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

 
                             Chapter CXLII.

                        SUSPENSION OF THE RULES.

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

   1. The rule and its history. Section 6790.
   2. Recognition at discretion of Speaker. Sections 6791-6794.
   3. Application of motion. Sections 6795, 6796.\1\
   4. The second of the motion. Sections 6797-6804.
   5. The motion on committee suspension day. Sections 6805-6813.
   6. The motion as unfinished business. Sections 6814-6819.
   7. The forty minutes of debate. Sections 6820-6824.
   8. In relation to questions of privilege. Sections 6825, 
     6826.\3\
   9. In relation to the previous question and other motions, 
     Sections 6827-6834.
   10. In relation to special orders and other business. Sections 
     6835-6839.
   11. As to modification and withdrawal. Sections 6840-.6845.\4\
   12. Scope of the motion. Sections 6846-6857.
   13. Effect of the motion. Sections 685-862.\5\

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

  6790. Motions to suspend the rules may be entertained by the Speaker 
on the first and third Mondays of each month and on the last six days 
of a session.
  In making motions to suspend the rules individuals have the 
preference on the first Monday of the month and committees on the 
third.
  No rule may be suspended except by a two-thirds vote.
  The use of the motion to suspend the rules has gradually been 
restricted, while the functions of the Committee on Rules have been 
enlarged.
  The gradual abolition of the motion with one day's notice as a means 
of changing the rules.
  Present form and history of section 1 of Rule XXVIII.
  Section 1 of Rule XXVIII provides for suspension of the rules:

  No rule shall be suspended except by a vote of two-thirds of the 
Members voting, a quorum being present; nor shall the Speaker entertain 
a motion to suspend the rules except on the first and third Mondays of 
each month, preference being given on the first Monday to individuals 
and on the third Monday to committees, and during the last six days of 
a session.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Dilatory motions are forbidden pending motion to suspend rules. 
(Sees. 5743-5752 of this volume.)
  \2\ Application of the rule for a call of the House when a motion for 
a second develops a lack of a quorum. (Secs. 3053-3055 of Vol. IV.)
  \3\ Motion to suspend the rules may be superseded by a question of 
privilege. (Sec. 2553 of Vol. 111.)
  \4\ Motion to amend may not be applied to a motion to suspend the 
rules. (Sec. 5322 of this volume.)
  \5\ A division of the question is not in order on the vote on a 
motion to suspend the rules. (Secs. 6141, 6142 of this volume.)
                                                            Sec. 6790
  This rule has been subjected to many changes. In the First Congress, 
where the membership was small, no limitation was put upon motions to 
change the rules; but on November 13, 1794,\1\ this rule was agreed to:

  No standing rule or order of the House shall be rescinded without one 
day's notice being given of the motion therefor.\2\

  On December 23, 1811, the words ``or changed'' were added after 
``rescinded.'' \3\
  The next development came on March 13, 1822,\7\ when this clause was 
added:

  Nor shall any rule be suspended, except by a vote of at least two-
thirds of the Members present.

  On April 26, 1828,\5\ the rule was still further fortified by a 
provision:

  Nor shall the order of business, as established by the rules, be 
postponed or changed,\6\ except by a vote of at least two-thirds of the 
Members present.

  For nearly twenty years the House continued under this arrangement 
until December 18, 1847,\7\ when this important modification was 
introduced:

  Except during the last ten days of the session the Speaker shall not 
entertain a motion to suspend the rules of the House at any time except 
on Monday of every week.

  Mr. Joseph A. Woodward, of South Carolina, suggested the ten days' 
limit. The remainder of the rule was reported by Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, 
of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on Rules. It was urged on the 
ground that, as Mr. Daniel M. Barringer, of North Carolina, expressed 
it, they had seen ``week after week, and month after month, the whole 
morning hour, and perhaps two or three hours each day, consumed in 
making motions to suspend the rules, a motion which had become so 
common as to be considered almost a test vote.''
  The rule was subsequently modified so that motions to suspend the 
rules should not be in order on Monday until one hour after the reading 
of the Journal; but on June 8, 1864,\8\ this was amended in order to 
enable the Speaker to entertain motions before the expiration of the 
hour in case the call for the introduction of bills should be concluded 
earlier.
  On June 22, 1874,\9\ Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, reported 
from the Committee on Rules and the House adopted an amendment reducing 
the limit at the end of a session from ten to six days. It was declared 
at the time that the limit of ten days was too long.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third and Fourth Congresses, Journal, p. 228. (Gales and Seaton 
ed.)
  \2\ On June 17, 1850 (First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, 
pp. 1026, 1027; Globe, pp. 1225, 1226), Mr. Speaker Cobb ruled that the 
House might, by a two-thirds vote, on suspension day, change one of its 
rules without this preliminary notice.
  \3\ See Report No. 38, first session Twelfth Congress.
  \4\ First session Seventeenth Congress, Journal, p. 351.
  \5\ First session Twentieth Congress, Journal, pp. 621, 634.
  \6\ This rule seems to have been adopted to prevent the postponement 
of the orders of the day in order to prolong the morning hour wherein 
Members might present original subjects of legislation in the form of 
resolutions. See an instance on May 5, 1828 (First session Twentieth 
Congress, Debates, p. 2575).
  \7\ First session Thirtieth Congress, Globe, p. 47.
  \8\ First session Thirty-eighth Congress, Globe, p. 2810.
  \9\ First session Forty-third Congress, Record, p. 5390.
Sec. 6790
  In the revision of 1880 \1\ the Committee on Rules reported this 
form:

  No standing rule or order of the House shall be rescinded or changed 
without one day's notice of the motion therefor, and no rule shall be 
suspended except by a vote of two-thirds of the Members present, nor 
shall the Speaker entertain a motion to suspend the rules except on 
every Monday after the call of States and Territories shall have been 
completed, and during the last six days of a session.

  When this report was considered by the House, Mr. William P. Frye, of 
Maine, acting under instructions from the Committee on Rules, proposed 
as an amendment to strike out the words ``every Monday'' and insert in 
lieu thereof the words, ``the first and third Mondays in each month,'' 
and after the word ``completed'' insert the words ``preference being 
given on the first Monday to individuals and on the third Monday to 
committees.''
  Mr. Frye explained that the object in reducing the number of 
suspension Monday was to prevent waste of time. The privilege of 
suspension was used on ``foolish propositions,'' intended merely for 
political effect, so that it had become a frequent custom of the House 
to adjourn to get rid of these motions.
  It was objected that the amendment would put one more impediment in 
the way of an individual who wished to get before the House a 
proposition which a committee would not report. The House agreed to the 
amendment,\2\ and the rule was thus perfected. It remained in that form 
until the revision of 1890,\3\ when the words ``after the call of 
States and Territories shall have been completed'' were omitted, as the 
new order of business had rendered this call unnecessary.\4\ In 1890 a 
clause was added also, providing that the rules might be suspended by a 
majority vote ``to fix a day for the consideration of a bill or 
resolution already favorably reported by a committee, on motion 
directed to be made by such committee.'' This clause was dropped in the 
Fifty-second Congress and has not been restored.
  In the Fifty-third Congress the first sentence of the rule, ``No 
standing rule or order of the House shall be rescinded or changed 
without one day's notice of the motion therefor,'' was stricken out. It 
had been in the rule since 1794, and for many years had afforded the 
means whereby the rules were amended. The old usage was to introduce a 
resolution on one day, and on the next it would be agreed to by a 
majority vote. In this way, in 1842, the hour rule for debate was 
finally put into the rules,\5\ although at that time the practice of 
the Committee on Rules of reporting amendments to the rules had 
begun.\6\ Gradually the Committee on Rules was intrusted with all 
amendments, the end of the old system coming formally with a ruling 
made in 1887.\7\
  Previous to this ruling there had been a division of opinion in the 
House on the subject.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 207.
  \2\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1195, 1196.
  \3\ First session Fifty-first Congress, House Report No. 23.
  \4\ See section 3056 of Vol. IV of this work.
  \5\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Globe, p. 620; Journal, 
p. 954.
  \6\ First session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 154; second 
session Twenty-seventh Congress, Globe, p. 152.
  \7\ See sections 6769-6781.
                                                            Sec. 6791
  On July 18, 1882,\1\ the question arose as to whether, under the then 
form of Rule XXVIII, a standing rule or order of the House might be 
rescinded or changed by one day's notice and action in the House 
without reference to the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker Keifer seemed 
at first inclined to rule that reference would not be necessary, but 
Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, and others protested and he declined to 
rule, as the proposition to consider without reference was withdrawn. 
On April 12, 1884,\2\ a Member called for a vote on a motion, which he 
had submitted the previous day under the terms of the rule, to rescind 
an existing special order. Mr. Speaker Carlisle expressed doubt as to 
whether the motion was admissible under the rule and submitted the 
question to the House, which decided it inadmissible, yeas 78, nays 
101.
  The last change in the rule was made in the Fifty-fourth Congress, 
when the words ``two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being 
present,'' were substituted for ``two-thirds of the Members 
present.''\3\
  6791. In the later practice it has been held that the rules permit, 
but do not require, the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the 
rules.--On June 18, 1894,\4\ Mr. William H. Hatch, of Missouri, moved 
that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union for the purpose of considering bills raising 
revenue.
  Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, submitted the question of order 
whether under provisions of Rule XXVIII,\5\ and the practice of the 
House in respect thereto, it was not the duty of the Chair to call the 
standing committees for the purpose of enabling them to present motions 
to suspend the rules.
  The Speaker pro tempore \6\ held that Rule XXVIII merely permitted, 
but did not require, the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the 
rules on the first and third Mondays.\7\
  6792. On May 7, 1900,\8\ the first Monday of the month and therefore 
individual suspension day, Mr. William Sulzer, of New York, demanded 
recognition, to move a suspension of the rules for the purpose of 
passing a resolution, which he presented.
  The Speaker \9\ declined to recognize Mr. Sulzer, saying:

  The Chair will recognize no gentleman unless he has some knowledge of 
what is going to be called up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 6174, 6175.
  \2\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2905.
  \3\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 107.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 438; Record, p. 
6476.
  \5\ See section 6790 of this chapter.
  \6\ Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, Speaker pro tempore.
  \7\ This ruling followed the practice. On February 28, 1881 (third 
session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2230), Mr. Speaker Randall 
held that recognition for the motion to suspend the rules was within 
the discretion of the Chair, and affirmed his right to refuse to 
recognize for the motion. Again, on March I (Record, p. 2297), Mr. 
Speaker Randall declared that it was not compulsory on the Speaker 
under the terms of the rule to recognize for the motion to suspend the 
rules. He further held that it had never been the practice to permit a 
Member to be taken off the floor by a motion to suspend the rules. But 
before the time of Mr. Speaker Randall the Speakers do not seem to have 
exercised this control over the motion.
  \8\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 5227.
  \9\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
Sec. 6793
  A little later Mr. Sulzer rose and demanded recognition.
  The Speaker having asked for what purpose the gentleman arose, Mr. 
Sulzer replied that he wished to move a suspension of the rules to pass 
a resolution expressing sympathy with the Boers.
  The Speaker said:

  The Chair declines to recognize the gentleman from New York at this 
time. * * * The Chair must exercise his duty to this House and 
recognize Members upon matters which the Chair thinks should be 
considered.

