asked, as a 
parliamentary inquiry, if it would be in order to move that the 
committee rise.
  The Chairman \3\ said:

  The demand for tellers has been made. The division has been ordered, 
and the Chair thinks that it would not be in order to move that the 
committee do now rise.

  The tellers having reported, the motion that the committee rise was 
then entertained.
  4774. Bills in Committee of the Whole may be reported with the 
recommendation that they be postponed or referred, and the latter 
recommendation has precedence over the recommendation that the bill do 
pass.
  The motion in Committee of the Whole that a bill be laid aside with a 
favorable recommendation is not amendable, but may be displaced by a 
preferential motion.
  In Committee of the Whole the motion that a bill be laid aside with a 
favorable recommendation is not debatable.
  On April 23, 1906,\4\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 
15961) ``to quiet title to certain lots in the District of Columbia,'' 
in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, when Mr. 
Joseph W. Babcock, of Wisconsin, moved to lay aside the bill with a 
favorable recommendation.
  Thereupon Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, moved to amend his 
motion by striking out the language ``with a favorable recommendation'' 
and substituting this language: ``with the recommendation that the 
Committee on the District of Columbia shall report a bill conferring 
jurisdiction upon the supreme court of the District of Columbia to hear 
and determine the questions of title involved in this matter.''
  The Chairman \5\ said:

  The gentleman from New York moves that the motion of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin that the bill be laid aside with a favorable 
recommendation be amended so that the bill be laid aside with the 
recommendation that it be referred back to the committee with 
instructions, and the Chair would
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 5315.
  \3\ Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, Chairman.
  \4\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 5748.
  \5\ Charles E. Littlefield, of Maine, Chairman.
Sec. 4775
hold that that motion is out of order, but he would entertain a motion 
of the gentleman from New York, taking precedence of the motion of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, to lay it aside with the recommendation that 
it be referred to the committee with instructions. Now the gentleman 
from New York moves that this bill be reported with the recommendation 
that it be referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, with 
instructions.

  Mr. Fitzgerald having made the motion suggested by the Chair, debate 
was proceeding when the Chairman said:

  The Chair will state that debate upon the pending motion is, in the 
opinion of the Chair, proceeding by unanimous consent; that when action 
is taken upon the motion that the bill be laid aside with a favorable 
recommendation it is ordinarily after debate has been entirely 
exhausted upon the proposition, and the Chair is of opinion the motion 
of the gentleman from New York is in practically that parliamentary 
situation, and debate is now proceeding by unanimous consent.

  After debate the motion proposed by Mr. Fitzgerald was disagreed to.
  4775. In Committee of the Whole the motion to report a bill with the 
recommendation that it be referred takes precedence of the motion to 
report it with the recommendation that it do pass.--On January 22, 
1896,\1\ the House was considering in Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union the joint resolution (S. R. 50) relating to 
plans for the public building at Chicago, Ill.
  Mr. William Lorimer, of Illinois, moved that the committee rise and 
report the bill as amended back to the House, with the recommendation 
that it do pass.
  Mr. Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, moved that the committee rise and 
report the bill back with the recommendation that it be referred to the 
Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds.
  Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, having raised a question as to the 
precedence of the motions, the Chairman \2\ held that the latter motion 
had precedence.
  4776. In Committee of the Whole the motion to report with a favorable 
recommendation has precedence of the motion to report with an 
unfavorable recommendation.
  In Committee of the Whole a negative decision on a motion to report a 
bill with a favorable recommendation is not equivalent to a decision to 
report unfavorably.
  On February 14, 1896,\3\ in Committee of the Whole House, Mr. W. 
Jasper Talbert, of South Carolina, moved that the bill under 
consideration be laid aside with an unfavorable recommendation--i. e., 
that it do not pass, after the Chairman had put the question on the 
motion that the bill be laid aside with the recommendation that it do 
pass.
  Mr. John A. Pickler, of South Dakota, having raised a question as to 
the precedence of the motions, the Chairman \2\ held that the motion to 
lay aside the bill with a favorable recommendation had precedence.
  On March 2, 1896,\4\ in Committee of the Whole, the motion to report 
the pending bill favorably to the House was negatived.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 889.
  \2\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
  \3\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1742.
  \4\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 2341.
                                                            Sec. 4777
  Thereupon the Chairman \1\ entertained the motion that the bill be 
reported unfavorably.\2\
  4777. In Committee of the Whole a motion to report a bill with the 
recommendation that it lie on the table has precedence of motions 
recommending postponement or recommittal.--On April 15, 1898,\3\ the 
bill (H. R. 706) for the relief of the Erie Railroad Company was under 
consideration in Committee of the Whole House.
  Mr. Charles N. Brumm, of Pennsylvania, made the motion that the bill 
be reported with the recommendation that it be postponed for two weeks.
  Mr. Eugene F. Loud, of California, moved that the bill be laid aside 
with the recommendation that it do lie on the table.
  Mr. Thomas McEwan, jr., of New Jersey, moved that it be laid aside 
with the recommendation that it be recommitted to the Committee on 
Claims.
  The Chairman \4\ ruled:

  The gentleman from California moves that the committee report the 
bill to the House with the recommendation that it lie on the table. 
Now, that motion would take precedence of the motion made by the 
gentleman from New Jersey and the motion of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania to postpone for a couple of weeks. The Chair thinks that 
the vote, in any event, would be first on the motion of the gentleman 
from California.

