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

 
                             Chapter CXLIV.

                       THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

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

    1. Rule for appointment of official reporters of debates. 
     Section 6958.
    2. Evolution of the system of daily verbatim reports. Section 
     6959.
    3. Creation of office of official reporter. Sections 6960, 
     6961.
    4. As to what should be printed in Record. Sections 6962-6970.
    5. Revision of remarks of Members. Sections 6971-6974a.
    6. Disorderly words excluded or stricken out. Sections 6975-
     6982.
    7. As to authority of Speaker over. Sections 6983-6985.\1\
    8. Relation of Committee of Whole to Record. Sections 6986-
     6988.
    9. Amendment of the Record secondary to approval of Journal. 
     Section 6989.
   10. ``Leave to print'' and questions arising therefrom. 
     Sections 6990-7012.
   11. Correction of the Record a question of privilege. Sections 
     7013-7023.
   12. Rules for publication of Record. Section 7024.

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

  6958. The Speaker appoints the official reporters of debates and 
stenographers of committees.
  The Speaker supervises the work of the official reporters and 
stenographers, and may remove ``for cause.''
  Present form and history of section 1 of Rule XXXVI.
  Section 1 of Rule XXXVI provides:

  The appointment and removal, for cause,\2\ of the official reporters 
of the House, including stenographers of committees and the manner of 
the execution of their duties, shall be vested in the Speaker.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ See also section 7017 of this chapter.
  \2\ On March 29, 1882, Mr. Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, as a 
question of privilege, presented correspondence whereby the Speaker 
(Mr. Keifer) had removed for cause Henry G. Hayes, stenographer to 
committees, but had declined to specify the cause or causes. The 
subject was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary without debate 
(first session Forty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 930; Record, p. 
2376).
  On April 25, Mr. John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, by unanimous consent, 
presented a resolution relating to the removal of Mr. Andrew Devine, 
also a committee stenographer, who had been removed by the Speaker for 
cause, but without specification of the cause. This subject also was 
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, which does not appear to 
have reported at this session on either of the cases (first session 
Forty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 1122; Record, p. 3272). It is to be 
inferred, however, that a majority of the Judiciary Committee upheld 
the Speaker. This appears from a discussion in Committee of the Whole 
on July 12, 1882 (first session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 
5967-5976) participated in by Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee, and Mr. John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, and 
others, as to the meaning of the words ``for cause' in the rule 
relating to
                                                            Sec. 6959
  This rule dates from January 15 and June 22, 1874.\1\ The old form 
was slightly changed in the revision of 1880.\2\
  The committee stenographers were first authorized by resolution,\3\ 
and now by provisions in the legislative, executive, and judicial 
appropriation bills,\4\ wherein also provision is made for the six 
official reporters of debates and their assistants.
  6959. History of the evolution by which the House has built up the 
system of a daily verbatim report of its proceedings, made by its own 
corps of reporters.
  The origin, publication, and distribution of the Congressional 
Record.
  The debates were published in a condensed form in the Annals of 
Congress, from 1789 to 1824. From 1824 to 1837 the Congressional 
Debates were published. The Congressional Globe began in 1833 and 
continued until 1873, when the publication of the Congressional Record 
began. The Record contains each morning a full stenographic report of 
the proceedings of the preceding day.
  The Joint Committee on Printing control the arrangements and style, 
and have a general supervision of the Record and of its index.\5\
  Each Representative and Delegate has sixty copies of the Record.\6\
  The Congressional Record may be furnished to subscribers by the 
Public Printer at the rate of $1.50 per month, or $8 for the long 
session and $4 for the short session.\7\
  Extracts from the Congressional Record may be printed and delivered 
to Members at cost.\8\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
the dismissal of stenographers by the Speaker. Mr. Reed held that the 
``Speaker need not specify cause.'' Mr. Carlisle took the opposite 
ground. Mr. Reed referred to paragraph 250 of Dillon on Municipal 
Corporations, and Mr. Carlisle referred to a statement by Mr. Speaker 
Blaine.
  On January 18, 1866, on recommendation of the Committee on Accounts 
the House agreed to a resolution employing a stenographer for 
committees. This plan had been tried in the preceding Congress, and 
worked well. It was to take the place of the old plan of employing 
stenographers for committees as the occasions arose (first session 
Thirty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 162; Globe, p. 300). The original 
resolution employing a committee stenographer dated from January 5. 
1865.
  On January 13, 1884, Mr. Carlisle, then Speaker in a new Congress, 
announced to the House, and the announcement appears in the Journal, 
the appointment of Andrew Devine as one of the official reporters of 
the debates (second session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 247; 
Record, p. 662). It is not usual, however, for the Speaker to announce 
an appointment of this nature to the House, although on March 30, 1886, 
the Speaker (Mr. Carlisle) announced that, in accordance with the act 
of March 3, 1885, he appointed two committee stenographers, whose names 
he gave (first session Forty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 1104; Record, 
p. 2914).
  \1\ First session Forty-third Congress, Record, pp. 678, 5390. Also 
p. 681 of Record for statement of Mr. Blaine that the reporters were 
officers of the House and removable only for cause.
  \2\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 207.
  \3\ Second session Thirty-fifth Congress, Journal, pp. 79, 80; first 
session Thirty-ninth Congress, Journal, pp. 162, 1117; first session 
Fortieth Congress, p. 13; first session Forty-eighth Congress, p. 520; 
Record, p. 957.
  \4\ 24 Stat. L., p. 598.
  \5\ 28 Stat. L., p. 603.
  \6\ 29 Stat. L., p. 454. For general law governing distribution of 
Record see 28 Stat. L., pp. 617, 618. Copies are furnished to newspaper 
correspondents (31 Stat. L., p. 713).
  \7\ 28 Stat. L., p. 617; 32 Stat. L., p. 786. See these laws also for 
schedule of general distribution of the Record.
  \8\ 18 Stat. L., p. 347.
Sec. 6959
  The present system of reporting the proceedings of the House for the 
Congressional. Record \1\ is the result of a slow evolution. At the 
beginning no provisions were made for reporting the debates. In 
February, 1795,\2\ a committee of the House reported in favor of the 
appointment of one or more stenographers as officers of the House, but 
no action resulted; and on December 14, 1796,\3\ the House disagreed to 
a proposition to have the debates reported by contract. On December 6, 
1797,\4\ a committee reported that as the plan of official reporters of 
debates had been discountenanced, it was not advisable for the House to 
assist in unofficial publications. On March 21, 1798,\5\ a proposition 
to permit persons to have places within the bar to take the debates was 
defeated by a tie vote.
  On January 7, 1802,\6\ this rule was adopted:

  Stenographers shall be admitted, and the Speaker shall assign to them 
such places on the floor as shall not interfere with the convenience of 
the House.

  There was much debate over this rule, from which it appeared that 
previously stenographers had been admitted by authority of the Speaker 
and under his direction they had remained. It was alleged that the 
Speakers had used this power arbitrarily, sometimes going to the extent 
of suppressing the publication of speeches. The rule was agreed to, 
yeas 47, nays 28.
  The rule in the Twelfth Congress, date 1811,\7\ was:

  Stenographers wishing to take down the debates may be admitted by the 
Speaker, who shall assign such places to them on the floor or 
elsewhere, to effect their object, as shall not interfere with the 
convenience of the House.