  6793. On June 7, 1900,\1\ Mr. John J. Lentz, of Ohio, rising to a 
parliamentary inquiry, said:

  Inasmuch as the House has fixed upon a resolution to adjourn, is it 
not in order for me to move to suspend the rules and move that the 
testimony in the Coeur d'Alene labor troubles be printed?

  The Speaker \2\ replied:

  The Chair refuses to recognize the gentleman for that purpose, and 
the Chair under the law has that discretion.

  6794. On February 3, 1893,\3\ Mr. Speaker Crisp, in the course of the 
discussion of a point of order, said:

  The Chair fully appreciates the fact that according to the practice, 
which has always prevailed the motion to suspend the rules has been one 
depending on recognition; that is, it can not be made unless the Member 
is recognized to make it. The Chair, in speaking of this motion as one 
of the highest privilege, did not mean to convey the idea that 
necessarily when the day comes for motions to suspend the rules the 
Chair must recognize a gentleman to make such motion.

  This statement was brought about by a question raised by ex-Speaker 
Reed, who thought that the ruling of the Chair might be construed as 
laying down the doctrine that the motion to suspend the rules was 
privileged, and who himself took the view which the Speaker enunciated 
above.
  6795. Instance wherein a motion to suspend the rules was by unanimous 
consent entertained on a day other than a suspension day.--On February 
23, 1906,\4\ not a suspension day, Mr. William Richardson, of Alabama, 
asked unanimous consent that he might make a motion to suspend the 
rules and agree to a concurrent resolution providing for certain 
amendments to the enrolled bill (H. R. 297) to authorize the 
construction of dams and power stations on the Tennessee River at 
Muscle Shoals, Alabama, which, in response to a concurrent resolution 
of the Senate and the House, was sent by the President of the United 
States back to this House.
  Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that this 
was not a suspension day, and cited the rule as to suspension, saying:

  This rule says:
  ``Nor shall the Speaker entertain a motion to suspend the rules 
except on the first and third Mondays of each month.''
  Now, it seems to me the request for unanimous consent is against 
that, and it seems to me it would be a very bad precedent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 6890.
  \2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Record, p. 1255.
  \4\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 2889-2891.
                                                            Sec. 6796
  I do not wish to be misunderstood with respect to the merits of the 
bill. I am not talking about that now. I am talking about the question 
of the rules; and it seems to me that it was the intention of the rule 
to place a limitation upon the power of the House by placing a 
limitation on the power of the Speaker. It says that he shall not 
entertain a motion to suspend the rules. It is very much like the case 
of the rule that prohibits the Speaker from entertaining a motion to 
permit parties not permitted by the rule to come upon the floor of the 
House.

  The Speaker \1\ said:

  But that rule, the gentleman will recollect, prohibits the Speaker 
from submitting a request for unanimous consent. This rule does not. 
The Chair could not and would not entertain a motion on any except the 
two Mondays specified, but this comes by a request for unanimous 
consent that the Speaker shall entertain a motion to suspend the rules 
under the terms of Rule XXVIII. It seems to the Chair that the House 
may under the rule, if it sees proper to do so, give unanimous consent.

  6796. A motion to suspend the rules applies to the parliamentary law 
of Jefferson's Manual as well as to the rules of the House.--On August 
23, 1852,\2\ Mr. Speaker Boyd held that a motion to suspend the rules 
applied as well to the parliamentary law of Jefferson's Manual as to 
the rules of the House.
  6797. A motion to suspend the rules is not submitted to the House 
until seconded by a majority on a vote by tellers.
  Present form and history of section 2 of Rule XXVIII.
  Section 2 of Rule XXVIII provides:

  All motions to suspend the rules shall, before being submitted to the 
House, be seconded by a majority by tellers if demanded.

  On January 20, 1874,\3\ the House, after long debate, adopted this 
rule:

  All motions to suspend the rules, except where they may be suspended 
by a majority,\4\ shall, before being submitted to the House, be 
seconded by a majority,\5\ as in the case of the previous question.\6\

  Two years later this rule was abandoned; but when the revision of 
1880 \7\ occurred it was revived in the form which exists at the 
present time. It was intended to prevent the offering of ``buncombe'' 
resolutions, the idea being that a proposition which could not receive 
such a second should not take the time of the House.\8\
  6798. Reference to a discussion of the nature of the demand for a 
second.--On May 20, 1858,\9\ Mr. Speaker Orr held that when the House 
refused to order the previous question after the demand was seconded 
that the vote on the second could not be reconsidered. There was 
considerable debate as to the nature of the motion to second.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, p. 2415.
  \3\ First session Forty-third Congress, Record, pp. 783-792.
  \4\ Before the revision of 1880 there was a provision for suspending 
one rule by majority vote. See section 5221 of this volume.
  \5\ This would be a second by tellers, and the rule was debated at 
length in respect to its bearing on the constitutional right of one-
fifth to demand the yeas and nays, as well as in its relations to the 
individual Member and the minority. (First session Forty-third 
Congress, Record, pp. 314, 783.)
  \6\ The second of the previous question has not been required since 
1880.
  \7\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1195, 1196.
  \8\ It is quite common, by unanimous consent, to consider a second as 
ordered. (Record, first session Fifty-fourth Congress, pp. 3628, 3629; 
second session Fifty-fourth Congress, p. 2568.)
  \9\ First session Thirty-fifth Congress, Journal, pp. 863, 864; 
Globe, pp. 2276, 2277.
Sec. 6799
  6799. A motion to suspend the rules may not be debated until a second 
is ordered.--Mr. Speaker Keifer, on January 16, 1882,\1\ held that 
there might be no debate on a motion to suspend the rules unless a 
second was demanded and ordered.
  6800. On a motion to suspend the rules the right to demand a second 
is not necessarily precluded by preliminary debate.
  When a motion to suspend the rules is entertained the Speaker is 
accustomed to ask at once, ``Is a second demanded?''
  On November 3, 1893,\2\ the House was considering a motion of Mr. 
James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, to suspend the rules and concur in a 
Senate amendment to the joint resolution (H. Res. 86) to pay session 
and per them employees and other employees, etc.
  A motion for a recess having been made and ruled not to be in order, 
and there having been debate, Mr. Joseph C. Hutcheson, of Texas, 
thereupon demanded a second to the motion to suspend the rules.
  Mr. Richardson, of Tennessee, made the point of order that, there 
having been debate on the proposition, the right to demand a second had 
been thereby waived.
  The Speaker,\3\ being of the opinion that the debate was on the 
simple motion to concur, and not on the motion to suspend the rules and 
concur, held that it was in order to demand a second on the latter 
motion.
  The Speaker also stated that it was the practice, when a motion to 
suspend the rules was entertained and before the question was put, for 
the Chair to ask, Is a second demanded? which interrogatory had not 
been propounded by the Chair in the present case.
  6801. On a motion to suspend the rules it is the right of a Member to 
demand a second, but not the duty of the Chair to call for it.--On 
April 2, 1900,\4\ Mr. F. W. Mondell, of Wyoming, moved to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill (S. 1475) in relation to the completion of a 
military post near the city of Sheridan, etc.
  Debate being about to proceed, Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, 
made the point of order that a second had not been ordered.
  The Speaker \5\ said:

  It is not the business of the Chair to ask whether a second is 
demanded. It is the privilege of each Member to call for a second. That 
point is passed; but if the gentleman from Tennessee asks for a second 
the question will be submitted.

  6802. On a motion to suspend the rules a member of the committee 
which reported the bill is entitled to priority over other opponents of 
the bill in demanding a second.--On Monday, February 6, 1905,\6\ Mr. 
Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, moved that the rules be suspended and 
that the House pass the bill (H. R. 17994) to ratify and amend an 
agreement with the Indians residing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 431.
  \2\ First session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 174, 175; 
Record, p. 3127.
  \3\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3660.
  \5\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \6\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 1941.
                                                            Sec. 6803
on the Shoshone or Wind River Indian Reservation, in the State of 
Wyoming, and to make appropriations for carrying the same into effect.
  Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, sought recognition to demand a 
second.
  The Speaker announced that Mr. Henry McMorran, of Michigan, who had 
on a previous day objected to the consideration of the bill by 
unanimous consent, had requested recognition to demand the second.
  Mr. John W. Maddox, of Georgia, was also on his feet asking 
recognition for the same purpose.
  Mr. Fitzgerald than said:

  Mr. Speaker, five members of the Committee on Indian Affairs have 
signed a minority report on this bill, and I think that one of those 
members is entitled to be recognized for the purpose of requesting a 
second.

  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The Chair will state to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. McMorran] 
that as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fitzgerald] is a member of the 
Committee on Indian Affairs, a minority report having been made, if he 
demands a second, under the usage of the House, the gentleman on the 
committee making the minority report is entitled to recognition to 
demand a second.

  Thereupon Mr. Fitzgerald was recognized.
  6803. On May 7, 1906,\2\ Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, who was 
chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, moved to 
suspend the rules and agree to an order providing for the consideration 
of certain bills, among them the bill (S. 88) for preventing the 
misbranding and adulteration of foods, etc., which bill had been 
reported from the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee.
  Messrs. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, and William C. Adamson, of 
Georgia, each demanded a second.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  A gentleman who is opposed to the bill and on the committee would be 
entitled to demand a second.

  Mr. Adamson, who was on the committee, stated that he was opposed to 
the bill, and was thereupon recognized.
  6804. On February 26, 1897,\3\ Mr. Charles W. Stone, of Pennsylvania, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3547) to provide for 
an international monetary conference.\4\
  Messrs. Thomas C. McRae, of Arkansas, Lemuel E. Quigg, of New York, 
and Alexander M. Dockery, of Missouri, asked recognition to demand a 
second.
  The Speaker having recognized Mr. Quigg, the following point of order 
was made by Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee:

  The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. McRae, who is a member of the 
committee and is opposed to the principle of this proposition, as I 
understand, rose and demanded a second. The Chair, in his discretion, 
recognized the gentleman from New York, Mr. Quigg, as calling for a 
second. The effect of that recognition, under our rules, is to put the 
control of the time on both sides in the hands of gentlemen on the same 
side of the question.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 6464.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 2365.
  \4\ For rules relating to suspension of the rules see section 6790 of 
this volume.
Sec. 6805
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The gentleman is correct as to the practice, but the Chair was 
informed, or supposed he was informed, by the gentleman from Arkansas 
that he was in favor of the proposition, and therefore told him that he 
thought he ought to recognize somebody who was opposed to it. If the 
Chair was mistaken in that, he will accord recognition to the gentleman 
from Arkansas. * * * The Chair desires to recognize Members in 
accordance with a distinct understanding that a part of the time goes 
to one side of the question and a part to the other.