  4778. Before general debate has been closed in Committee of the Whole 
it is not in order to move to report the bill with the recommendation 
that it be laid on the table.--On January 27, 1902,\5\ the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union was considering the bill (H. 
R. 2041) to aid in establishing homes in the States and Territories for 
teaching articulate speech, etc., to deaf children.
  Before general debate had been closed Mr. Willard D. Vandiver, of 
Missouri, moved that the bill be reported to the House with the 
recommendation that it be laid on the table.
  The Chairman \6\ said:

  General debate not being closed, it would not be in order except by 
consent.

  4779. The motion to report a bill with a favorable recommendation 
being decided in the negative in Committee of the Whole, the bill 
remains in its place on the Calendar.--On March 30, 1900,\7\ the 
Committee of the Whole House was considering the bill (H. R. 909) 
conferring on the Court of Claims jurisdiction with respect to certain 
claims, and the motion that the bill be reported with a favorable 
recommendation was decided in the negative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Nelson Dingley, of Maine, Chairman.
  \2\ The practice has been long established that the negative of the 
motion to report favorably is not equivalent to the affirmative of the 
motion to report adversely. (Second session Forty-sixth Congress, 
Journal, p. 421; Record, p. 745.)
  \3\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 3923, 3924.
  \4\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
  \5\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 1038.
  \6\ Adin B. Capron, of Rhode Island, Chairman.
  \7\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3539.
Sec. 4780
  Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, 
asked:

  A majority of the Committee of the Whole having refused to report the 
bill back with a favorable recommendation, where does that leave the 
bill?

  The Chairman \1\ said:

  It leaves the bill on the Calendar, in its place.

  4780. On January 25, 1901,\2\ the House was in Committee of the Whole 
House considering bills on the Private Calendar, and the pending 
question was on laying aside with a favorable recommendation the bill 
(H. R. 9271) to remove the charge of desertion against Charles Schaupp, 
etc.
  This motion was determined in the negative, whereupon Mr. Charles L. 
Bartlett, of Georgia, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, asked as to 
the status of the bill.
  The Chairman \3\ said:

  The Chair will rule that it goes to the Calendar unless some further 
action is taken by the committee.

  4781. On March 2, 1906,\4\ in Committee of the Whole House for the 
consideration of business on the Private Calendar several bills were 
considered and laid aside with favorable recommendation, and the bill 
(H. R. 850) making an appropriation to pay the estate of Samuel Lee on 
account of the latter's alleged election and service in Congress was 
considered, and a motion that it be laid aside with a favorable 
recommendation was disagreed to, ayes 57, noes 62.
  Then Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, moved that the bill be reported 
with a recommendation that it do lie on the table.
  This motion was disagreed to, ayes 63, noes 64.
  Mr. James M. Miller, of Kansas, moved that the committee rise and 
report the bills to the House.
  Mr. Mann, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, asked if the bill H. R. 
850 would be included in this motion.
  The Chairman said: \5\

  The bill goes back on the Calendar, and will not be reported among 
the bills acted upon by the committee. The question is on the motion to 
rise and report the bills.

  4782. As to the motions in order when a bill again comes up in 
Committee of the Whole after the committee has refused to report it 
either favorably or unfavorably.
  Reading of a bill for amendments being concluded in Committee of the 
Whole motions ordering it to be reported are not debatable.
  The reading of a bill for amendment in Committee of the Whole being 
concluded, a motion to strike out the enacting clause is not in order.
  Bills in Committee of the Whole may be reported with the 
recommendation that they be postponed or referred, and the latter 
recommendation has precedence over the recommendation that the bill do 
pass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ James A. Hemenway, of Indiana, Chairman.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1479.
  \3\ Adin B. Capron, of Rhode Island, Chairman.
  \4\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 3302.
  \5\ Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, chairman.
                                                            Sec. 4782
  On May 18, 1906,\1\ the bill (H. R. 850) making appropriation to pay 
the estate of Samuel Lee, deceased, in full for any claim for pay and 
allowances made by reason of election of said Lee to the Forty-seventh 
Congress and his services therein, came up in regular order for 
consideration in Committee of the Whole House.
  On March 2 \2\ this bill had been debated and amended, and a motion 
to lay it aside with a favorable recommendation had been decided in the 
negative. Thereupon a motion had been ma