  On May 31, 1813,\8\ complaint arose that Mr. Speaker Clay had 
excluded a stenographer, partisan reasons being suggested. The Speaker 
explained that there were places for but four, and that he had assigned 
these places by seniority and not by political favor. The stenographers 
were employees of newspapers, not of the House. The House voted against 
the petition of the excluded stenographer.
  On March 13, 1820,\9\ an attempt to require that the stenographers be 
under oath failed.
  On May 2, 1822,\10\ a committee, of which Mr. Henry R. Warfield, of 
Maryland, was chairman, made a report as to a reform in the method of 
reporting debates. They did not undertake to say that they should be 
published in extenso, but did believe that ``a rigid adherence to fact 
in whatever is published of the proceedings of Congress is 
indispensable.'' They therefore proposed that the Speaker be authorized 
to receive proposals for the publication of a correct account of the 
debates, and
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   \1\ On March 2, 1849 (second session Thirtieth Congress, Globe, p. 
646) a brief sketch was given of the compilation of the earlier 
debates.
   \2\ American State Papers, Vol. I (miscel.), p. 123.
   \3\ Second session Fourth Congress, Journal, p. 616.
   \4\ Second session Fifth Congress, American State Papers (miscel.), 
Vol. II, p. 159.
   \5\ Second session Fifth Congress, Journal, p. 233; Annals, pp. 
1285-1295.
   \6\ First session Seventh Congress, Journal, p. 38; Annals, pp. 406, 
409.
   \7\ Journal of the Twelfth Congress, p. 528.
   \8\ First session Thirteenth Congress, Annals, pp. 112, 127.
   \9\ First session Sixteenth Congress, Journal, p. 300; Annals, p. 
1634.
  \10\ First session Seventeenth Congress, Journal, pp. 476, 542; 
Annals, pp. 1778, 1779.
                                                            Sec. 6959
submit these proposals to the next session. This change was objected to 
on account of the expense, and the matter was tabled.
  On January 9, 1826,\1\ a proposition was made that the Speaker might 
admit not exceeding three stenographers to occupy places in front of 
the Clerk's table. On January 10 this was debated and tabled. It was 
urged that it would make a distinction among the stenographers, giving 
to three a better place than the others who came into the Hall would 
have.
  On January 25, 1826,\2\ it was developed during a debate on a 
resolution to make the privilege of the floor to stenographers depend 
on their ``decorum and respect to Members,'' that under the title and 
rule as to stenographers there was but one stenographer, the others 
being simply newspaper reporters. The resolution was aimed against 
these reporters, who had floor privileges as stenographers. It was not 
agreed to.
  On January 14, 1828,\3\ Mr. John Randolph, of Virginia, criticised 
the inaccuracy of the published reports, giving a humorous blunder made 
in one of his speeches.
  On January 27, 1844,\4\ Mr. Edward J. Black, of Georgia, proposed a 
corps of official reporters to be paid by the House, and to report 
``faithfully and literally'' everything ``done or attempted to be 
done.'' The resolution was objected to and not considered.
  In 1848 \5\ a joint committee of the House and Senate examined into 
the subject of devising a system of reporting the debates and 
proceedings in lieu of the system existing.
  On September 2, 1850,\6\ a proposition to give the Congressional 
Globe reporters seats in front of the Clerk's table was decided 
adversely; but in the next Congress Mr. Alexander H. Stephens, of 
Georgia, renewed the proposition, and on December 10, 1851,\7\ the 
House voted that the Doorkeeper should place three seats in front of 
the Clerk's desk for the reporters of the Congressional Globe, although 
these reporters, like their predecessors, were employees of the printer 
who published the Globe, for the purchase of which the House made 
annual appropriations.\8\
  In 1853 \9\ an effort was made by Mr. Alexander H. Stephens, of 
Georgia, to make the Globe reporters paid employees of the House 
instead of paying so much a column for reports to the contracting 
printer. At that time it was noted that by assuming some authority over 
the reports their character had been improved; and on February 20, 
1855,\10\ the House adopted an amendment to an appropriation bill 
providing for the payment at public expense of the reporters of the 
Congressional Globe.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   \1\ First session Nineteenth Congress, Journal, pp. 135, 138; 
Debates, pp. 925, 926.
   \2\ Second session Nineteenth Congress, Journal, p. 204; Debates, 
pp. 815-820.
   \3\ First session Twentieth Congress, Debates, p. 1002.
   \4\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 297, 298; 
Globe, p. 201.
   \5\ First session Thirtieth Congress, Journal, pp. 1137, 1201.
   \6\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 1353.
   \7\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, p. 70; Globe, p. 
57.
   \8\ 9 Stat. L., pp. 6, 616.
   \9\ Second session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, pp. 388, 733.
  \10\ Second session Thirty-third Congress, Globe, p. 817.
Sec. 6960
  When the House moved into the new Hall in 1857,\1\ the official 
reporters found seats arranged for them in front of the Clerk's desk.
  In 1865 \2\ Congress provided by law that the Congressional Globe 
should be published daily and delivered to Members of both Houses at 
the time of meeting; but the publishers were not to be required to 
publish daily more than forty columns of proceedings of the two Houses. 
In 1860 \3\ a Government printing establishment was authorized, for the 
printing of Congress; and in 1863 \4\ the system of annual 
appropriations for reporting proceedings in the two Houses was 
established.
  On December 20, 1865,\1\ a proposition was presented from the 
Committee on Rules, declaring the reporters of the official proceedings 
officers of the House, and their appointments and removals subject to 
the approval of the Speaker. This proposition gave rise to debate as to 
the relations of the House to the contractors who published the Globe, 
and the rights of those contractors as to the appointment and removal 
of the reporters. The matter was referred to the Judiciary Committee to 
determine the legal relations of the House with the contractors who 
published the debates.
  On January 17, 1867,\6\ Mr. Ralph Hill, of Indiana, suggested the 
reporting of debates by reporters chosen by the House and the 
publication of the debates at the Government Printing Office, but the 
suggestion was not adopted.
  The next step, in 1872,\7\ was a law providing that ``no person shall 
be employed as a reporter of the House without the approval of the 
Speaker of the House,'' and in accordance with this changed relation in 
1874 \8\ the law recognized five ``official reporters of the 
proceedings and debates of the House of Representatives.'' The Senate 
did not make this change, however, and to this day continues the 
practice of having the reporting of its debates done by contract.
  On March 3, 1873,\9\ the House agreed to the following:

  Whereas the present contract for the publication of the debates 
expires with this session; and whereas the sundry civil appropriation 
bill about to become a law provides that until a new contract be made 
the debates shall be printed by the Congressional Printer, but makes no 
provision for reporting, leaving each House to adopt such arrangement 
on that subject as it may deem best: Therefore,
  Resolved, That the reports of the House proceedings and debates shall 
be furnished to the Congressional Printer by the present corps of Globe 
reporters, who shall hereafter, until otherwise ordered, be officers of 
the House, and shall receive the same compensation now allowed to the 
official reporters of committees.

  The Speaker \10\ explained in this connection that the Speaker had 
always had control over the reporters.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ See report of committee to examine the new Hall. First session 
Thirty-fifth Congress, Globe, p. 32.
  \2\ 13 Stat. L., p. 460.
  \3\ 12 Stat. L., p. 117.
  \4\ 12 Stat. L., p. 683.
  \5\ First session Thirty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 96; Globe, p. 
98.
  \6\ Second session Thirty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 185; Globe, p. 
532.
  \7\ Stat. L., p. 47.
  \8\ Stat. L., p. 5.
  \9\ Third session Forty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 582, 583; 
Globe, p. 2133.
  \10\ James G. Blaine, of Maine, Speaker.
  On December 5, 1873,\1\ the House by resolution set apart a room for 
the use of the official reporters. Before this they had written out 
their notes in the seats of Members and in other places.
  On January 15, 1874,\2\ at the time the appointment and removal of 
the official reporters was vested in the Speaker by rule, Mr. Speaker 
Blaine announced that he reappointed the existing reporters for this 
and subsequent Congresses, until removed for cause.
  6960. The office of reporter of debates is created by resolution 
reported from the Committee on Accounts and agreed to by the House.--On 
December 18, 1903,\3\ the following resolution was reported from the 
Committee on Accounts and agreed to by the House:

  Resolved, That the Speaker of the House is hereby authorized to 
appoint an additional official reporter of debates of the House, at the 
rate of $5,000 per annum, the same to be paid from the contingent fund 
of the House until otherwise provided for by law.

  6961. On May 15, 1890,\4\ by a resolution reported from the Committee 
on Accounts the Speaker was authorized to appoint an additional 
reporter of the House, to be paid out of the contingent fund until 
other arrangement should be made.
  6962. The Congressional Record is for the proceedings of the House 
only, and matters not connected therewith are rigidly excluded.--On 
February 25, 1897,\5\ Mr. William E. Barrett, of Massachusetts, called 
attention to the following entry in the Record of the previous day:

  During the reading of the bill Mr. Bryan entered the Hall and was 
loudly applauded by Members on the Democratic side.

And asked if it was not an improper thing to put in the Record.
  The Speaker \6\ said:

  The Chair thinks it is a very improper thing to put in the Record. * 
* * The Chair will order it stricken out.

  6963. While a message of the President is always printed in the 
Congressional Record, the accompanying documents are not permitted.--On 
January 21, 1896,\7\ Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, rising to a 
question of privilege, called attention to the fact that the documents 
accompanying the message of the President relating to speeches of 
Ambassador Bayard had been printed in full in the Record.
  The Speaker \6\ said:

  The Chair is informed that this was put in the Record by mistake of 
the printer. * * * Certainly, the criticism of the gentleman is 
entirely just. The matter ought not to have been printed as a part of 
the Record. It should have been printed as a document. And the Chair 
will direct that it be kept out of the permanent Record.\8\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Forty-third Congress, Journal p. 60; Record, p. 72.
  \2\ First session Forty-third Congress, Record, p. 681.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 76; Record, p. 
387.
  \4\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 613.
  \5\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 2258.
  \6\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \7\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 834.
  \8\ A message of the President always appears in full in the Record.
Sec. 6964
  6964. A Member is not entitled to inspect the reporter's notes of 
remarks not reflecting on himself, delivered by another Member and 
withheld for revision.--On June 16, 1894,\1\ Mr. Joseph H. Walker, of 
Massachusetts, stated, as involving a question of privilege, that he 
had applied for a copy from the original notes of remarks delivered in 
the House, which request had been denied by the reporters, under the 
direction, as he was informed, of the Speaker of the House. He claimed 
that it was his right to have furnished him a copy from such notes.
  The Speaker \2\ stated that, while there was no rule of the House 
upon the subject, in his opinion when a Member withheld for revision 
his remarks, in which remarks was contained nothing personal to or 
reflecting upon another Member, such other Member was not entitled as a 
matter of right to be furnished a copy from such original notes, and 
that he had so advised the reporters in the instance referred to by Mr. 
Walker.
  6965. A message of the President to the two Houses is printed in the 
proceedings of only one House.--On January 26, 1892,\3\ the Senate 
ordered that whenever a message from the President should be printed in 
the House portion of the Record it should not be duplicated in the 
Senate portion.
  6966. It is not considered courteous for one House to strike from the 
Record matter placed therein by permission of the other House.--On 
April 22, 1880,\4\ the Senate passed a resolution striking from the 
Record ``what purports to be a copyrighted argument of a Territorial 
Delegate, which appears in the Record of to-day, but which was not, in 
fact, delivered in the House of Representatives.'' But upon 
reconsideration it was decided that it would not be courteous for the 
Senate to strike from the Record matter placed there by permission of 
the House, so the resolution was withdrawn.
  6967. No rule requires the official reporters to insert in full in 
the Record every resolution or other proposition offered by a Member, 
regardless of the attendant circumstances.
  A Member may not, in a controversy over a proposed correction of the 
Record, demand the reading of the reporter's notes of the preceding 
day.
  Although a Member in introducing a bill may read it in full to the 
House, yet it would not therefore appear in full in either the Journal 
or Congressional Record.
  On January 27, 1885,\5\ Mr. John D. White, of Kentucky, rising for 
the purpose of correcting the Journal, made complaint that a joint 
resolution which he had introduced on the previous day (H. Res. No. 
319), ``to abolish the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue and 
the entire system of internal taxes,'' should have been printed in full 
in the Journal. He had read the resolution in full when he introduced 
it,\6\ and declared that a proper report of what transpired would call 
for the printing in full of the resolution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 435; Record, p. 
6418.
  \2\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Record, p. 530.
  \4\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2630.
  \5\ Second session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 354, 356; 
Record, pp. 1020, 1021, 1025.
  \6\ Bills and resolutions are now introduced by laying them on the 
Clerk's table.
                                                            Sec. 6968
  The Speaker\1\ said:

  The Chair will state that on being applied to yesterday by the Chief 
Official Reporter for advice as to whether or not the joint resolution 
which was read by the gentleman from Kentucky should be printed in the 
Record, the Chair advised him that the joint resolution did not 
properly belong there and ought not, therefore, to go into the Record 
as a part of the proceedings of the House.
  The Chair does not know of any rule which would authorize or require 
the Official Reporter to insert everything that may be read, either on 
the floor of the House by a Member himself or from the desk by the 
Clerk, in the hearing of the House. Unanimous consent is frequently 
asked of the House to insert such matters in the Record, and the Chair 
knows of no other way in which they can get there under the rules of 
the House, except that it has been the practice of the House, the Chair 
thinks, to insert in full resolutions of inquiry addressed to the heads 
of the Executive Departments of the Government. * *  The Chair decides 
that, under the practice of the House, the joint resolution offered by 
the gentleman from Kentucky on yesterday is not such part of the 
official record of the proceedings of the House as can be entered in 
full either upon the Record itself or upon the Journal of the House; 
and the Chair decides that the gentleman has now no right to demand, as 
a matter of right, the reading of the official notes of the reporters 
of what transpired on yesterday; from which decision the gentleman from 
Kentucky appeals.

  Mr. White having appealed, the appeal was laid on the table; and so 
the decision of the Chair was sustained.
  6968. On October 4, 1893,\2\ Mr. David H. Mercer, of Nebraska, 
submitted and asked unanimous consent for the consideration of the 
following resolution:

  Resolved, That the Committee on Invalid Pensions be instructed to 
investigate whether employees of the Interior Department are stationed 
or traveling in the guise of detectives or otherwise for the purpose of 
obtaining or manufacturing testimony to the detriment of the old 
veterans who have applied to the Government for Pensions. * * *

  Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, submitted the question of 
practice, whether the proposed resolution should be printed in the 
Record.
  After debate the Speaker \3\ directed the resolution to be printed in 
the Record, but stated that his action in the premises would not be 
taken as a precedent for the future action of the House.
  6969. On December 6, 1895,\4\ Mr. Joseph H. Walker, of Massachusetts, 
asked unanimous consent that a certain resolution, with accompanying 
petition, be read for the information of the House, referred to the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, and printed in the Record.
  Before the reading began Mr. Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, made this 
point of order:

  A gentleman sends up a resolution such as this--I do not even know 
what it is--and asks unanimous consent that it be read and printed in 
the Record. Of course the House is not aware of the contents of the 
paper until it is read. After it is read, it occurs to some gentleman 
that it is improper that it be printed, or, unless the mover of the 
resolution asks unanimous consent for consideration, that it should be 
considered. Now, Mr. Speaker, the question is, Does the resolution in 
such a case go into the Record? Having been read at the Clerk's desk, 
is it to be printed in the Record as part of the proceedings of the 
House?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 125.
  \3\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 47.
Sec. 8670
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The present impression of the Chair is that the determination of the 
question raised by the gentleman from Georgia must depend very much 
upon circumstances. There might be cases in which it would be essential 
that the resolution should be printed in order to explain and justify 
the proceedings of the House; but if objection was made before the 
proposition was actually read, then it seems to me it might be ruled 
out entirely. I do not, however, speak advisedly upon the question at 
this time. * * * In this case, inasmuch as the request is simply to 
have the resolution read to the House and printed in the Record, if, 
after the reading, objection is made, the Chair will understand that it 
is not to be printed in the Record. That will dispose of this case 
unless some gentleman objects to the view of the Chair.

  6970.  The practice of the House does not require that in all cases 
the texts of bills considered shall be printed in full in the Record.--
On February 6, 1903,\2\ Mr. David A. De Armond, of Missouri, rising to 
a question of order, stated that the Record of the preceding day did 
not have in full the text of the bill (H. R. 17) ``requiring all 
corporations engaged in interstate commerce to file returns,'' etc., 
which was on that day considered, although the Record did have in full 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute proposed by the Committee 
on the Judiciary. Mr. De Armond therefore contended that the Record 
should be corrected by the insertion of the text of the bill.
  The Speaker pro tempore \3\ said:

  The mistake consists in printing in the Record, the substitute, not 
the omission of the other. The Chair will suggest that there is no rule 
requiring the text of a bill which has been read in the House to be 
printed either in the Journal or Record. It is not necessary or 
customary to print it in either of them. * * * The Chair will state 
that the universal practice is not to print these bills in the Record, 
but there is a special reason why this particular bill might be 
excepted, owing to the importance of the bill and the substitute. But 
that will be a matter for unanimous consent. The Record is made up in 
the usual way, except in inserting the substitute, which ordinarily 
would not have been inserted.

  6971.  It has been the practice to allow a Member, with the approval 
of the Speaker, to revise his remarks in the Record provided such 
revision does not affect the remarks of another Member.--On March 27, 
1882 \4\ Mr. John D. White, of Kentucky, claiming the floor on a 
question of privilege, called attention to the fact that the Record did 
not contain certain passages of a colloquy which took place on the 
preceding day between Messrs. John E. Kenna, of West Virginia, and 
Henry G. Turner, of Georgia.
  Points of order were made as to whether or not a Member might bring 
up such a matter as a question of privilege.
  After debate the Speaker \5\ said:

  The Chair thinks ordinarily a correction of the Record, when a Member 
is himself affected by it, is a question of privilege. * * * The Chair 
was of the impression that some portion of the matter alleged to have 
been stricken out related to remarks made by the gentleman from 
Kentucky. The Chair has always held that Members should have the 
privilege of correcting the Record, either by having inserted that 
which had been omitted, or by striking out what was improperly 
included. Beyond that
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 1785, 1786.
  \3\ John F. Lacey, of Iowa, Speaker pro tempore.
  \4\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 2302, 2304.
  \5\ J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 6972
the Chair has never held that Members had any right to interfere with 
the remarks of others. In this case the Chair will state for the 
benefit of any person that it affects, that whatever was omitted from 
the Record was so omitted by consent of the Chair.

  Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania (ex-Speaker), said:

  I desire to say a word in justification of the permission granted by 
the Chair to these two gentlemen to omit from the Record that which was 
of more or less personal character, affecting only themselves. It has 
been the uniform practice where personal controversies have occurred on 
the floor, to allow language used in debate by Members to be modified 
with the consent of the parties involved, provided that no change was 
made affecting anything spoken by another Member. * * * I think it 
quite wise that permission in such cases should be under the control of 
the Chair, and I believe the authority in this instance has been very 
properly exercised.
  6972.  A Member should not correct the notes of his own speech in 
such a way as to affect the remarks of an opponent in controversy 
without bringing the correction to the attention of that Member.
  Instance wherein the House, on motion put and carried, corrected a 
Member's speech in the Congressional Record, so that it might be a 
faithful report of what he had actually said.
  On December 13, 1897,\1\ Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, stated to 
the House that in the remarks of Mr. James A. Norton, of Ohio, as 
published in the Record, the word ``most'' had been changed to ``many'' 
in the sentence which stood as follows in the reporter's notes:

  By rules of law, by the regulations of your Pension Office, you have 
made most soldiers either stand upon the rejected roll or commit moral 
and legal perjury to reach the roll.

  In the course of the debate the Speaker \2\ said:

  Will the gentleman permit the Chair to make a suggestion with regard 
to this matter? The whole difficulty seems to arise from the fact that 
a change is made in the stenographer's report, for, with that change 
made, the rest of the debate seem to be absolutely out of order and 
irrelevant. If the word ``most'' is not printed as having been used 
originally, then, of course, all the rest of the debate falls to the 
ground. If it is printed as having been used, then the subsequent 
debate explains it fully and completely. What we want and ought to have 
is a record of what took place. Of course there are a great many 
difficulties about revising the debates for the Record. Every Member 
does revise when he sees occasion and when some other Member is not 
concerned, but the best practice would seem to be that where a debate 
has taken place and another Member is concerned, if a speaker desires 
to change a word the change should be made with the knowledge of the 
other gentleman who participated in the debate. Unless that rule is 
observed, we ought to have the reporters' record unchanged. The Chair 
submits this as, perhaps, a solution of the difficulty. In this case 
even if the word ``most'' is printed as it appears in the 
stenographer's report, the debate goes right on and explains it, but if 
the word ``many'' is substituted for ``most,'' then the subsequent 
debate seem to be irrelevant.
  That is one of the difficulties arising from not printing the debate 
as it occurred, whenever there is any dispute. * * * It has always 
seemed to the Chair that when the Record was to be corrected and when 
there was a controversy upon a particular point, either the correction 
should be made with the consent of the other Member or Members 
participating, or should not be made at all. In the latter case, the 
Member who feels aggrieved and desires to change the Record has always 
the right to come to the House and have it changed; but where he 
changes the stenographer's minutes and prints something else different 
from what was said, then the subsequent debate will seem to have taken 
place under an entire misapprehension; which is unfair to the other 
persons participating in the debate. * * * We all know how frequently a 
wrong word comes to our tongues when we are in the midst of 
extemporaneous speech, and as long as the changing of any such 
expression does not affect anybody else the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 120, 129.
  \2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
Sec. 6973
right to correct it ought to be reserved. The only reason for 
withholding the privilege of making any such correction is when there 
may arise some such question as the present. The Chair thinks, however, 
the whole debate in this case explains itself.