  6805. The motion to suspend the rules on a committee suspension day 
must be authorized formally and specifically by a committee.--On 
February 17, 1890,\2\ Mr. Samuel W. T. Lanham, of Texas, moved that the 
rules be suspended so as to discharge the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union from the further consideration of the bill of 
the House (H. R. 3923) to provide for the sale of the site of Fort 
Bliss, Tex., the sale or removal of the improvements thereof, and for a 
new site and the construction of suitable buildings thereon, and pass 
the same with amendments reported by the Committee on Military Affairs.
  Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made the point of order that the 
motion was not in order, not being authorized by the Committee on 
Military Affairs to be made.
  Mr. Byron M. Cutcheon, of Michigan, speaking for the Committee on 
Military Affairs, said that members of the committee had held no 
meeting on the subject, but had informally assented that the motion to 
suspend the rules should be made.
  The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order on the ground that such 
direction must be given by the committee acting as a committee.
  6806. Also, on February 17, 1890,\3\ Mr. Lewis E. Payson, of 
Illinois, moved that the rules be suspended so as to enable him to 
introduce and the House to pass a bill providing for the compulsory 
attendance of witnesses before registers and receivers of local land 
offices, and for other purposes, as a substitute for H. R. 3179 with 
the same title.
  Mr. Benton McMillin, of Tennessee, made the point of order that 
unless Mr. Payson was authorized specifically by the Committee on the 
Public Lands to make the motion it could not be entertained.
  Mr. Payson having stated that the committee had not specifically 
directed such motion to be made, the Speaker \1\ held the motion to be 
not in order.
  6807. On May 21, 1900,\4\ a committee suspension day, Mr. Vespasian 
Warner, of Illinois, moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H. 
R. 4345) to create a new Federal judicial district in Pennsylvania.
  Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, raised a question as to whether 
the Committee on the Judiciary had authorized the motion to be made.
  Mr. Warner stated that the committee had directed him to report the 
bill and ask for its passage, making no limitation as to how it should 
be passed.
  After debate, the Speaker \5\ said:

  This is a matter that ought to be thoroughly understood by the 
Members of the House. The Chair is aware that some committees have 
usually at the commencement of their work passed a resolution
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 242; Record, p. 
1405.
  \3\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 242.
  \4\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 5821; Journal, p. 
604.
  \5\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 6808
to the effect that any bill reported from that committee favorably 
should be subject to the control of the party reporting it, so that he 
could call it up by unanimous consent or on a call of committees, if on 
the House Calendar, on committee or individual suspension day by any 
and all methods known under the rules.
  The Chair is aware of one committee where this was done in two 
Congresses. Of course no question was ever raised on this method; and 
when a member of the committee, the chairman or others, rose and stated 
that he was authorized by the committee to report a certain bill and 
ask its passage under suspension of the rules, no question was made. 
The gentleman from Illinois in calling up this bill used the expression 
that it is customary; and the Chair has during this session in many 
instances, where parties proposed calling up a bill under suspension on 
committee suspension day, cautioned them to get authority of the 
committee to pass a specific bill--a specific authority; and the Chair 
is of the opinion, from what examination he has given to the question, 
that that is the method that should be pursued.
  There are two authorities, which will be found in Hinds's Book of 
Rules, on pages 837 and 838,\1\ which the Chair has just read, and 
which are thoroughly summed up in what may be termed the caption of the 
decision:
  ``The motion to suspend the rules on a committee suspension day must 
be formally and specifically authorized by a committee.''
  That certainly contains the thought that the committee must have in 
mind that particular bill when that particular action is taken. 
Although in the past the present occupant of the chair has used the 
other method, by a general rule or motion adopted by the committee of 
which he was chairman, and which was never called in question, still, 
when brought face to face specifically with this rule, the Chair feels 
constrained to hold that in order to move to suspend the rules on a 
committee suspension day on any bill that bill should be specially 
considered by the committee reporting it and that the authority to move 
to suspend the rules on suspension day should be given by the 
committee. The point made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Dalzell] is sustained.

  6808. After a motion to suspend the rules has been seconded and 
debate has begun it is too late to make the point of order that the 
motion has not been authorized by a committee.--On December 15, 
1890,\2\ a committee suspension day, a motion was made on behalf of the 
Military Affairs Committee to suspend the rules and pass a bill to 
erect a monument to the victims of British prison ships.
  The point of order was made by Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, 
that the Military Affairs Committee had not directed the motion for 
suspension to be made; and the debate showed doubt on this point. So 
the Speaker \3\ ruled:

  The Chair desires to say in regard to this matter * * * that, while 
it is perfectly true that the action of the House is dependent upon the 
prior action of the committee, nevertheless there must of necessity be 
always a point beyond which a challenge to the fact cannot go. This 
matter was brought before the House upon the personal declaration of a 
member of the Committee on Military Affairs, and the proceeding was 
sustained by the chairman of that committee. The commencement was made 
with regard to the debate after a second had been ordered upon the 
motion. The Chair thinks, under rulings hitherto made, that the 
preliminary facts on which the jurisdiction was dependent can not be 
contested after the debate begins, and the Chair sees no other way by 
which such questions could possibly be settled. The Chair, however, has 
less reluctance in making the decision, because it is a matter entirely 
within the power of the House, which can always take such action as the 
House deems suitable with regard to the disposition of the bill itself. 
The Chair overrules the point of order.

  6809. If, on a committee suspension day, an individual motion to 
suspend the rules is made and seconded it is then too late to make a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Now sections 6805 and 6806 of this work.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 489.
  \3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
Sec. 6810
point of order.--On April 16, 1888,\1\ on a committee suspension day, 
Mr. Poindexter Dunn, of Arkansas, announced that the Committee on the 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries waived its privileges under the call in 
order that he might yield for a Member to present an important public 
measure.
  Thereupon Mr. Beriah Wilkins, of Ohio, offered, on motion to suspend 
the rules, a resolution relating to the use of the surplus in the 
Treasury for the redemption of Government bonds.
  A second having been ordered, and Mr. Wilkins having taken the floor 
for debate, Mr. J. B. Weaver, of Iowa, proposed to raise a point of 
order.
  The Speaker \2\ held that it was too late, as a second had been 
ordered and debate had begun.
  After the debate had proceeded, Mr. Charles N. Brumm, of 
Pennsylvania, made the point of order that the resolution had not been 
presented by a committee, and this being committee suspension day, was 
irregularly before the House.
  The Speaker said:

  But this does not purport to come from a committee. On the contrary, 
when the Chair called the Committee on the Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries, the chairman of that committee, the gentleman from Arkansas 
[Mr. Dunn], rose and stated that the committee waived its privilege and 
that he yielded to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Wilkins]. Thereupon the 
gentleman from Ohio, on his individual responsibility as a Member, 
offered the resolution, and moved to suspend the rules. A second was 
ordered by the House. Immediately upon that the gentleman from Iowa 
attempted to make the point of order, but the Chair held it was too 
late. * * * Motions to suspend the rules are in order on the first and 
third Mondays of each month. The rule provides that preference shall be 
given to individual Members on the first Monday and that preference 
shall be given to committees on the third Monday. The Chair gave 
preference to the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and 
called it in the regular order; but the gentleman from Arkansas waived 
the privilege of his committee under the rule, and yielded to the 
gentleman from Ohio.
  While this may be, and the Chair deems it is, a departure from the 
practice which has heretofore prevailed since the adoption of this rule 
in the Forty-sixth Congress, yet it is not prohibited by the rule, and 
the point of order was not made until a second had been demanded and 
ordered.

  6810. On committee suspension days the Speaker has in rare instances 
called the committees in regular order for motions to suspend the 
rules, but this method is not required.--On December 20, 1880,\3\ a 
committee suspension day, the Speaker \4\ announced:

  This is the third Monday, when, according to the rule, committees of 
the House are entitled to recognition for motions to suspend the rules. 
The Chair has given a good deal of reflection as to the manner in which 
he should discharge this duty under the rule without discrimination 
among the committees of the House, and he has come to the conclusion as 
the result of his best judgment, that in the recognition of committees 
the Chair will call them in the order in which they appear in the 
rules. By this proceeding each committee will have an opportunity of 
one recognition for suspension of the rules before any other committee 
can have two opportunities for recognitions. The Chair thinks it is the 
most equitable mode to adopt. He therefore calls the Committee on 
Elections first. Of course these recognitions must be accompanied by 
the statement on the part of the gentleman moving to suspend the rules 
that his committee did actually by vote direct such motion to be 
made.\5\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fiftieth Congress, Record, pp. 3023, 3026; Journal, 
pp. 1649, 1650.
  \2\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \3\ Third session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 273, 274; 
Journal, p. 104.
  \4\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
  \5\ This practice of calling the committees in order did not become 
firmly established, and has not been followed in later years.
                                                            Sec. 6811
  6811. On February 17, 1890,\1\ a committee suspension day, the 
Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures was called.
  Mr. Edwin H. Conger, of Iowa, said that he desired to reserve the 
right of the committee, in order that it should not lose its place in 
the call.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair does not mean to decide by making the call that such a 
course must be pursued in the future.

  6812. A bill offered for passage on a committee suspension day may 
carry with it only such amendments as are authorized by the 
committee.--On February 18, 1901,\3\ a committee suspension day, Mr. W. 
A. Rodenberg, of Illinois, moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 11709) authorizing a bridge over the Mississippi River at St. 
Louis, as reported by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
with several amendments.
  Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, raised a question of order as to 
the right of the gentleman to offer amendments other than the committee 
amendments.
  The Speaker \4\ held that Mr. Rodenberg could present with the bill 
only such amendments as he had been authorized by the committee to 
offer.
  6813. On a committee suspension day a committee may not present a 
motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill which has not been referred 
to it.--On August 18, 1890,\5\ Mr. William Vandever, of California, 
when the Committee on the Irrigation of Arid Lands was called, 
presented a concurrent resolution authorizing certain expenditure for 
investigations as to artesian wells.
  The point having been made that this had never been regularly 
referred to that committee, the Speaker \2\ held:

  The Chair thinks the matters upon which the committees can ask a 
suspension of the rules must be those matters referred to the 
committees. They can not originate legislation in this way any more 
than they can in any other. The Chair desires to call the attention of 
the House to the fact, in order that this may not be regarded as a 
precedent.

  6814. A motion to suspend the rules pending and undisposed of on one 
suspension day is first in order on the next, the individual motion 
going over to committee day, and vice versa.--On May 21, 1888,\6\ the 
Speaker announced as the regular order the motion to suspend the rules 
made by Mr. Henry H. Bingham, of Pennsylvania, and coming over from the 
last suspension day.
  Mr. Knute Nelson, of Minnesota, made the point of order that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Bingham] had made the motion as an 
individual Member and that it belonged to individual suspension day, 
and could not come over to a committee suspension day, but must await 
the next individual day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 1405.
  \2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 2598, 2599.
  \4\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 8772.
  \6\ First session Fiftieth Congress, Record, p. 4474; Journal, p. 
1956.
Sec. 6815
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The Chair had occasion to examine and decide this question in the 
Forty-eighth Congress. The rule provides that it shall be in order on 
the first Monday and the third Monday in each month to move to suspend 
the rules, preference being given--that is the language of the rule--to 
individuals on the first Monday and to committees on the third Monday. 
Another rule, and the universal practice of the House, is that business 
unfinished at the time of an adjournment is resumed when that class of 
business next comes up for consideration. Now, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Bingham], although not a member of the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, had a right, under the rules and practice of the House, 
to select any bill he chose, and more, as an individual Member, to 
suspend the rules and pass it. He made that motion with reference to 
this bill, and when the House adjourned that business was pending. The 
House this morning resumes the consideration of that class of business 
to which the gentleman's motion belongs, to wit, suspension of the 
rules, and it can make no difference whether the motion is made by an 
individual or by the authority of the committee. It is the class of 
business which regulates the matter, and that, as the Chair has just 
said, is suspensions of the rules, and there can not be two motions to 
suspend the rules pending at the same time. The one pending must be 
disposed of before another one can be entertained by the Chair. The 
Chair therefore thinks the point of order is not well taken.

  6815. On January 21, 1889,\2\ the Speaker announced the regular order 
to be the consideration of motions to suspend the rules.
  Thereupon Mr. William Warner, of Missouri, called up his motion 
submitted on August 6, 1888, and since that time pending. Mr. Warner 
withdrew a modification thereof heretofore made by him, and submitted 
in a new form an order providing for the consideration of the bill (H. 
R. 10614) to organize the Territory of Oklahoma.
  The rules were suspended and the order was agreed to, 163 yeas, 76 
nays.
  6816. On June 6, 1896,\3\ the Speaker \4\ announced that the matter 
before the House first in order was the unfinished business coming over 
from the last suspension day, being the motion of the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. James S. Sherman] to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H. R. 7907) for the protection of the people of the Indian Territory, 
extending the jurisdiction of the United States courts, providing for 
the laying out of towns, the leasing of coal and other mineral, timber, 
farming, and grazing lands, and for other purposes.
  The question being taken on the motion to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill, two-thirds voting in favor thereof, the rules were suspended 
and the bill passed.\5\
  6817. A motion to suspend the rules, made on one suspension day but 
not seconded, comes up as unfinished business on the next suspension 
day.--On May 2, 1898,\6\ the first Monday of the month, Mr. Israel F. 
Fischer, of New York, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, stated that on 
April 4, under suspension of the rules, he called up a certain bill (S. 
1126) for the relief of Robert Platt, and that after the bill had been 
read the House adjourned. He therefore inquired whether or not the bill 
was unfinished business.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Fiftieth Congress, Journal, p. 321; Record, p. 
1062.
  \3\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 6197.
  \4\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \5\ This day was a suspension day by virtue of a special order from 
the Committee on Rules.
  \6\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4521.
                                                            Sec. 6818
  The Speaker \1\ held that the bill was the unfinished business.\2\
  6818. A motion to suspend the rules on which a second fails to be 
ordered does not come up as unfinished business on the next legislative 
day.--On March 1, 1893,\3\ Mr. William H. Hatch, of Missouri, moved to 
suspend the rules and concur in the amendments of the Senate to the 
bill (H. R. 7845) defining ``options'' and ``futures,'' imposing 
special taxes on dealers therein, and requiring such dealers and 
persons engaged in selling certain products to obtain license, and for 
other purposes.
  Mr. C. R. Breckinridge, of Arkansas, made the point of order that 
when the House adjourned on the preceding day the pending question was 
on the motion submitted by him [Mr. Breckinridge] to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill (S. 115) for the relief of William Burns, pending the 
vote on seconding which motion the House had adjourned.
  The Speaker \4\ overruled the point of order, holding as follows:

  The Chair will call the attention of the House to the rule. It does 
not seem to the Chair that there can be any doubt about the question:
  ``All motions to suspend the rules shall, before being submitted to 
the House, be seconded by a majority by tellers.''
  The day before yesterday the Chair recognized the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Breckinridge] to submit a motion to suspend the rules and 
pass a certain bill. Before the motion was submitted to the House a 
second was demanded by tellers under the rule. Tellers were appointed, 
and no quorum having appeared the House adjourned. That motion then was 
not before the House. It had not been submitted to the House in the 
language of the rule, for the reason that it had not been seconded by a 
majority, as the rule required. On yesterday the Chair again recognized 
the gentleman from Arkansas, and the same question came up before the 
House. No second was ordered. Now, certainly the most that can be 
claimed for a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill, when a 
gentleman is recognized for that purpose, would be the right to 
maintain it before the House during that legislative day, and certainly 
under no system of reasoning that the Chair is familiar with could it 
go over from day to day. The recognition to make the motion and to ask 
the House for a second might give the right to hold it before the House 
until adjournment, but it certainly would not give it the right, as 
unfinished business, to come up from day to day. Therefore the Chair 
entertains the motion of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hatch].

  6819. A bill which, on a suspension day, was withdrawn with an 
agreement that it should be unfinished business on the next suspension 
day was held to continue as unfinished business, although not called up 
on the day named.--On February 6, 1899,\5\ a suspension day, Mr. Israel 
F. Fischer, of New York, called up the bill (S. 1126) authorizing the 
President to appoint Lieut. Robert Platt, U. S. Navy, to the rank of 
commander. This bill had been before the House on a former suspension 
day, May 2, 1898, and on that day had been disposed of as shown by the 
following entry in the Journal:

  Pending further consideration in the House, the bill was withdrawn to 
be pending as unfinished business on next suspension day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \2\ On August 5, 1850 (First session Thirty-first Congress, Globe, p. 
1518), Mr. Speaker Cobb held that a motion to suspend the rules, made 
on one suspension day and unacted on, came up on the next suspension 
day. This was before the requirement of the second had been instituted.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 122; Record, p. 
2353.
  \4\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \5\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 1501, 1502.
Sec. 6820
  Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, made the point of order that a bill 
undisposed of on a suspension day would not come up again as unfinished 
business.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  Probably the reasoning of the gentleman may be correct, but the 
custom of the House, the Chair thinks, has been different. Matters have 
gone over to various suspension days; for instance, if the unfinished 
motion for suspension be made by a committee, it would go over to 
committee suspension day; at any rate, it would go over to that or the 
next suspension day.

  Mr. Alexander M. Dockery, of Missouri, made the point of order that 
the bill had been made unfinished business on the ``next suspension 
day,'' and not having been called up then was not now in order.
  The Speaker held:

  The Chair thinks the bill is before the House as unfinished business; 
and if it was unfinished business on the next suspension day, it would 
come up as unfinished business. The fact that unfinished business is 
not taken up does not destroy its status.

  6820. Except as specially provided by rule, the motion to suspend the 
rules is not debatable.
  When the pressure of business began to make necessary a rigid rule 
for the order of business, the motion to suspend the rules began to be 
used frequently to modify the rigors of that rule. (Footnote.)
  Illustration of the early method of closing general debate in 
Committee of the Whole.
  On January 12, 1842,\2\ Mr. Millard Fillmore, of New York, moved a 
suspension of the rules for the purpose of enabling him to submit a 
resolution to close debate in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union on House bill No. 67, to authorize an issue of 
Treasury notes.\3\
  Mr. Robert B. Rhett, of South Carolina, attempted to debate; but on a 
point of order made by Mr. Edward Stanley, of North Carolina, the 
Speaker\4\ I ruled that a motion to suspend the rules\5\ was not 
debatable.\6\
  6821. Forty minutes of debate are allowed on a motion to suspend the 
rules, one-half for those favoring and one-half for those opposing.
  Forty minutes of debate are allowed whenever the previous question is 
ordered on a proposition on which there has been no debate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Globe, p. 121.
  \3\ This was before the rule allowing general debate in Committee of 
the Whole to be closed by a majority vote had been adopted permanently. 
It had been tried experimentally in the preceding session.
  \4\ John White, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \5\ Prior to this, on June 1, 1832 (First session Twenty-second 
Congress, Debates, p. 3236), Mr. Speaker Stevenson ruled that the 
motion to suspend the rules was not debatable. The motion was at that 
time coming into frequent use because of the press of business and the 
necessity for a rigid rule for the order of business.
  \6\ In the revision of the rules in the second session of the Forty-
sixth Congress the principle was adopted of allowing a limited debate 
(thirty minutes formerly and forty minutes at present) on the motion to 
suspend the rules.
                                                            Sec. 6822
  Present form and history of section 3 of Rule XXVIII.
  Section 3 of Rule XXVIII provides:

  When a motion to suspend the rules has been seconded, it shall be in 
order, before the final vote is taken thereon, to debate the 
proposition to be voted upon for forty minutes, one-half of such time 
to be given to debate in favor of, and one-half to debate in opposition 
to, such proposition, and the same right of debate shall be allowed 
whenever the previous question has been ordered on any proposition on 
which there has been no debate.