  The House, by a vote of 137 yeas to 121 nays, adopted a resolution 
correcting the printed copy of Mr. Norton's remarks, so that the word 
``most'' should be retained instead of ``many.''
  6973.  A Member having so revised his remarks as to affect the import 
of words uttered by another Member, the House corrected the Record.--On 
June 29, 1906,\1\ Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, called attention 
to the fact that Mr. Henry A. Cooper, of Wisconsin, had so revised his 
remarks in the Record as to modify the effect of certain words in reply 
uttered by himself; and thereupon moved to strike out the remarks of 
Mr. Cooper as printed in the Record and insert the words of the 
reporter's notes.
  After debate, this motion was agreed to by the House.
  6974.  The House may not strike from the Record the remarks of a 
Member made in order.--On February 1, 1878,\2\ Mr. John H. Baker, of 
Indian made certain charges against the Doorkeeper of the House, 
presenting certain affidavits reflecting on his character, which were 
made a part of the speech.
  After action on the charges, Mr. Charles C. Ellsworth, of Michigan, 
moved that the affidavits, which were ex parte, be stricken from the 
record of debates. This motion was agreed to, but was subsequently 
reconsidered.
  Thereupon Mr. Baker protested that the affidavits were a part of his 
speech, made on the floor in support of his motion, and that a majority 
on the floor had no right to expurgate the Record, thus saying by 
resolution what sentiments a Member should utter on the floor of the 
House.
  The Speaker \3\ said:

  The Chair thinks that the position taken by the gentleman from 
Indiana * * * is the correct one, that the House can not eliminate from 
the remarks of a Member what has been permitted to be made part of his 
remarks in order.

  No appeal was taken from this decision, but Mr. James A. Garfield, of 
Ohio, said that the decision seemed just to all concerned, and that in 
all his service on the Committee on Rules he remembered but two 
instances where the House had struck from the Record what had been 
said, and in each case it was done because the words were spoken 
against order.
  6975.  Words spoken by a Member after he has been called to order may 
be excluded from the Congressional Record by direction of the 
Speaker.--On June 29, 1864,\4\ the House was considering a bill 
relating to representation from the rebellious States. Mr. Jacob B. 
Blair, of West Virginia, had the floor, when the point was made that he 
was not proceeding in order.
  The Speaker \5\ said:

  The Chair will say to the gentleman from West Virginia and to the 
House that if gentlemen insist upon speaking after they have been 
decided to be out of order he will be compelled at this stage of the 
session to exercise the power which has been vested in him to enforce 
order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 9687-9690.
  \2\ Second session Forty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 339; Record, pp. 
708, 715-717.
  \3\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Thirty-eighth Congress, Globe, p. 3390.
  \5\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 6976
  Mr. Robert Mallory, of Kentucky, expressed the hope that the Chair 
would direct reporters of the Globe not to take down anything a Member 
might utter while speaking in defiance of the ruling of the Chair.
  The Speaker said that that was the rule \1\ adopted in the last 
Congress, but it had not been before suggested in this Congress.
  Mr. William H. Wadsworth, of Kentucky, made the point that the rules 
permitted the Chair to decide questions as they arose. He objected to 
the Chair telling the House how he was going to decide questions in the 
future that had not arisen.
  The Speaker said he would respond to the gentleman frankly that he 
had the right to state his construction of the rules, and to notify 
gentlemen in advance that no one could complain of partiality.
  6976.  On August 15, 1876, \2\ Mr. Horace F. Page, of California, 
saying that he arose to a question of privilege, stated that in the 
appointment of the committee just announced by the Chair to visit 
California and make inquiry in regard to Chinese immigration the wishes 
of neither the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. William Woodburn] nor himself 
had been consulted, and that----
  The Speaker pro tempore \3\ said that this was not a question of 
privilege, and that the gentleman was out of order.
  Mr. Page, amid the vigorous rapping of the gavel and loud cries of 
``Order,'' continued his remarks for some moments.
  The Speaker pro tempore said:

  The remarks of the gentleman from California [Mr. Page] are entirely 
out of order. This is no question of privilege. The Chair directs that 
no language which has been spoken out of order and so ruled by the 
Chair be taken down by the reporters \4\ for insertion in the official 
proceedings.\5\

  6977.  On May 27, 1896,\6\ Mr. Omer M. Kem, of Nebraska, rising to a 
parliamentary inquiry, asked if remarks made by gentlemen on the floor 
out of order were entitled to go into the Record when objection was 
made.
  Mr. Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, made the point of order that the 
Record was not before the House, and that the gentleman was not charged 
with any duty regarding it until the next morning.
  The Speaker \7\ said:

  The Chair is obliged to say that the question of what goes into the 
Record is somewhat of a disputed point. Whatever is presented as a 
question of privilege and as a part of the proceedings of the House 
ought to go into the Record, but what is said after the question has 
been ruled upon by the Chair the Chair thinks ought not to go into the 
Record.

  6978. Mr. Speaker Colfax held, on June 11, 1866,\8\ that the Globe 
reporters were to report the remarks made by Members out of order. He 
said that the pre-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ The Journals of the Thirty-seventh Congress do not show the 
adoption of such a rule as is referred to, and the reference seems to 
be to the practice of the House in such cases during that Congress.
  \2\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 5697.
  \3\ Milton Sayler, of Ohio, Speaker pro tempore.
  \4\ On May 31, 1882 (first session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 
4397), Mr. Speaker Keifer held in a similar case: ``The remarks made 
out of order will not appear in the Record.''
  \5\ A question relating to the correctness of the Record involves a 
question of privilege.
  \6\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 5802.
  \7\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \8\ First session Thirty-ninth Congress, Globe, p. 3089.
Sec. 6979
vious Congress had adopted a resolution that they should not do so, but 
no such resolution had been adopted in the present one, so the remarks 
would be reported.
  6979.  A Member having uttered disorderly words on the floor without 
objection, the House was not thereby precluded from action when, after 
being withheld for revision, the words were printed in the Record--In 
the Congressional Record of September 14, 1890, Mr. Robert P. Kennedy, 
of Ohio, published a speech which he had made on the floor of the House 
on September 3, and which contained certain unparliamentary references 
to the United States Senate.
  6980. On September 15,\1\ Mr. Benjamin A. Enloe, of Tennessee, 
claiming the floor for a question of privilege, proposed the following 
resolution:

  Resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives be, and he 
is hereby, directed to communicate to the Senate the fact that the 
House reprobates and condemns the unparliamentary language of Hon. 
Robert P. Kennedy, a Representative from the State of Ohio, published 
in the Congressional Record of September 14, 1890, purporting to be a 
speech delivered on the floor of the House September 3, 1890, in which 
revised and amended speech he repeats his impeachment of honesty of 
Senators individually and of the Senate as a body.

  Mr. Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, made the point of order that this 
resolution did not come in here as a matter of privilege under the 
circumstances which surrounded it.

  Whenever the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.Kennedy] had proceeded without 
interruption to the close of his speech and the House had adjourned, 
that was the end of any point of order against the character of the 
utterances contained in that speech. He could not be called in question 
afterwards; for the language of the rule of the House is that, unless 
the language is taken down and objection is made at the time, the 
Member shall not thereafter be called to account for his utterances.
  Mr. Grosvenor referred to the rules of the House which provide in 
section 5 of Rule XVI:

  5. If a Member is called to order for words spoken in debate, the 
Member calling him to order shall indicate the words excepted to, and 
they shall be taken down in writing at the Clerk's desk and read aloud 
to the House: but he shall not be held to answer, nor be subject to the 
censure of the House therefor, if further debate or other business has 
intervened.\2\

  Mr. Enloe replied that Mr. Kennedy might not be censured for his 
utterances on the floor; but he had by his publication of the speech in 
the Record repeated the offense.
  In the debate, which continued on September 16,\3\ it was assumed 
that a certain revision had been made by Mr. Kennedy in his remarks as 
actually uttered; but that this revision was in the nature of lessening 
the severity of the language.
  Mr. Thomas M. Bayne, of Pennsylvania, suggested an amendment 
providing for striking out the speech from the permanent Record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, pp. 10068, 10072.
  \2\ Jefferson's Manual, in Chapter XVII, also refers to English 
precedents which, however, refer to a time before legislative 
proceedings were reported: When any Member has spoken, or other 
business intervened, after offensive words spoken, they can not be 
taken notice of for censure. And this is for the common security of 
all, and to prevent mistakes which must happen if words are not taken 
down immediately. Formerly they might be taken down at any time the 
same day. (2 Hats., 196; Mem. in Hakew., 71; 3 Grey, 48; 9 Grey, 514.)
  \3\ Record, pp. 10100-10109.
                                                            Sec. 6981
  The Speaker \1\ entertained the resolution as a question of 
privilege.

  The Chair would not be understood as deciding that a question of this 
character had precedence over an election case except under the 
peculiar circumstances in which this has been brought up. The Chair 
states that simply as a matter of preliminary consideration.
  There can be no doubt that legislative proceedings dependent upon two 
branches--two coordinate branches--would be very much impeded if 
personal and improper reflections were allowed in the one body on the 
Members of the other. This fact is so plain, so well established and 
understood, that it seems unnecessary to say a word in regard to it. It 
is founded upon that principle which causes the Members of the House of 
Representatives to speak of each other and to address each other in 
debate by a phrase rather than by name. It is intended as far as 
possible to keep personal feeling out of public legislation, and the 
Chair is very glad, not only for the advantage of the relations 
existing between the House and Senate, but for the advantage of the 
relations of the Members themselves to each other and to the Chair, 
that this question should be passed upon in such manner as will make an 
impression upon us all.