  This rule is a result of the debate on the report of the Committee on 
Rules in 1880. It was not in the report of the committee, but as the 
debate progressed the first clause was offered by the Committee on 
Rules, with the intention of giving Members an opportunity to explain 
their motion to suspend the rules.\1\ There had recently occurred 
several conspicuous instances showing the desirability of this rule. On 
November 5, 1877,\2\ the House, on motion of Mr. Richard D. Bland, of 
Missouri, passed, under suspension of the rules, without any debate 
being possible, a bill providing for the free coinage of silver. On 
January 28, 1878,\3\ the House in the same way and against the protest 
of Mr. James A. Garfield, of Ohio, passed a concurrent resolution from 
the Senate declaring the coin bonds of the United States payable in a 
silver dollar of 412\1/2\ grains; and on February 24, 1879,\4\ the 
sundry civil appropriation bill carrying an appropriation of nineteen 
millions of dollars.\5\ In the first form of the rule, thirty minutes 
of debate were given. In 1890 \6\ this was lengthened to forty minutes. 
In the Fifty-second and Fifty-third Congresses the old limit of thirty 
minutes was restored; but since the Fifty-fourth Congress the time has 
been forty minutes.
  The second clause of the rule, giving the same limit of debate after 
the ordering of the previous question, was offered. as an amendment by 
Mr. John Randolph Tucker, of Virginia, and adopted.\7\ It was intended 
to prevent passing measures without a word of debate, as had often been 
done.\8\
  6822. On a motion to suspend the rules the forty minutes of debate 
are allowed, although the proposition presented may not be debatable 
otherwise.--On March 3, 1893,\9\ Mr. William S. Holman, of Indiana, 
submitted a conference report on the amendment of the Senate to the 
bill H. R. 10238, and the conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. Holman moved to reconsider the vote by which the conference 
report was agreed to. Thereupon Mr. Holman moved that the rules be 
suspended, and that the motion to reconsider lie on the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1196.
  \2\ First session Forty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 241.
  \3\ Second session Forty-fifth Congress. Record, pp. 627, 628.
  \4\ Third session Forty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 1870, 1871.
  \5\ On May 17, 1880 (second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 
3434), a river and harbor bill carrying nine millions of dollars was 
passed under suspension of the rules, but not under the old conditions.
  \6\ House Report No. 23, first session Fifty-first Congress.
  \7\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1199.
  \8\ Thus, in 1842, a resolution censuring Mr. Joshua R. Giddings, of 
Ohio, was passed under the operation of the previous question, without 
giving opportunity for debate or even for an explanation by Mr. 
Giddings. See section 1256 of Vol. II of this work.
  \9\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 142; Record, p. 
2606.
Sec. 6823
  Mr. David A. De Armond, of Missouri, moved that the House adjourn; 
which motion was disagreed to.
  The motion of Mr. Holman to suspend the rules was seconded on a vote 
by tellers.
  Mr. De Armond claimed the floor to debate the motion; whereupon,
  Mr. William D. Bynum, of Indiana, made the point of order that a 
motion to lay on the table not being debatable, the motion to suspend 
the rules and agree to the undebatable motion was not debatable.
  The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order, holding that the rule 
for thirty minutes' debate \2\ on a motion to suspend the rules applied 
to all propositions sought to be passed under suspension of the rules, 
whether the main question was debatable or not under the ordinary rules 
of the House.
  6823. On a motion to suspend the rules the Member demanding a second 
divides with the mover the forty minutes of debate.--On March 2, 
1901,\3\ Mr. Nehemiah D. Sperry, of Connecticut, moved to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill (H. R. 12551) to prevent the sale of firearms, 
etc., in certain islands of the Pacific.
  Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, demanded a second.
  Mr. Sperry asked unanimous consent that a second might be considered 
as ordered.
  Mr. Bailey having objected, the vote was taken and the second 
ordered.
  Thereupon the Speaker \4\ recognized Mr. Sperry to control twenty 
minutes of time for the measure and Mr. Bailey to control twenty 
minutes in opposition.
  6824. On May 1, 1882,\5\ Mr. Speaker Keifer held that the time for 
debate allowed the Member who demands a second for the motion to 
suspend the rules should belong to those opposing the measure, but 
declined to interfere when it was charged that the Member who had 
demanded the second and was controlling the time in opposition was not 
acting in good faith.
  6825. A question of high privilege being before the House, the 
Speaker held that a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill was not 
in order.--On March 3, 1885,\6\ the report of the Committee on 
Elections in the Iowa contested election case of Frederick v. Wilson 
was before the House, when Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill which he presented.
  The Speaker \7\ ruled that a motion to suspend the rules was not in 
order if objected to while other motions were pending before the House. 
* * * Under the rules of the House a motion to suspend the rules was 
simply a motion which, like any other parliamentary motion, was in 
order when there was not another matter pending before the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ Forty minutes are now allowed.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 3444, 3445.
  \4\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 3477.
  \6\ Second session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2565.
  \7\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 6826
  6826. On December 4, 1876,\1\ Mr. George W. McCrary, of Iowa, as a 
question of privilege, moved that the oath of office be administered to 
Mr. C. W. Buttz as a Representative from the Second Congressional 
district of the State of South Carolina.
  Thereupon Mr. Abram S. Hewitt, of New York, moved to suspend the 
rules and adopt certain resolutions submitted by him.
  The Speaker \2\ decided that, pending the decision of so high a 
question of privilege as the right of a Member to a seat, a motion to 
suspend the rules was not in order.
  6827. A motion to suspend the rules may be entertained, although a 
bill on which the previous question has been ordered may be pending.--
On August 1, 1892,\3\ Mr. William S. Holman, of Indiana, moved to 
suspend the rules and pass a joint resolution (H. Res. 159) to continue 
the provisions of existing laws providing temporarily for the 
expenditures of the Government.
  Mr. Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, made the point of order that the 
motion of Mr. Holman was not in order and that the business first in 
order was the consideration of the amendments of the Senate to the bill 
(H. R. 7520) making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the 
Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1892, and for other 
purposes, upon which the previous question had been ordered, which 
amendments were pending when the House adjourned on Saturday last.
  The Speaker \4\ overruled the point of order, holding that this being 
the first Monday of the month it was in order to entertain motions to 
suspend the rules, that the object of such motion was to suspend all 
rules, and the effect was to bring the House to an immediate vote on 
the pending motion.
  6828. While the previous question was operating on a series of Senate 
amendments to a House bill it was held not in order to move to suspend 
the rules to admit a motion to take the vote on the amendments in 
gross.
  Illustration of the earlier use of the motion to suspend the rules in 
order to permit the making of a motion not otherwise in order under the 
rules.
  On March 3, 1855,\5\ the House had under consideration the Senate 
amendments to the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill. Mr. John C. 
Breckinridge, of Kentucky, moved, the rules having been suspended to 
enable him so to do, that the House agree to the report of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union recommending 
disagreement to certain amendments of the Senate en masse.
  This motion having been made, Mr. Breckinridge moved the previous 
question; \6\ which was seconded and the main question ordered, and 
under the operation thereof the said motion was agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 15; Record, p. 
11.
  \2\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 349; Record, p. 
6994.
  \4\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \5\ Second session Thirty-third Congress, Journal, p. 564; Globe, pp. 
1176, 1177.
  \6\ Although the Journal is not definite as to what this motion for 
the previous question covered, the Chairman's ruling implies what the 
Globe's statement of the Chairman's ruling indicates (Globe, p. 1177) 
that it covered not only the amendments on which the Committee of the 
Whole recommended disagreement, but also all the remaining Senate 
amendments to the bill.
Sec. 6829
  So the amendments were disagreed to.
  Mr. Breckinridge moved that the vote last taken be reconsidered, and 
also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table; which 
latter motion was agreed to.
  Pending the question on agreeing to the remaining amendments of the 
Senate, Mr. John L. Dawson, of Pennsylvania, moved that the rules be 
suspended so as to enable him to move that the vote be taken en masse 
upon the remaining amendments of the Senate.
  The Speaker pro tempore \1\ decided that the previous question was 
still operating, and therefore the motion to suspend the rules was not 
in order.
  Upon appeal the Chair was sustained.
  6829. On March 23, 1842,\2\ Mr. Speaker White ruled that a motion to 
suspend the rules could not be moved after the previous question had 
been ordered and before the main question had been put.
  6830. On September 27, 1850,\3\ the House had ordered the previous 
question on certain amendments to the civil and diplomatic 
appropriation bill.
  Thereupon Mr. Jacob Thompson, of Mississippi, moved to suspend the 
rules so as to move that when the House should adjourn it adjourn to 10 
a. m. on the next day.
  Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, made the point of order that it 
was not in order to move a suspension of the rules after the main 
question had been ordered to be put.
  The Speaker \4\ overruled the point of order.
  Mr. Jones having appealed, the decision of the Chair was sustained.
  6831. In the later, but not the earlier practice, the motion to 
suspend the rules has been admitted after the previous question has 
been moved.--On March 29, 1836,\5\ during the consideration of the 
contested election case of Newland v. Graham, from North Carolina, the 
previous question was moved on the resolutions reported from the 
Committee on Elections.
  Pending this motion Mr. Abraham Rencher, of North Carolina, moved 
that the rules be suspended in order that he might offer the following 
resolutions:

  Resolved, That by general agreement there shall be no further debate 
upon the resolutions of the committee or the resolutions proposed 
thereto in the form of an amendment.
  Resolved, therefore, That the call for the previous question ought to 
be withdrawn, and that the House proceed to vote on each resolution 
contained in the amendment and that it be done without amendment.
  The Speaker \6\ decided that pending a motion for the previous 
question the motion to suspend the rules was not in order.
  Mr. Rencher having appealed, the decision of the Chair was sustained, 
yeas 107, nays 49.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Solomon G. Haven, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
  \2\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 576.
  \3\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 1550.
  \4\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Twenty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 591-593; 
Debates, p. 3011.
  \6\James K. Polk, of Tennessee Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 6832
  6832. On May 22, 1854,\1\ Mr. Speaker Boyd held, during the dilatory 
proceedings over the Kansas-Nebraska bill, that a motion to suspend the 
rules was not in order during the pendency of the demand for the 
previous question.
  6833. On January 22, 1877,\2\ Mr. Fernando Wood, of New York, had 
offered a resolution providing for referring to a committee with 
instructions the message of the President of the United States relating 
to the use of troops in certain States.
  Upon this Mr. Wood had demanded the previous question, when Mr. John 
A. Kasson, of Iowa, moved to suspend the rules, so as to enable him to 
submit and the House to adopt the following resolution:

  Resolved, That Colorado is a State of the Union, and that James B. 
Belford, Representative-elect from said State, be sworn and admitted to 
his seat as such.

  Mr. Wood insisted upon his right to the floor upon the demand 
previously made by him for the previous question.
  Afier debate the Speaker \3\ held the motion of Mr. Kasson to suspend 
the rules to be first in order, and that the resolution submitted by 
Mr. Wood, if not disposed of before adjournment, would come up as the 
unfinished business after the reading of the Journal to-morrow.
  6834. A Member who had submitted a motion to refer, which was 
pending, was permitted to move to suspend the rules to consider an 
entirely different matter.--On February 27, 1855,\4\ the Senate 
amendments to the Indian appropriation bill were before the House, and 
Mr. Solomon G. Haven, of New York, moved that they be referred to the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Pending this motion, Mr. Haven moved that the rules be suspended so 
as to enable him to move that the Committee of the Whole House be 
discharged from the further consideration of the bill of the Senate 
(No. 285) entitled ``An act for the relief of the heirs of Brig. Gen. 
Richard B. Mason.''
  Mr. Lewis D. Campbell, of Ohio, made the point of order that the 
latter motion was out of order, on the ground that a Member can not 
submit two motions at the same time.
  The Speaker pro tempore \5\ overruled the point of order, and decided 
that it was in order for a Member to submit two motions, if, as in the 
present case, the latter motion took precedence of the former.
  From this decision of the Chair Mr. Campbell appealed, but on the 
succeeding day withdrew it.
  6835. A motion to suspend the rules may be entertained, although the 
yeas and nays may have been demanded on a motion highly privileged 
under the rules.--On June 8, 1872,\6\ on the last legislative day of 
the session, Mr. James A. Garfield, of Ohio, moved that the rules be 
suspended so as to enable him to submit, and the House to agree to, the 
following resolution:

  Resolved, That the House nonconcur in the amendments of the Senate to 
the House bill No. 2705, being the sundry civil appropriation bill, and 
agree to a conference thereon; and that upon the appointment of such 
committee the House do take a recess until 8 o'clock to-morrow evening.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Thirty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 875-890; Globe, 
p. 1246.
  \2\ Second session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 285, 286; 
Record, pp. 815-817.
  \3\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Thirty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 483, 486; 
Globe, pp. 983, 994.
  \4\ John Letcher, of Virginia, Speaker pro tempore.
  \6\ Second session Forty-second Congress, Journal, p. 1099; Globe, 
pp. 4434, 4435.
Sec. 6836
  Mr. Charles A. Eldridge, of Wisconsin, raised the point of order that 
the motion to suspend the rules was not in order while the motion for a 
recess was pending.
  The Speaker\1\ overruled the point of order, saying:

  Pending the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Samuel J. 
Randall] that the House take a recess until 10 o'clock this evening, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Eldridge], moved an amendment, upon 
which he demands the yeas and nays.\2\ Pending that call for the yeas 
and nays, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Garfield] moves to suspend the 
rules for the adoption of the resolution which has been read from the 
desk. The gentleman from Wisconsin raises the point of order that it is 
not in order to move to suspend the rules at this time. The Chair 
overrules the point of order.

  Mr. Eldridge having appealed, the decision of the Chair was 
sustained.
  6836. When the rules are suspended to enable a matter to be 
considered, another motion to suspend the rules may not be made during 
that consideration.--On December 16, 1841,\3\ on motion of Mr. Millard 
Fillmore, of New York, the rules were suspended for the purpose of 
taking up the message of the President. Then Mr. Fillmore offered 
resolutions distributing the message.
  On December 27, the resolutions being still before the House as 
unfinished business, Mr. Joshua R. Giddings, of Ohio, moved to suspend 
the rules for the purpose of receiving reports and petitions.
  The Speaker \4\ said a motion to suspend the rule would not be in 
order, inasmuch as, in the consideration of the unfinished business, 
the House was already acting under a suspension of the rule.
  6837. On January 18, 1842,\5\ Mr. Joseph R. Ingersoll, of 
Pennsylvania, asked leave to offer a resolution instructing, the 
Committee on the Judiciary to report a bill to establish a uniform 
system of bankruptcy, etc., and, objection being made, he moved to 
suspend the rules for the purpose of presenting the resolution.
  The Speaker \4\ decided that the motion was not in order, the House 
being already engaged in business under a suspension of the rule.
  6838. A motion to suspend the rules is not in order during 
consideration of a bill under a special order.--On January 20, 1847,\6\ 
on motion of Mr. Charles J. Ingersoll, of Pennsylvania, the House bill 
(No. 622) making further provision for the expenses attending the 
intercourse between the United States and foreign nations (called the 
``three million bill,'' and relating to the Mexican war) was made a 
special order for the 1st of next February, then to take precedence of 
all other business until disposed of.
  By postponement the consideration of the bill was once deferred, and 
was before the House on February 12, 1847, as unfinished business in 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  On that day Mr. Ingersoll, of Pennsylvania, moved to suspend the 
rules so as to move that it should not be in order for any Member to 
move that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union rise 
that evening until 8 o'clock.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ James G. Blaine, of Maine, was Speaker; but the Globe indicates 
that this ruling was made by Henry L. Dawes, of Massachusetts, who was 
in the chair.
  \2\ The motion for a recess was highly privileged at that time.
  \3\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Globe, pp. 23, 58.
  \4\ John White, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \5\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Globe, p. 142.
  \6\ Second session Twenty-ninth Congress, Globe, p. 401; Journal, p. 
194.
                                                            Sec. 6839
  The Speaker\1\ said the motion was not in order, because the House 
was already acting under a suspension of the rules on a special 
order,\2\ and two suspensions could not take place at the same time.
  6839. While the House was acting under a special order, a motion to 
suspend the rules to enable a Member to exceed the hour rule of debate 
was admitted.--On January 14, 1861,\3\ Mr. Thomas Corwin, of Ohio, made 
the report of the select committee of one from each State ``on so much 
of the President's message as relates to the present perilous condition 
of the country,'' which was made the special order for Monday, the 21st 
instant, at 1 p. m., and from day to day thereafter until disposed 
of.\4\
  On January 21, the report being under consideration, Mr. Corwin 
having occupied the floor for one hour in debate, on motion of Mr. 
Sherrard Clemens, of Virginia (the rules having been suspended for that 
purpose), leave was given him to conclude his remarks.
  Mr. John S. Millson, of Virginia, having occupied the hour allowed 
him by the rules for debate, Mr. Daniel E. Sickles, of New York, moved 
that the rules be suspended so as to enable Mr. Millson to continue his 
remarks.
  Mr. Henry C. Burnett, of Kentucky, made the point of order that, 
inasmuch as the House was now acting under a suspension of the rules, a 
motion to suspend the rules was not now in order.\5\
  The Speaker pro tempore,\6\ overruled the point of order, on the 
ground that the present motion was immediately connected with the 
business now before the House.
  From this decision of the Chair Mr. Burnett appealed. The appeal was 
laid on the table.
  6840. A Member may modify his motion to suspend the rules at any time 
before the House has ordered a second.--On September 3, 1888 \7\ (a 
suspension day), the regular order of business was announced as the 
consideration of the motion of Mr. William Warner, of Missouri, 
submitted on August 6 last (a suspension day), to suspend the rules and 
pass a resolution to fix a day for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 
10614) to organize the Territory of Oklahoma, etc., and providing for 
taking a vote thereon.
  This resolution had been presented on September 3, and, pending the 
vote by tellers on the second of the motion to suspend the rules, the 
House had proceeded to other business and adjourned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John W. Davis, of Indiana, Speaker.
  \2\ Special orders were formerly made by unanimous consent or by 
suspension of the rules. They are generally made now by reports from 
the Committee on Rules.
  \3\ Second session Thirty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 190, 212.
  \4\ This special order while in reality a suspension of the rules was 
made by unanimous consent rather than by a motion and vote on 
suspension.
  \5\ This is the Journal statement, and while technically the official 
record, is evidently curiously inaccurate. The Globe (Appendix, pp. 75, 
79) indicates that Mr. Burnett made the point, not that the House was 
acting under suspension of the rules, but that another motion to 
suspend the rules, made on the last preceding suspension day (Journal, 
p. 190) and relating to another project of legislation, was pending as 
unfinished business. The Globe also shows that Mr. Burnett made the 
same point of order on Mr. Clemens's motion.
  \6\ Garnett B. Adrain, of New Jersey, Speaker pro tempore.
  \7\ First session Fiftieth Congress, Journal, pp. 271, 2722; Record, 
p. 8232.
Sec. 6841
  The resolution having come up on September 3, Mr. Warner modified his 
motion by withdrawing the resolution and submitting a motion to suspend 
the rules and pass a bill to organize the Territory of Oklahoma.
  Mr. Charles E. Hooker, of Mississippi, made the point of order that 
Mr. Warner could not modify the motion, formerly submitted by him, in 
the manner proposed.
  The Speaker\1\ overruled the point of order upon the grounds that a 
Member had the right to change or modify a proposition submitted by him 
at any time before the House has taken such action on it as placed it 
within the control of the House and beyond the control of the Member; 
that the present instance did not present a question as to the 
relevancy of amendments, but one merely as to the form in which the 
Member proposed to submit a proposition upon which the House had not 
acted in any manner. The Speaker said:

  The question as to the right of a Member to change or modify a motion 
or proposition submitted by him before the House has acted upon it in 
any way has frequently arisen and frequently been decided. The present 
occupant of the chair has always held that when a Member has submitted 
a motion or proposition to the House, whether in the form of an 
original motion or as an amendment to a pending motion, it is his right 
to modify or change it at any time before it is voted upon, or before 
the previous question has been ordered, or before the adoption of any 
other action on the part of the House which places the matter beyond 
the control of the Member and within the control of the House.
  In the present instance it is not, as the gentleman from Mississippi 
argues, a question of amendment. It is a question merely as to the form 
in which the gentleman from Missouri will submit the proposition, the 
House not having acted upon it in any manner whatever. It is quite 
true, as stated, both by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Payson] and 
the gentleman from Mississippi, that the proposition is a different one 
from that submitted by the gentleman some time ago. But it relates to 
the same subject-matter. The proposition was to fix a day for the 
consideration of this bill; and this proposition is--that time having 
passed by--to vote upon the bill now. It is still, however, in the 
power of the House to determine whether it will or will not second that 
proposition, so that the matter is entirely and absolutely within the 
control of the House and not within the control of the Chair.
  If the gentleman from Missouri sees proper to modify his proposition 
or take the risk of having the House second and pass it, of course the 
Chair has no control over the matter.
  Suppose, for instance, the time fixed in the original resolution for 
the consideration of the bill had now lapsed and the gentleman should 
so modify his motion as to fix to-morrow for its consideration. The 
Chair thinks it would be admissible, and the Chair can not see any 
difference in principle between that and a motion to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill now.
  6841. The rules having been suspended to enable a Member to present a 
proposition, he may not then modify it.--On January 17, 1850,\2\ Mr. 
Speaker Cobb decided that, in a case where the rules were suspended to 
enable a Member to present a resolution, the Member lost control of the 
resolution and could not then modify it.
  6842. On September 23, 1850,\3\ Mr. Speaker Cobb ruled, and the House 
sustained him in that decision, that when the rules were suspended to 
allow a proposition to be introduced the proposition might be amended 
by any germane proposition.
  6843. On September 2, 1850,\4\ Mr. Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, moved to 
suspend the rules to enable him to make the bill in relation to the 
Texan boundary a special order from day to day until it should be 
disposed of.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Globe, p. 1224.
  \3\ First session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 1508. 1509; 
Globe, p. 1922.
  \4\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Globe, p. 1727.
                                                            Sec. 6844
  Mr. Jacob Thompson, of Mississippi, suggested that the motion be 
modified to make the bill a special order each day at 12 o'clock.
  Mr. Boyd announced that he would not modify his motion at present.
  Thereupon the Speaker\1\ announced to the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Boyd) that if the rules were suspended it would be beyond the 
power of the gentleman to modify it, as it would then be in possession 
of the House.
  6844. A motion to suspend the rules may be withdrawn at any time 
before a second is ordered.--On November 3, 1893,\2\ the House was 
considering a motion of Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, to 
suspend the rules and concur in a Senate amendment to a joint 
resolution (H. Res. 86) relating to certain employees.
  The House proceeded to vote by tellers on the question of seconding 
the motion to suspend the rules.
  Mr. Richardson then withdrew the pending motion to suspend the rules.
  Mr. C. B. Kilgore, of Texas, made the point of order that, pending 
the vote on seconding the motion, it was not in order to withdraw it.
  The Speaker \3\ overruled the point, holding that the motion might be 
withdrawn at any time before the second was ordered and that the motion 
was not in possession of the House until seconded.
  6845. A second not having been ordered on a committee motion to 
suspend the rules, the committee may on a succeeding suspension day 
withdraw the motion.
  The admission of the motion to suspend the rules on a committee 
suspension day is a matter of recognition by the Chair.
  On December 15, 1890,\4\ the Speaker announced as the pending order 
of business the motion of Mr. Osborne, on behalf of the Committee on 
Military Affairs, to suspend the rules so as to discharge the Committee 
of the Whole House from the further consideration of the bill of the 
Senate (S. 1636) for the relief of certain officers on the retired list 
of the Army, and pass the same, coming over from the session of August 
18 as unfinished business, the pending question being on the demand of 
Mr. Dockery for a second to the motion, on which question no quorum 
voted by tellers. The point of no quorum having been raised, the House 
adjourned.
  Mr. Edwin S. Osborne, of Pennsylvania, withdrew the motion to suspend 
the rules so as to pass the bill.
  Mr. Francis B. Spinola, of New York, by direction of the Committee on 
Military Affairs, moved that the rules be suspended so as to discharge 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union from the 
further consideration of the bill of the House (H. R. 3887) for the 
erection and completion of a monument to the memory of the victims of 
prison ships at Fort Greene, Brooklyn, and pass the same.
  Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made the point of order that the 
unfinished business which the Committee on Military Affairs had the 
right to have considered
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 174, 175; 
Record, p. 3127.
  \3\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 55; Record, pp. 
488, 489.
Sec. 6846
at this time having been withdrawn the committee could not now present 
other and entirely new business.
  After debate the Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order on the 
following grounds:

  The Chair has been unable to find any authority upon this point, and 
thinks that perhaps, after all, the matter is one of recognition by the 
Chair. The Committee on Military Affairs proposed a certain bill. 
Pending any action whatever upon the subject by the House, an 
adjournment was had. There being no decision by the House, if an 
individual Member had proposed the measure he would have had the right 
to withdraw it without the consent of anyone, and the Chair supposes 
the committee must be considered as having a similar right. Therefore, 
in analogy to what would be held if it were the case of an individual 
Member, the Chair will now call the Committee on Military Affairs.

  6846. Under the later practice it is possible by one motion both to 
bring a matter before the House and pass it under suspension of the 
rules.\2\--On February 25, 1868,\3\ Mr. Elihu B. Washburne, of 
Illinois, moved to suspend the rules and agree to a resolution 
providing a special order for considering the impeachment of President 
Andrew Johnson.
  Mr. Lawrence S. Trimble, of Kentucky, made the point of order that 
the House had a right to vote first on suspending the rules, and then 
on agreeing to the resolution.
  The Speaker \4\ overruled the point of order. And then the motion was 
made, and the House gave consent to introduce the resolution, and also 
adopted it at one vote.
  Immediately before this the House, on motion of Mr. Washburne, had 
agreed to a rule that after a motion to suspend the rules the Speaker 
should entertain only one motion to adjourn, and after that no dilatory 
motion.
  6847. On March 22, 1869,\5\ Mr. Halbert E. Paine, of Wisconsin, moved 
to suspend the rules and adopt a resolution relating to the disposal of 
contested election cases.
  Mr. Albert G. Burr, of Illinois, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, 
asked whether or not the motion to suspend the rules would cut off 
debate on the resolution after the rules were suspended.
  The Speaker \6\ said:

  The motion as framed by the gentleman from Wisconsin proposes that 
the rules shall be suspended and the resolution adopted at one vote. It 
is in order for him to put the motion in that form, and the Chair 
understands that to be his motion.