  The Speaker held the said resolution to be before the House for 
present consideration and the pending question to be on its adoption.
  The House, by a vote of yeas 124, nays 53, referred the whole subject 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  On September 24, 1890, \2\ Mr. John W. Stewart, of Vermont, reported 
from that committee resolutions expressing disapproval of the language 
as unparliamentary, and directing that the speech be excluded from the 
permanent Record, it being impracticable to separate the 
unparliamentary language.
  The House agreed to the resolutions, yeas 151, nays 36.
  6981.  A Member having printed his speech after withholding it for 
revision, the House struck from it unparliamentary portions, although 
no question had been raised when they were uttered on the floor.
  Denunciation of the spirit in which a Member had spoken was held out 
of order as a personality in debate.
  On April 13, 1906,\3\ Mr. Augustus P. Gardner, of Massachusetts, 
claiming the floor for a question of privilege, offered the following 
resolution:

  Whereas on the 10th day of April, 1906, in a speech printed this 
morning in the Record, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Hopkins] 
contrary to the law of the House, has embodied the following sentences: 
``A few days ago Mr. Bennet of New York.'' ``The effort of my friend, 
though covertly designed, is the first show of their influence in this 
body. Again, on last Wednesday he showed his interest in the steamship 
companies by offering and securing the passage through this House of a 
joint resolution authorizing the admission of Fannie Diner, a 
pronounced idiot.'' ``The strange feature about this case is that the 
gentleman from New York studiously concealed these facts from this 
House or this resolution would never have passed.'' ``The gentleman has 
a perfect right to standby the ship companies, but he has no right to 
abuse the confidence of this House by suppressing the truth in his 
effort to serve them. So completely was this House deceived that my 
friend Mr. Goldfogle wanted to extend the resolution to cover all such 
cases and let in all idiots.'' ``Again, on last Friday my friend, 
feeling that he had scored a point in the interest of the ship 
companies in relieving them of the embarrassing situation the Fannie 
Diner case had placed them, took the floor of this House in open 
opposition to restricting immigration, and in an argument evidently in 
the interests of the steamship companies, made to delude this House, 
finds himself in the midst of a mass of contradictions too patent to 
deceive anyone.'' ``Turning to my friend's first speech, who, while 
trying to play both sides of this question;''
  Resolved, That the above sentences be stricken from the Record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \2\ Record, p. 10381.
  \3\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 5220-5231.
Sec. 6981
  In the course of the debate Mr. Henry M. Goldfogle, of New York, 
said:\1\

  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kentucky on two occasions during the 
session of this Congress undertook to deliver speeches upon the 
immigration question, and while he attempted to so frame his remarks 
that it might be understood that he was opposed only to the admission 
of undesirable aliens, yet one reading his speeches could readily 
observe that through it there ran the spirit of a bigot and a know-
nothing. I believe the sentiment of this House is opposed to that 
spirit, which on an occasion heretofore I pronounced un-American. I 
regret that such a spirit found its way----

  At this point Mr. Ollie M. James, of Kentucky, called Mr. Goldfogle 
to order.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair sustains the point of order. The gentleman from New York 
will not indulge in personalities and will proceed in order.

  The debate having proceeded, Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, 
said that--

the question before this House now upon ultimate analysis was this: 
Whether or not the gentleman from New York [Mr. Bennet] did or did not 
deceive the House in getting unanimous consent for the passage of this 
resolution?

  Mr. Gardner, of Massachusetts, raised a question of order--

that the gentleman is not speaking to the resolution, which objects to 
language because it is unparliamentary.

  The Speaker said:

  The Chair will say in reply to the point of order that the remarks to 
which the gentleman objected, made by the gentleman from Mississippi, 
are not of themselves, from a parliamentary standpoint, objectionable. 
As to what may be the opinion of the gentleman from Mississippi as to 
what is involved in the controversy the Chair can not rule as to its 
wisdom or unwisdom.

  The debate having proceeded again, Mr. Hopkins, of Kentucky, said:

  As to my friend, Mr. Bennet, I can not say so much, for, sir, after 
two hours of debate here I am only more convinced that the statements I 
made were the reasonable and natural deductions of his conduct, and 
that I was right in making them.

  Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, said:

  Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order----

  The Speaker said:

  It is the duty of the Chair to say to the gentleman, in the opinion 
of the Chair, his remarks are not in order under the rules of the 
House, and the gentleman will please proceed in order.

  Mr. Payne insisted that Mr. Hopkins should not proceed.
  The Speaker said:

  The gentleman will please take his seat and await the pleasure of the 
House.

  Mr. David H. Smith, of Kentucky, moved that Mr. Hopkins be permitted 
to proceed in order.
  This motion was agreed to.
  After further debate the resolution offered by Mr. Gardner was agreed 
to, yeas 165, nays 91.\3\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Record, p. 5223.
  \2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \3\ Mr. Hopkins's speech as expurgated by the House appears on page 
5014 of the Record.
                                                            Sec. 6982
  6982. It is improper for a Member to have published in the Record the 
individual votes of Members on a question of which the yeas and nays 
have not been entered on the Journal.--On March 13, 1894,\1\ Mr. 
Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, presented, as involving a question of 
privilege, that Mr. Morse had on the preceding day, by way of a 
proposed correction of the record of the proceedings of Saturday last, 
stated and caused to be published in the Congressional Record the names 
of certain Members who had voted affirmatively on a question which had 
been pending and upon which the yeas and nays had not been demanded by 
one-fifth of the Members.
  Mr. Grosvenor made the point that to so indicate the names of Members 
voting was a violation of the privileges of Members.
  The Speaker \2\ expressed the opinion that such indication of the 
names of Members voting was improper.
  6983. The Speaker has no authority over the Congressional Record, but 
the House may correct it in any manner it may please.--On June 27, 
1884,\3\ Mr. Edward K. Valentine, of Nebraska, claiming the floor on a 
question of privilege, stated that Mr. William McAdoo, of New Jersey, 
had printed in the Record, as part of a speech purporting to have been 
delivered on a subject relating to the Soldiers' Home, a statement that 
one of a number of alleged land monopolists was Senator John A. Logan, 
who was alleged to own 80,000 acres. Mr. Valentine proposed to correct 
the statement.
  Messrs. William S. Holman, of Indiana, and Richard P. Bland, of 
Missouri, having raised points of order, the Speaker,\4\ said:

  The Chair does not think it a matter of privilege merely to correct 
an erroneous statement contained in the Record. If the gentleman has 
any resolution or proposition to submit to the House he can do so, and 
then the Chair will decide whether it is a question of privilege of 
not. * * * The Chair thinks that when a Member is granted leave to 
print he may print anything which he might have said in order on the 
floor of the House. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Valentine, so far 
has not disclosed anything which would have been out of order if spoken 
by a Member on the floor. * * * The Chair does not understand the 
language to refer to the gentleman in his Senatorial capacity, but the 
name is simply mentioned with others in the discussion of a general 
subject. * * * The Chair itself has no more power over the Record than 
any other Member of the House. If a resolution were offered to expunge 
certain matter from the Record, then the House of course could act upon 
that; but the Chair can not decide whether any particular matter should 
or should not be in the Record.

  Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, then presented as a question of 
privilege the following resolution:

  Resolved, That the Record of June 25, 1884, be so amended that it may 
show that the speech purporting to have been delivered by Mr. McAdoo, 
of New Jersey, in which reference is made to Senator John A. Logan and 
others, was not actually delivered in the House, but was ``printed'' in 
the Record of the 27th of June instant.

  Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, raised a question of order.
  The Speaker said:

  The House has the right to correct the Record in any manner it 
pleases. The Chair will therefore entertain the resolution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 244; Record, p. 
2905.
  \2\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 1578, 1581, 
1582; Record, pp. 5702, 5703, 5742.
  \4\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
Sec. 6984
  On June 28 the resolution was laid on the table.\1\
  6984. A question as to the authority of the Speaker over the 
Congressional Record.--On February 26, 1901,\2\ the conference report 
on the naval appropriation bill had been disagreed to, and the House 
was considering motions relating to the Senate amendments to the bill, 
when Mr. John J. Lentz, claiming the floor on a question of privilege, 
alleged that the copy of a speech left by him with the Public Printer 
for publication in the Congressional Record had not been published, but 
had been delivered to the Speaker and by the latter delivered to Mr. 
Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio. Mr. Lentz thereupon raised a question as 
to the authority of the Speaker to do this.
  The Speaker \3\ said:

  The attention of the Chair was yesterday called to the fact that a 
great abuse of the privilege of the House had been exercised by the 
gentleman from Ohio under the leave given him to print, and the Chair 
asked the young man who waits upon the Printing Office to hold the 
gentleman's remarks until the Chair could have an opportunity to glance 
over them; but amid the pressure of business of yesterday the Chair was 
unable to examine that and many other things left by Members upon his 
desk. Nor has he had time this morning; but not having the time the 
Chair only a short time ago, when the messenger came to him, told him 
to go ahead and print the gentleman's remarks, and if there was 
anything offensive or anything wrong it could be corrected by the 
House, which was the proper body to settle it. * * * The Chair will 
state to the gentleman that such matters have been repeatedly brought 
to the attention of the Chair, and by taking time and by getting the 
parties together who have been firing at each other in debate the 
matter has been fixed up. The Chair had an instance of that only last 
week, but the Chair had not in the closing hours time to attend to this 
thing.
  This young man when he spoke to me about it, representing the 
Printing Office, was given the copy an hour or so ago. It was in the 
hands of the Government Printer when the matter was brought to the 
attention of the Chair. The Chair has not read a single word, but has 
given direction that it must take the usual course, and if there is 
anything in it that is censurable it is for the House to do that if it 
sees proper. * * * The Chair makes this ruling, that if anything 
further is to be done in this matter a distinctive proposition must be 
submitted to the House.

  Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, thereupon offered this 
resolution:

  Resolved, That the Speaker has no right to withhold from the Record 
the speech of a Member made on a general leave to print.

  Mr. John F. Lacey, of Iowa, having raised the question of 
consideration, the House voted, yeas 118, nays 130, not to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. Richardson then offered the following:

  Whereas the speech of Mr. Lentz, of Ohio, on the general deficiency 
bill, made in the House on Wednesday last, February 20, has been 
withheld from publication in the Congressional Record after the same 
was delivered to the Public Printer for publication by Mr. Lentz; and
  Whereas said speech has been turned over to the Speaker of the House, 
who, it is alleged, has delivered same to a Member of the House for 
some purpose to the House unknown:
  Resolved, That such action is hereby condemned by the House, and it 
is hereby ordered that said speech be delivered forthwith to the Public 
Printer for publication in the Record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Journal, pp. 1581, 1582; Record, p. 5741.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 3092-3095.
  \3\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 6985
  Mr. Lacey having again raised the question of consideration, the 
House refused, yeas 115, nays 128, to consider the resolution.\1\
  6985. It is for the House and not the Chair to decide whether or not 
a copyrighted article shall be printed in the Congressional Record.--On 
March 27, 1900,\2\ while the army appropriation bill was under 
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, Mr. W. Jasper Talbert, of South Carolina, sent to the Clerk's 
desk to be read in his time a copyrighted article from a newspaper.
  Mr. John F. Lacey, of Iowa, made the point of order that a 
copyrighted article might not be printed in the Congressional Record 
without the consent of the owner of the copyright.
  After debate the Chairman \3\ said:

  The Chair can not pass upon the question whether or not a copyrighted 
article can be read here. He simply can act under the rules of the 
House, and if anybody makes objection to having the article read, he 
will ask the committee to decide whether or not they desire to have it 
read. * * * The Chair is perfectly clear on the subject. This is a 
question which the House must settle, and not the Chair. The Chair must 
therefore overrule the point of order. If the House prefers not to hear 
the article, not to have it published in the Record, that is for the 
House to determine, not for the Chair.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ The Chair should undoubtedly be very reluctant to hold that he 
has any final supervision or control over the Record. While the subject 
is one where the limits of authority are not well defined, the trend of 
decisions indicates that whatever supervisory power exists has usually 
been exercised by the House rather than by the Speaker. In a few 
instances the Speaker has directed extraneous matters, not belonging 
properly to the record of debates, to be stricken out. (See section 
6962 of this chapter.) He has also assumed the power to withhold from 
the Record words spoken by a Member after he had been called to order 
in debate. (See secs. 6975-6978 of this chapter.) In cases of alleged 
violations of leave to print the questions have been dealt with by the 
House itself (secs. 6979-6981 of this chapter), and Mr. Speaker 
Carlisle in one of these cases held that the Speaker did not have the 
determination of the matter. Mr. Speaker Keifer also disclaimed any 
control of the Record in a case where a member was alleged to have 
violated the privilege of extending his remarks.
  Apparently there have been no decisions as to the right of the 
Speaker to examine speeches presented for the Record under a leave to 
print. That he would have no final power to pass upon them and accept 
or reject seems evident. But it is not so evident that he does not, as 
the first officer of the House, have a duty in cases where matter is 
presented involving a breach of the privileges of the House.
  Take an instance. The rules of the House provide very carefully 
against any debate which reflects on anything said in the Senate, and 
the Speaker is especially enjoined by the rules to ``interfere 
immediately, and not to permit expressions to go unnoticed which may 
give a ground of complaint to the other House and introduce proceedings 
and mutual accusations between the two Houses, which can hardly be 
terminated without difficulty and disorder.'' (Jefferson's Manual, p. 
158.) In a case where a Member on the floor devoted a speech to 
reflections on the Senate, the House, after the subject had been 
considered by the Judiciary Committee, expunged the speech from the 
Record.
  Now, if a responsible officer or agent of the House or the Government 
Printer brings to the Speaker papers filed with the Printer and 
containing reflections on the other body, it would seem that the 
Speaker would be remiss in his duty if he should not bring those papers 
to the House for its judgment before allowing them to be printed. Can 
it be that the first officer of the House may know of a contemplated 
breach of the privileges of the House and be powerless to delay the act 
until the House can have the opportunity to pass judgment? The Chair 
may call from the floor a Member who to him appears to be transgressing 
the rules of privilege. Does the Member have any greater latitude 
because the House has extended to him the courtesy of printing in place 
of his right to be heard on the floor?
  \2\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 3367, 3368.
  \3\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 6986
  6986. The Committee of the Whole, having no control over the 
Congressional Record, reported to the House an alleged breach of 
privilege involved in the reading of an anonymous letter in the 
committee, and the House struck the letter from the Record.--On 
February 11, 1901,\1\ during general debate on the diplomatic and 
consular appropriation bill (H. R. 13850) in Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union, Mr. William Sulzer, of New York, read 
as a part of his remarks an anonymous letter containing insinuations 
against the integrity of a former official of the Government.
  At the conclusion of the reading of the letter, Mr. William S. Knox, 
of Massachusetts, claiming the floor on a question of privilege, moved 
to strike the letter from the Congressional Record.
  Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, made the point of order that 
the committee might not strike out any portion of the Record.
  The Chairman \2\ sustained the point of order.
  Later, on the same day,\3\ the bill was concluded and Mr. Robert R. 
Hitt, of Illinois, had moved that the committee rise and report the 
bill to the House with a favorable recommendation, when, at the request 
of Mr. Knox, he withdrew the motion.
  Thereupon Mr. Knox moved that when the committee should rise the 
Chairman should report to the House the alleged infringement of the 
privileges of the House by the gentleman from New York, by causing to 
be read a letter referring to Perry S. Heath, which letter was 
scandalous, and which was called to the attention of the committee by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, with a motion that the letter be 
stricken from the Record.
  Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, made a point of order against 
the proposed action, on the ground that the words objected to had not 
been taken down at the time, as required by the rule.
  After debate the Chairman held:

  The Chair understands the situation to be this: The gentleman from 
Illinois had made a motion that the committee rise, and that motion was 
entitled to precedence. At the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts he withdrew it, and there being no other business before 
the committee, the motion which has been read was in substance made by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts. It is not the function of the Chair 
to decide upon the character of the letter, whether it was in order or 
out of order, because no ruling of the Chair was invoked at the time 
the letter was read. It is not the function of the Chair to decide what 
action the House may take upon the report, if any is made, by direction 
of the committee. There seems to be no precedent on the subject exactly 
in point, but, for the reasons so clearly stated by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, which the Chair will not repeat, it seems to the Chair 
that the motion is in order. It seems that there is no other way in 
which a fact may be reported to the House except through the chairman 
of the committee, under the direction of the committee itself. The 
Chair therefore overrules the point of order. * * * The Chair will say 
to the gentleman from Tennessee that if the Chair understood the 
gentleman from Tennessee aright, it was the understanding of the Chair 
that if this motion should be agreed to it would be the duty of the 
Chair to report exactly the occurrence--how and when the letter was 
read, and how and when it was objected to by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.

  The motion offered by Mr. Knox was then agreed to, 77 ayes and 50 
noes, on a vote by tellers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2279.
  \2\ William H. Moody, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
  \3\ Record, p. 2285.
                                                            Sec. 6986
  The committee having voted to rise and report the bill with a 
favorable recommendation, the Speaker resumed the chair, and the 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole reported as follows:

  Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, having had under consideration House bill 13850, has directed me 
to report the same to the House with one amendment, with the 
recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and that the bill as so 
amended do pass. The Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union has directed me to make further report to the House in accordance 
with a resolution which was adopted by that committee in the following 
words:
  ``That when the committee rise, the chairman report to the House the 
alleged infringement of the privilege of the House by the gentleman 
from New York by causing to be read a letter referring to Perry S. 
Heath, which letter was scandalous, and which was called to the 
attention of the committee by the gentleman from Massachusetts, with a 
motion that the letter be struck from the Record.''
  Mr. Speaker, in the course of the debate under the five-minute rule 
in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Sulzer] was recognized, and there was read 
from the Clerk's desk in his time a certain letter, referred to in the 
motion which I have reported to the House. At the conclusion of the 
reading of the letter, the gentleman from New York, still being 
entitled to the floor, said, ``Now, Mr. Chairman,'' at which point he 
was interrupted by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Knox], who 
said:
  ``Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of the privilege of the House.''
  The gentleman from Massachusetts then, at the request of the Chair, 
stated the question of privilege which he desired to raise. It was that 
the letter which had been read affected the personal character of 
citizens of the United States. He closed his statement of the question 
of personal privilege by a motion to strike the letter from the Record. 
The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Richardson] made the point of order 
that the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union had no 
jurisdiction over the Record, which point of order was sustained by the 
Chair.

  The Speaker, having stated to the House the report of the Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole, said that the question would be first put 
on the bill which had been reported with a favorable recommendation. 
The bill was then acted on through its various stages, and finally 
passed.
  A quorum having failed the House adjourned.
  On February 12,\1\ the report of the Committee of the Whole on the 
subject of the letter was called up as unfinished business, and Mr. 
Knox proposed to offer a resolution declaring the letter an 
infringement of the privileges of the House and a violation of the 
propriety of debate, and striking it from the Record.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair desires to call the attention of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts to this point. The Committee of the Whole House reported 
to the House a resolution containing a motion that the letter be struck 
from the Record. That is the matter, in the opinion of the Chair, which 
is before this House: and the Chair has very grave doubts about the 
propriety of offering this resolution or submitting it to the House, 
considering the fact that the Committee of the Whole has laid bef ore 
the House, through the report of its Chairman, the resolution which was 
adopted in Committee of the Whole. * * * The Chair thinks that that 
puts the matter before the House. * * * The question is upon the motion 
to strike the letter from the Record. That was the question before the 
House. The Chair is of opinion that the rule requiring a resolution to 
precede consideration where the dignity of the House is involved is 
satisfied when the Committee of the Whole lays a resolution before the 
House. If this were an individual matter, of course the gentleman could 
be heard, and debate would proceed unless cut off by the previous 
question, or until the House was ready to pass upon it. That question, 
in the judgment of the Chair, is not presented now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Journal, p. 222; Record, pp. 2320, 2321.
  \2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
Sec. 6987
  After debate the House agreed to the motion that the letter be 
stricken from the Record.
  6987. While the Committee of the Whole does not control the Record, 
the Chairman, in the preservation of order, may direct the exclusion of 
disorderly words spoken by a Member after he has been called to order.
  The Speaker can not rule in regard to what occurs in Committee of the 
Whole unless the point of order is reported to the House for decision.
  The Speaker recognizes only reports from the Committee of the Whole, 
made by the Chairman thereof.
  On May 26, 1906,\1\ the diplomatic and consular appropriation bill 
was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union, when Mr. William W. Rucker, of Missouri, was called to order 
for referring to the proceedings of the Committee on Election of 
President, Vice-President, and Representatives in Congress.
  A motion was then made and agreed to that Mr. Rucker be permitted to 
proceed in order.
  Soon thereafter Mr. Rucker again referred to proceedings in the 
committee.
  Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, made a point of order.
  The Chairman \2\ sustained the point of order, and directed the 
stenographers to strike from the Record the words spoken out of order.
  Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, raised the question that while 
the Speaker might have control of the Record, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole did not.
  The Chairman said:

  The Chair has jurisdiction over matters spoken in the Committee of 
the Whole.

  Later Mr. Champ Clark, of Missouri, rising to a parliamentary 
inquiry, questioned the right of the Chairman to order stricken from 
the Record the remarks made by Mr. Rucker just before Mr. Olmsted rose 
to the question of order.
  The Chairman said:

  The rule gives the Chairman the right to enforce order in the 
Committee of the Whole, and such remarks as were made after the 
gentleman was called to order and after he was ruled out of order 
should be left out of the Record--that is, such remarks as were out of 
order after the gentleman was called to order. * * * The Speakers have 
always exercised it in the House, and the rule gives the Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole the same right to enforce order in 
committee. * * * The Chair desires to call the gentleman's attention to 
Hinds's Parliamentary Precedents, page 884:

  ``Mr. Kem, of Nebraska, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, asked if 
the remarks made by the gentleman upon the floor, out of order, were 
entitled to go into the Record, when objection was made. Mr. Grosvenor, 
of Ohio, made the point of order that the Record was not before the 
House and that the gentleman was not charged with any duty regarding it 
until the next morning. The Speaker said:
  `` `The Chair is obliged to say that the question of what goes into 
the Record is somewhat of a disputed point. Whatever is presented as a 
question of privilege and as a part of the proceedings of the House 
ought to go into the Record, but what is said after the question has 
been ruled upon by the Chair the Chair thinks ought not to go into the 
Record.' ''
  * * * The gentleman from Missouri misunderstood the Chair, because 
the Chair distinctly said that what was said by the gentleman from 
Missouri after the point was made and sustained should not go into the 
Record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 7469, 7472, 7473.
  \2\ Charles Curtis, of Kansas, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 6988
  Later, after the Committee of the Whole had risen and the Speaker had 
resumed the chair, Mr. Clark, claiming the floor for a question of 
privilege, stated what had occurred in Committee of the Whole.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The Chair has no knowledge of what took place in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union. The Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union is a committee consisting of all the Members, 
and the Chair has no means of ascertaining what took place in that 
committee except upon a report by the Chairman of that committee to the 
House. The Chair knows nothing from that report. The Chair has a 
precedent that is in hand, which will be found on page 403 of the 
Manual. It is as follows:

  ``The Speaker can not rule in regard to what occurs in Committee of 
the Whole unless the point of order is reported to the House for 
decision.''

  Mr. Clark stated that he was making such a report.
  The Speaker replied:

  But some other Member might disagree with the gentleman. The 
gentleman from Missouri bears no mission from the Committee of the 
Whole House to report to the House what happened there.

  Mr. Clark thereupon cited the following from the Manual:

  The Committee of the Whole, having no control over the Congressional 
Record, reported to the House an alleged breach of privilege involved 
in the reading of an anonymous letter in the committee, and the House 
struck the letter from the Record.\2\

  The Speaker replied:

  Precisely, but the gentleman is hoist by his own--* * * What the 
gentleman has just read is exactly in point as sustaining the Chair. * 
* * There is no report touching this matter made from the committee to 
the House, and therefore there is nothing upon which to base action.

  6988. It is for the House and not for the Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole to determine the privileges of a Member under a general 
leave to print in the Record.--On February 24, 1899,\3\ while the army 
appropriation bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union, Mr. Henry U. Johnson, of Indiana, 
having completed his remarks to the committee, addressed to the 
Chairman this parliamentary inquiry:

  By virtue of the general leave given by the House to extend remarks 
in the Record in the debate, have I not the right to put the whole of 
the address that the President of the United States delivered before 
the Home Market Club at Boston, in the Record with my speech?

  The Chairman \4\ said:

  The Chair desires to say to the gentleman from Indiana--and the Chair 
hopes the gentleman will give his attention--that the House and not the 
committee gave gentlemen who address the committee on this bill the 
privilege to extend their remarks in the Record. Each gentleman can 
exercise his judgment upon that, and it is a matter for the House to 
determine when those remarks are printed, and not for the chairman of 
the committee.

  6989. The amendment of the Record is not in order pending the 
approval of the Journal.--On May 29, 1906,\5\ a motion to amend the 
Journal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \2\ This paragraph covered a case wherein a motion had been made to 
strike something from the Record, not to an action of a Chairman in 
enforcing order in debate. See section 6986 of this chapter.
  \3\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2316.
  \4\ Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \5\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 7624.
Sec. 6990
made by Mr. Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, was pending, when Mr. 
Champ Clark, of Missouri, asked if the effect of the motion would be to 
amend the Congressional Record also.
  The Speaker \1\ replied that it would not.
  Thereupon Mr. Olmsted proposed to include the amendment of the Record 
in his motion.
  The Speaker held that such a proposition would not be in order.
  6990. The practice of inserting in the Record remarks not actually 
delivered on the floor has grown up by consent of the House.--On May 
23, 1860,\2\ an attempt was made to provide that the reporters of the 
Globe should not print anything spoken by a Member who had not first 
been recognized by the Speaker, and that nothing said in the House and 
declared to be out of order should be reported, nor anything not 
actually said in debate. This proposition was defeated, yeas 75, nays 
82.
  6991. On July 20, 1867,\3\ the House gave Members leave to print 
speeches that they had been unable to deliver as part of the debate in 
the Globe on the President's veto of the bill relating to the more 
efficient government of the rebel States.
  6992. On May 20, 1852,\4\ a complaint was made that a Member had 
inserted in the Globe a speech that he did not make on the floor of the 
House, and a demand that the speech should be distinguished in some way 
from speeches actually delivered. Nothing was done about it, however.
  6993. On December 29, 1852,\5\ complaint was made that a Member had 
printed as part of the proceedings of the House a speech which he had 
not delivered. It was stated at the time that the custom had been for 
Members to print undelivered speeches as part of the Appendix, but not 
as part of the proceedings. The result of the discussion was the 
adoption of a resolution forbidding the reporters to insert in the 
Globe as part of the proceedings of the House speeches not made in the 
House, unless by leave of the House. A proviso was also adopted that 
nothing in this arrangement should prevent any Member correcting or 
revising the reporters' notes.
  6994. On December 23, 1884,\6\ in the Senate, the abuses of the leave 
to print in the Congressional Record were the subject of an interesting 
debate.
  6995. In 1870,\7\ the Senate sent to the House a concurrent 
resolution to prohibit the printing of the Globe of speeches not 
actually delivered. The House referred it to the Committee on Rules.
  6996. On January 22, 1874,\8\ the House received from the Senate a 
concurrent resolution providing that it should be unlawful for the 
Printer to publish in the Record any speech or portion of speech not 
actually delivered in the Senate or House. The House referred the 
resolution to the Committee on Printing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Thirty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 908; Globe, p. 
2284.
  \3\ First session Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 757.
  \4\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, p. 1419.
  \5\ Second session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 90, 91; 
Globe, pp. 169-173.
  \6\ Second session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 422.
  \7\ Second session Forty-first Congress, Journal, p. 417; Globe, p. 
1457.
  \8\ First session Forty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 288, 296.
                                                            Sec. 6997
  6997. The House and not the Speaker determines what liberty shall be 
allowed to a Member who has leave to extend his remarks in the 
Record.--On February 27, 1899,\1\ Mr. Henry U. Johnson, of Indiana, 
rising to a parliamentary inquiry, stated that leave had been granted 
to Members participating in the debate on the army appropriation bill 
``to extend their remarks in the Record,'' and he desired to know 
whether or not that leave would permit a Member who, during debate in 
Committee of the Whole, submitted some criticisms on the address of the 
President recently delivered at the Home Market Club in Boston to 
incorporate the address of the President into his remarks in the 
Record?
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair does not like to pass upon a question of this sort in 
answer to a parliamentary inquiry, for the reason that he would be 
usurping the functions of the House. The Chair thinks the difficulty 
may be solved by the gentleman from Indiana asking unanimous consent of 
the House. Gentlemen will at once perceive that the House might be 
entirely willing that certain documents should be printed which had 
been criticized; but if a general rule were undertaken to be 
established, then by a little criticism on a book the whole book might 
be printed, a thing which the House has hitherto desired to avoid, 
although it has not always been successful.