  6848. On a committee suspension day a committee may not move to 
suspend the rules and pass a bill over which it has no jurisdiction.--
On April 21, 1884,\7\ Mr. S. S. Cox, of New York, on a committee 
suspension day, proposed, by direction of the Committee on Census, to 
move the suspension of the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \2\ This ruling of 1868 first established the practice which now 
prevails almost entirely, of combining the motion to suspend the rules 
with the motion to pass the bill. The older practice is illustrated by 
sections 6852, 6854 of this chapter.
  \3\ Second session Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 1425.
  \4\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Forty-first Congress, Globe, p. 197.
  \6\ James G. Blaine, of Maine, Speaker.
  \7\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3402.
                                                            Sec. 6849
rules and the passage of a bill relating to the printing of the 
compendium of the Tenth Census.
  Mr. Alfred M. Scales, of North Carolina, made a point of order 
against the motion on the ground that the bill had never been 
introduced in the House, and also that it was within the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Printing.
  After debate the Speaker \1\ said:

  There is no difficulty, of course, in the case of an individual 
Member moving a suspension of the rules on the first Monday of the 
month, because every individual Member of the House has the right to 
introduce a bill on any subject he chooses. But it is not so with the 
committees of the House, for their jurisdiction and powers are defined 
by the rules. A committee has no right to submit any report to the 
House unless it relates to a subject over which it has jurisdiction by 
the rules of the House or by the reference of the subject to it by the 
order of the House. The Chair thinks it would create very great 
confusion in the administration of the rules and in the business of 
legislation if on the third Monday of the month a committee were 
allowed to move to suspend the rules and pass a bill relating to a 
subject over which the committee had no jurisdiction, and by that means 
take the subject away from another committee to which it properly 
belongs. The point of order is sustained.

  6849. On one motion to suspend the rules a vote whereby a resolution 
had been passed was reconsidered, the resolution amended, and as 
amended passed.--On February 6, 1899,\2\ a suspension day, Mr. Eugene 
F. Loud, of California, offered for reconsideration a resolution which 
had passed the House on a former day, and asked that the rules be 
suspended and that the resolution be passed again in an amended form.
  In response to a parliamentary inquiry as to the proper form of 
procedure the Speaker \3\ said:

  The gentleman can move to suspend the rules, reconsider the vote 
already taken, and pass the resolution with the amendment which has 
just been read.

  Thereupon on one motion and at one vote the passage of the resolution 
was reconsidered, the amendment was agreed to, and the resolution as 
amended was passed again.
  6850. A motion to suspend the rules may include in its provisions 
both the discharge of a committee from the consideration of a bill and 
the final passage of it.--On March 3,1890,\4\ Mr. Bishop W. Perkins, of 
Kansas, moved to suspend the rules so as to discharge the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union from the further 
consideration of the bill of the House (H. R. 6786) to organize the 
Territory of Oklahoma, to establish courts in the Indian Territory, and 
for other purposes, and pass the same.
  Mr. George T. Barnes, of Georgia, made the point of order that the 
motion was not in order for the reason that the bill was pending in 
committee as a substitute for the bill of the Senate (S. 895) to 
provide a temporary government for the Territory of Oklahoma.
  The Speaker \3\ overruled the point of order on the ground that the 
statement of fact was not correct, and that the motion to suspend the 
rules would, if adopted,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \2\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 1504.
  \3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 298; Record, p. 
1881.
Sec. 6851
suspend all rules in the way of its immediate consideration and bring 
the House to a vote on the motion.
  6851. The rules may be suspended by a single motion and vote, so as 
to permit the House to vote first on a specified amendment to a bill 
and then on the bill itself.--On January 17, 1876,\1\ Mr. John D. 
White, of Kentucky, offered the following resolution:

  Resolved, That the rules be suspended so as to enable the House to 
proceed forthwith to vote on the passage of the following bill:

  A BILL to remove the disabilities imposed by the fourteenth amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States.

  ``Be it enacted, etc., That all persons now under the disabilities 
imposed by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States, with the exception of Jefferson Davis, late president of the 
so-called Confederate States, shall be relieved of such disabilities 
upon their appearing before any judge of a United States court, and 
taking and subscribing, in open court, the following oath, to be duly 
attested and recorded, namely:'' [Here follows the form of oath.]
  The House first, however, voting on the following amendment thereto:
  Strike out the following words: ``with the exception of Jefferson 
Davis, late president of the so-called Confederate States.''

  Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that 
there could not be a vote on a bill and amendment under the suspension 
of the rules; that the vote must be on the final passage of a 
proposition intact.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  In the judgment of the Chair, without making any criticisms upon the 
form in which the gentleman from Kentucky has put his resolution, it is 
not competent to exclude any part of his proposition from the 
consideration of the House. The Chair must therefore regard the latter 
words of the resolution as it is introduced as constituting in fact a 
part of the preliminary words, and as in substance, therefore, stating 
that the desire of the gentleman from Kentucky is to introduce this 
bill for two purposes: First, that there shall be a vote upon a 
proposed amendment; and, second, that there shall be a vote upon the 
bill itself, whether amended or not. It is suggested that it is not 
competent for the gentleman to do this under a suspension of the rules; 
but in response to that the Chair will suggest that the very purpose of 
a suspension of the rules is to get rid of all rules and to let the 
House run as freely as it pleases. The Chair overrules the point of 
order and holds that the motion is in order.

  The Speaker then stated that the question was on suspension of the 
rules so as to bring the bill before the House.
  6852. In the early practice the motion to suspend the rules was used 
only to enable a matter to be taken up, and was not permitted when a 
subject was already before the House.--On March 21, 1842,\3\ a Member 
endeavored to make a motion that the rules be suspended and that the 
House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole. The Speaker \4\ 
decided that the motion could not be entertained. When the incident was 
journalized the motion was put in the form that the rules in relation 
to the order of business be suspended to enable a motion to be made 
that the House go into Committee of the Whole. This was the original 
form and use of the motion to suspend. The Speaker in effect decided 
that the motion to suspend was not in order when another subject was 
before the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 444.
  \2\ Michael C. Kerr, of Indiana, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 560; Globe, 
p. 342.
  \4\ John White, of Kentucky.
                                                            Sec. 6853
  6853. On February 22, 1855,\1\ Mr. Speaker Boyd expressed the 
opinion, well considered, that generally motions to suspend the rules 
were not in order while a subject was pending before the House.
  6854. Illustration of the earlier practice of moving to suspend the 
rules in order to introduce for consideration under the rules a 
proposition that might not otherwise be admissible in the order of 
business.
  By the later practice, when the rules are suspended to enable a 
Member to submit a proposition, he may withdraw it, but another Member 
may not renew it.
  A motion having been withdrawn pending an appeal from a decision that 
it was in order, it was held that the appeal did not thereby fall.
  On May 16, 1834,\2\ the House resumed the consideration of the 
resolution moved by Mr. Samuel W. Mardis, of Alabama, on the 14th of 
January, relative to the selection of banks in which to deposit the 
public money.
  The question recurred on the amendment moved by Mr. Thomas Corwin, of 
Ohio, on the 12th of April, and after further debate the hour expired, 
when a motion was made by Mr. Franklin E. Plummer, of Mississippi, that 
the rule setting apart Friday (this day) for the consideration of 
private business be suspended for the purpose of affording Mr. John 
Galbraith, of Pennsylvania, an opportunity of closing his remarks upon 
the resolution. And on the question, Shall the rule be suspended for 
the purpose aforesaid? it passed in the affirmative, two-thirds voting 
therefor.
  Mr. Galbraith then resumed his remarks; and, having concluded the 
same, a motion was made by Mr. Ratliff Boon, of Indiana, that the rule 
be again suspended, to enable Mr. Andrew Stewart, of Pennsylvania, who 
intimated a wish to do so, to make a motion that the resolution do lie 
on the table. And on the question, Shall the rule be suspended for the 
purpose aforesaid? it was passed in the affirmative, two-thirds voting 
therefor.
  A motion was then made by Mr. Stewart that the resolution and the 
amendment proposed by Mr. Corwin do lie on the table. And before the 
question was put thereon Mr. Stewart withdrew his motion.
  The motion that the resolution and the amendment proposed by Mr. 
Corwin do lie on the table was then renewed by Mr. S. McDowell Moore, 
of Virginia; and an inquiry was made whether the motion of Mr. Moore 
could be received without again suspending the rule.
  The Speaker pro tempore \3\ decided that the suspension of the rule 
was for the purpose of receiving a motion to lay the resolution on the 
table and to come to a decision on that motion, and it was immaterial 
by whom the motion might be made, and that the motion made by Mr. Moore 
would therefore be entertained.
  From this decision Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, appealed 
to the House, on the ground that the motion was to suspend the rule for 
the purpose of enabling Mr. Stewart to move that the resolution do lie 
on the table, and that Mr. Stewart having made his motion and withdrawn 
it, it was necessary that the rule should be again suspended, before 
the motion could be renewed by any other Member.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Thirty-third Congress, Globe, p. 890.
  \2\ First session Twenty-third Congress, Journal, p. 631.
  \3\ Henry Hubbard, of New Hampshire, Speaker pro tempore.
Sec. 6855
  And after debate on the appeal, Mr. Moore withdrew his motion that 
the resolution and amendment do lie on the table.
  An inquiry was then made of the Chair whether the withdrawal of the 
motion, that the resolution do lie on the table, set aside the question 
on the appeal made by Mr. John Quincy Adams.
  The Speaker decided that the appeal did not fall \1\ by the 
withdrawal of the motion that the resolution do lie on the table, and 
that the question on the appeal was the question then pending before 
the House.
  Mr. Isaac B. Van Houten, of New York, then renewed the motion that 
the resolution and amendment do lie on the table.
  And the question was then put on the appeal moved by Mr. John Quincy 
Adams, viz, Shall the decision of the Speaker stand as the judgment of 
the House? And passed in the affirmative, 150 yeas to 13 nays.
  6855. On December 31, 1860,\3\ Mr. John G. Davis, of Indiana (the 
rules having been suspended for that purpose), submitted the following 
preamble and resolution:

  Whereas a convention of delegates chosen by the people of the State 
of South Carolina lately, to wit, on the ---- day of December, 1860, 
adopted the following ordinance, namely: ``We, the people of South 
Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain that the 
ordinance adopted by us in the convention of the 23d of May, 1778, 
whereby the Constitution of the United States was ratified, and the 
acts ratifying amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby 
repealed, and the union now subsisting between South Carolina and the 
other States, under the name of the United States of America, is hereby 
dissolved.''
  And whereas the said State of South Carolina, in pursuance thereof, 
and the proclamation of the governor of said State, claims to be a 
separate and independent government, and is attempting to exercise the 
powers of such separate and independent government: Therefore,
  Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to 
inquire into the same, and to report to this House, at any time, what 
legislation, if any, has become necessary on the part of Congress in 
consequence of the position thus assumed by the said State of South 
Carolina.

  Pending the question on agreeing thereto the House adjourned.
  On January 2, 1861, the Speaker having announced as the regular order 
of business the preamble and resolution submitted by Mr. John G. Davis, 
and pending when the House adjourned, the pending question being on the 
demand for the previous question--
  The question was put on the demand, when the House refused to second 
the same.
  The question then recurring on the resolution, Mr. Davis withdrew the 
preamble and resolution.
  Mr. John Sherman, of Ohio, having claimed the privilege of submitting 
anew the preamble and resolution, on the ground that the rules had been 
suspended for the purpose of enabling the House to consider the same, 
Mr. Thomas S. Bocock, of Virginia, made the point of order that it was 
not competent for him to do so.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ On January 4, 1831 (second session Twenty-first Congress, 
Debates, p. 404), during discussion of a point of order in Committee of 
the Whole, Mr. Speaker Stevenson, while participating in the debate, 
expressed the opinion that an appeal fell by reason of the withdrawal 
of the motion on which it was based.
  \2\ Second session Thirty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 131, 140; 
Globe, pp. 233, 235, 244.
                                                            Sec. 6856
  Mr. Sherman based his claim to the right to renew the motion upon the 
ruling made in the Twenty-third Congress by Speaker pro tempore 
Hubbard, which, on appeal by Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, 
was sustained by a vote of the House.
  Mr. Bocock contended that the decision had been wrong when made; had 
been made not by the Speaker but by a temporary occupant of the chair; 
had been made many years before and never since affirmed.
  The Speaker \1\ ruled:

  The fortieth rule \2\ reads as follows: ``After a motion is stated by 
the Speaker, or read by the Clerk, it shall be deemed to be in the 
possession of the House, but may be withdrawn at any time before a 
decision or amendment.'' The Chair has already decided that the 
gentleman from Indiana had the right to withdraw his proposition, for 
the reason that there has been no decision upon it or amendment to it. 
From that decision no appeal was taken. The gentleman from Ohio now 
insists that he has the right to renew the proposition of the gentleman 
from Indiana, and claims that when the rules are suspended to enable 
the Member to submit a particular proposition, if he fails to submit 
it, another Member may do so. Now, the question between the gentleman 
from Ohio and the Chair is whether it can be said, according to a fair 
construction of the rules, that the gentleman from Indiana has not 
submitted his proposition. The gentleman from Indiana submitted his 
proposition, and some time was spent in its consideration, but, before 
a decision was come to, he withdrew it. Now, the question for the 
consideration of the Chair is simply this: Whether that is within the 
rule referred to by the gentleman from Ohio. I confess that I think it 
is not, and especially as the rules have been suspended to admit the 
resolution of the gentleman from Indiana; and now, the business having 
been continued to this day, the rules could not, under the rules of the 
House, be suspended again. The Chair thinks the proposition could not 
be renewed.

  Mr. Sherman having appealed, a motion to lay the appeal on the table 
failed, 73 yeas to 77 nays. Then began a contest, during which the vote 
was reconsidered, but on the second trial the motion to lay the appeal 
on the table was again negatived, 80 yeas to 82 nays.
  On the next day Mr. Sherman withdrew his appeal.
  6856. Where the rules have been suspended simply to enable a 
proposition to be introduced, it has been the practice to permit 
motions to amend it during consideration.--On April 17, 1848,\3\ Mr. 
Samuel F. Vinton, of Ohio, moved that the rules be suspended for the 
purpose of enabling him to introduce the following resolution:

  Resolved, That the bill making appropriations for the payment of 
Revolutionary and other pensions, etc.; the bill regulating the 
appointment of clerks in the Executive Departments, etc. (and five 
other bills, each an appropriation bill], be severally made the special 
order of the day for Wednesday next, at 1 o'clock p.m., to be 
considered in the order named above; and that they continue to be the 
special order of the day, at the same hour of the day, for every day 
thereafter, Fridays and Saturdays \4\ excepted, till the said bills 
shall have been finally disposed of.

  The rules were suspended and the resolution was introduced. The 
question was stated on agreeing thereto, when Mr. Orlando B. Ficklin, 
of Illinois, moved to amend by adding the bill ``to establish a 
Territorial government in Oregon,'' and the bill ``to raise, for a 
limited time, an additional military force.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ William Pennington, of New Jersey, Speaker.
  \2\ Now section 2 of Rule XVI.
  \3\ First session Thirtieth Congress, Journal, p. 692.
  \4\ These were then private-bill days.
 6857
  This amendment was agreed to, and the question was then put, Will the 
House agree to the said resolution as amended? and it was decided in 
the negative, two-thirds not voting therefor, yeas 74, nays 101.\1\
  6857. It was held in order by one motion and vote to suspend the 
rules so as to permit several bills to be reported.--On February 16, 
1857,\2\ Mr. Elihu B. Washburne, of Illinois, moved that the rules be 
suspended, so as to enable him to report sundry bills from the 
Committee on Commerce, and also to make sundry adverse reports from 
that committee, in order that the same might be committed to the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  Mr. Fayette McMullin, of Virginia, made the point of order that it 
was not competent to include a number of bills in the motion.
  The Speaker \3\ overruled the point of order.
  An appeal having been taken, it was laid on the table.
  6858. A motion to amend may not be applied to a motion to suspend the 
rules.--On January 22,1849,\4\ Mr. Henry W. Hilliard, of Alabama, moved 
that the rules be suspended in order to enable him to introduce two 
bills,\5\ one to authorize the formation of a State government in and 
the admission into the Union of California, and the other respecting 
the limits of New Mexico, and to move that they be referred to a select 
committee of nine Members.
  Mr. Thomas O. Edwards, of Ohio, inquired if it was in order to move 
to amend the motion. He would prefer to have the bill respecting New 
Mexico go to the Committee on Territories.
  The Speaker \6\ replied that a motion to suspend the rules could not 
be amended.
  6859. On February 24, 1859,\7\ the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union reported that the committee, having, according 
to order, had the state of the Union generally under consideration, and 
particularly the bill of the House (H. R. 712) making appropriations 
for the naval service for the year ending June 30, 1860, had come to no 
resolution thereon.
  Mr. John S. Phelps, of Missouri, moved that the rules be suspended, 
so as to enable him to submit the following resolution:

  Resolved, That all debate in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union on the bill (H. R. 712) shall cease at 11 o'clock a. 
m. to-morrow, and that in the meantime no vote shall be taken in 
Committee of the Whole except that the committee do rise or take a 
recess, and afterwards in the House that it do adjourn.

  Pending this, Mr. James L. Seward, of Georgia, proposed to submit an 
amendment thereto.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ The Globe (p. 639) shows that the Speaker [Robert C. Winthrop] 
decided that the resolution might be amended by a majority; but would 
require a two-thirds vote for its adoption.
  \2\ Third session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 432; Globe, p. 
708.
  \3\ Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts., Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Thirtieth Congress, Globe, pp. 319, 320.
  \5\ The old rule (Rule CXIV) was still in force: ``Every bill shall 
be introduced on the report of a committee or by motion for leave. In 
the latter case at least one day's notice shall be given of the motion 
in the House, or by filing a memorandum thereof with the Clerk and 
having it entered on the Journal,'' etc. Now a Member introduces any 
bill he pleases by filing it at the Clerk's desk, whence it is referred 
to the committee having jurisdiction.
  \6\ Robert C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \7\ Second session Thirty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 477; Globe, p. 
1324.
                                                            Sec. 6860
  The Speaker \1\ decided that the motion to suspend the rules was not 
amendable.
  From this decision of the Chair Mr. Seward appealed. The appeal was 
laid on the table.
  6860. During consideration of a motion to suspend the rules and pass 
a bill it is not in order to move to commit the bill, or to demand a 
separate vote on amendments pending with the bill.--On February 18, 
1901,\2\ a committee suspension day, the House was considering the bill 
(H. R. 1917) to limit the meaning of the word ``conspiracy,'' and also 
the use of ``restraining orders and injunctions'' as applied to 
disputes between employers and employees in the District of Columbia 
and Territories, or engaged in commerce between the several States, 
District of Columbia, and Territories, and with foreign nations.
  A second had been ordered on the motion to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill with certain amendments recommended by the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. John B. Corliss, of Michigan, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, 
asked if, under a motion to suspend the rules, a motion to recommit was 
in order.
  The Speaker \3\ replied that it was not.
  Mr. Corliss then asked if there was any way whereby a separate vote 
could be taken on the bill and the amendments.
  The Speaker replied that there was not.
  6861. The rules being suspended to enable a bill to be reported and 
considered, the requirement that it should be considered in Committee 
of the Whole was held to be thereby waived.--On July 8, 1856,\4\ the 
House resumed consideration of Senate Resolution No. 17 for enlarging 
and constructing certain public buildings, reported from the Committee 
on Commerce under a suspension of the rules,\5\ with an amendment.
  Mr. Fayette McMullin, of Virginia, raised the question of order that 
the resolution could not be considered in the House until it had first 
been considered in Committee of the Whole, inasmuch as it contained an 
appropriation of money.
  The Speaker \6\ overruled the question of order, on the ground that 
the rules were suspended not only to enable the resolution to be 
reported with the accompanying amendment, but also to enable the House 
to consider the same.
  An appeal was taken and laid on the table.
  6862. It has long been established that one of the standing rules of 
the House may be changed by a two-thirds vote on a motion to suspend 
the rules.--On June 17, 1850,\7\ Mr. John Wentworth, of Illinois, moved 
to suspend the rules in order that the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union might be instructed to report the President's 
message transmitting the constitution of California, and-also a bill 
admitting California to the Union.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ James L. Orr, of South Carolina, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 2589-2592.
  \3\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 1172, 1173; 
Globe, p. 1558.
  \5\ It is no longer necessary to suspend the rules to get matters 
reported.
  \6\ Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \7\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Globe, p. 1226.
Sec. 6862
  Mr. Robert Toombs, of Georgia, made the point of order that it was 
not competent for the House, by a suspension of the rules, to change 
one of its standing rules and orders. One day's notice was required for 
a change of the rules.
  The Speaker \1\ ruled as follows:

  The Chair will state to the House his opinion on the point of order 
raised by the gentleman from Georgia. If this resolution was introduced 
on resolution day, when the States were called for resolutions,\2\ the 
Chair would unhesitatingly rule it out of order; it is not now proposed 
as the regular order of business on resolution day, but it is proposed 
to suspend the rules of the House in order to introduce it. The Chair 
holds that you may repeal any rule of the House under a suspension of 
the rules; you may suspend the operation of the rules of the House 
under a suspension of the rules; and, therefore, a motion to suspend 
the rules, to offer a resolution of this kind, in the opinion of the 
Chair, is in order, though such a resolution on resolution day would be 
very clearly out of order.
  The Chair will illustrate: If a motion is made to amend one of the 
rules of the House, the rule referred to by the gentleman from Georgia 
would require that the motion should lie over one day; \3\ but that 
rule can be suspended by a vote of two-thirds as well as any other 
rule, and all the rules of the House conflicting with the resolution 
proposed to be introduced can, by a vote of two-thirds, be suspended. 
In taking this view of the subject the Chair will state that he has 
bestowed much reflection upon this point, it having been suggested to 
him at an early stage of the session; and he is clearly of the opinion 
that such a resolution would not be in order on resolution day, because 
a majority of the House can not suspend the rules of the House on 
resolution day, or any other day; but two-thirds of the House can 
suspend the rules at any time, when a motion to suspend is in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ Resolutions are now introduced by filing them.
  \3\ This provision of rule no longer exists.