  6998. The House and not the Speaker decides whether or not a Member 
has exceeded the leave given him to print in the Record.
  References to the practice of permitting Members to print in the 
Congressional Record speeches which they have not delivered on the 
floor.
  On April 14, 1892,\3\ Mr. Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, called 
attention to the fact that nearly all of the chapters of a printed book 
entitled Protection or Free Trade had been incorporated in the remarks 
of Mr. Stone, of Kentucky, and other Members of the House published in 
the Congressional Record under the general leave-to-print remarks on 
the bill H. R. 6007; and submitted to the Speaker the question of order 
whether it was in order by virtue of such leave to print for Members to 
embody in their respective speeches the several parts of a printed book 
the author of which was not a Member of the House.
  The Speaker,\4\ in response to the question, stated it had always 
been a question to be determined by the House itself whether or not any 
gentleman under a leave to print has violated the rules or the practice 
that had prevailed in that respect. The extent to which a Member should 
print was not a matter for the Chair to determine.
  Mr. Burrows then moved that there be omitted from the permanent 
Record the printed matter he had just indicated.
  Mr. George W. Fithian, of Illinois, moved to amend the motion by 
striking out from the Record, on pages 3453 and 3454, a letter 
published in a speech of Mr. J. P. Dolliver over the name of R. G. 
Hall.
  Mr. Burrows then withdrew his motion.
  6999. On February 8, 1896,\5\ Mr. George D. Perkins, of Iowa, on 
behalf of the Committee on Printing, called attention to the fact that 
under a general leave to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2472.
  \2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 144; Record, pp. 
3299-3306.
  \4\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 1531, 1532.
Sec. 7000
print, which had specified that speeches should be such ``as might 
ordinarily be delivered in the House, with such extracts as are usually 
read and belong to a speech, and not chapters from books, etc.,'' one 
Member had inserted a speech delivered by a Senator, while a second 
Member had inserted a speech delivered out of the House, in a distant 
part of the country, by another Member.
  In the course of the debate the Speaker \1\ said:

  It rests largely upon the good faith of Members what shall be printed 
under a general leave to print, and it is very possible that the 
particular cases which are made the subject of question on this 
occasion might readily be disposed of with the consent of the gentlemen 
who have put the speeches in the Record, the presumption being that 
they did not intend to violate the rule.

  By unanimous consent the speeches were allowed to remain in the 
Record.
  7000. On May 11, 1896,\2\ Mr. George D. Perkins, of Iowa, of the 
Joint Committee on Printing, offered this motion:

  Mr. Perkins moves to strike out of the permanent Record the matter 
inserted by Mr. Joseph Wheeler, of Alabama, on Friday last, aside from 
the matter, according to the reporter's notes, delivered by him in his 
five minutes' time, said matter being on pages 5472, 5473, 5474, and 
5475.

  After debate the motion was agreed to by the House.
  7001. A Member having obtained leave to print certain matter in the 
Record, and having inserted other matter, the House directed it to be 
stricken out.--On March 26, 1898,\3\ Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, 
moved to strike from the Record a portion of certain matter which had 
been inserted in the Record by Mr. Richmond Pearson, of North Carolina, 
by permission of the House granted on the preceding day.
  On that day Mr. Pearson, having risen to a question of privilege, had 
stated that he had been charged with violating the franking privilege, 
and asked leave to insert in the Record the evidence of the 
untruthfulness of that charge. This consent was given.
  When the evidence appeared in the Record there was included with it a 
newspaper axticle on a subject relating to the politics of North 
Carolina.
  After debate the motion of Mr. Bailey was agreed to, and the 
extraneous matter was stricken out.
  7002. The House quite generally stipulates, in granting leave to 
print, that it shall be exercised without unreasonable freedom.--In 
1892 the leave to print in the House was taken advantage of for the 
insertion in the Record of entire books that had already been published 
and copyrighted. A volume of Henry George was one of the volumes thus 
printed. This abuse was the subject of debate in the House and Senate, 
and on April 19, 1892,\4\ the House, for the purpose of stopping the 
practice for the time, adopted a resolution reported from the Committee 
on Rules revoking all leaves to print. It was the purpose of the House 
by this action to prevent further abuse of the privilege under existing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 5123-5125.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 3245-3248.
  \4\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Record, pp. 3299, 3415, 
3437.
                                                            Sec. 7003
leaves to print and in future to cause a stipulation to be made with 
each leave that no such abuse should be allowed.\1\
  7003. On February 27, 1901,\2\ the House had agreed to the conference 
report on the Military Academy appropriation bill, when Mr. Theobold 
Otjen, of Wisconsin, asked unanimous consent for leave to print remarks 
on the bill just passed.
  This request was granted, subject to a condition imposed by Mr. 
George W. Steele, of Indiana, that the remarks should be confined to 
subjects included in the bill.
  7004. A Member having, under leave to print, made charges against 
another Member, the House ordered the speech stricken from the Record.
  In debating a resolution to strike from the Record disorderly 
language, a Member may not read the said language.
  On March 21, 1904,\3\ Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, claiming the 
floor for a question of privilege, presented this resolution:

  Whereas Hon. Robert Baker, of New York, on March 18, 1904, obtained 
leave in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to 
insert remarks in the Record; and
  Whereas under the leave so given he has printed as his remarks 
charges against a Member of this House in his representative capacity; 
and
  Whereas the said charges against the character of a Member were not 
in order and were an abuse of the privilege of the House: Therefore,
  Resolved, That the said remarks, extending on pages 3603, 3604, and 
3605 of the Record of the date of March 18, 1904, be, and are hereby, 
expunged from the Record, and are declared not to be a legitimate part 
of the official debates of the House.

  Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, while admitting that certain 
portions of the remarks should be stricken out, contended that the 
whole speech should not go out; and was proceeding to read certain 
paragraphs which, he contended, should be allowed to remain.
  Mr. Sereno E. Payne raised the question of order that matter which it 
was proposed to strike out might not be included in the Record in this 
indirect way.
  The Speaker \4\ held that the point of order was well taken.
  After debate, during which Mr. Baker did not get the floor, Mr. 
Hepburn moved the previous question, which was ordered, yeas 130, nays 
97.
  Thereupon the resolution was agreed to.
  Mr. Baker intimated dissatisfaction at not having had an opportunity 
to explain.
  7005. When a Member, under leave to print, places in the Record that 
which would not have been in order if uttered on the floor, the House 
may exclude the speech in whole or in part.
  An abuse of the leave to print gives rise to a question of privilege.
  On February 22, 1870,\5\ Mr. Henry L. Dawes, of Massachusetts, rising 
to a question of privilege, commented upon the fact that the printing 
of speeches in the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Leaves to print may regularly be granted by resolution of the 
House reported by the Committee on Rules and agreed to by the House, or 
by unanimous consent of the House without reference to the committee.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3159.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 3470-3474; 
Journal, pp. 462, 463.
  \4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \5\ Second session Forty-first Congress, Journal, p. 363; Globe, pp. 
1481, 3849.
Sec. 7006
Globe that had not been delivered in the House--a practice unknown when 
he entered the House--had grown to considerable proportions, and 
offered the following:

  Whereas Hon. William Mungen, a Member of this House, did, on the 19th 
instant, obtain unanimous consent of the House in Committee of the 
Whole to print in the Globe, as if delivered in the House, a speech not 
otherwise delivered, and did cause a speech to be so printed in the 
Daily Globe of the 20th instant as if delivered in the House and under 
its rules, alleged to be of such a character as to be an abuse of the 
privilege so obtained and a violation of the rules of the House: 
Therefore,
  Resolved, That the Committee on Rules be instructed to inquire and 
report whether the said William Mungen, in causing the said speech to 
be printed as aforesaid, has not abused the privilege thus obtained, 
violated the rules of the House, and deserved its censure; and that in 
the meantime the said speech be excluded from the Congressional Globe.

  Mr. Charles A. Eldridge, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that 
the Member from Ohio could not be called to order for the words, as 
business had transpired since then.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The Chair overrules the point of order, because, even if it were good 
in other respects, the indulgence of the House had put it beyond the 
power of any Member to insist on the rules of order. The rules of the 
House could not then be enforced.

  After debate the resolution was agreed to.
  On May 26, 1870, Mr. James A. Garfield, of Ohio, from the Committee 
on Rules, proposed to report the following resolution, but as Mr. 
Mungen was not present deferred doing so. It does not appear that the 
matter was again taken up.

  Resolved, That the speech on ``The recognition of Cuba,'' inserted in 
the Daily Globe of February 20, 1870, under leave to print granted to 
Hon. William Mungen, of Ohio, contains remarks of a personal character 
prohibited by the rules of the House, and not proper to be inserted in 
the Congressional Globe, and the publishers of the Globe are hereby 
directed to exclude it.

  7006. On April 14, 1871,\2\ Mr. George C. McKee, of Mississippi, 
called attention to a printed speech of Mr. A. E. Garrett, of 
Tennessee, wherein was incorporated an extract from a newspaper abusive 
of Adelbert Ames, a Member of the United States Senate from 
Mississippi.
  Thereupon Mr. James A. Garfield, of Ohio, offered the following:

  Whereas A. E. Garrett, a Member of this House from the Third district 
of Tennessee, did cause to be printed in the Daily Globe of April 14, 
1871, as if delivered in the House on the 5th of April, and under its 
rules, by him, a speech in which was contained a reference to Hon. 
Adelbert Ames, a Senator of the United States from the State of 
Mississippi, in the words following [here follows the extract]: 
Therefore,
  Be it resolved, That the said A. E. Garrett has thereby committed a 
gross breach of the privileges of this House, and that he be forthwith 
brought before the bar of this House and be there reprimanded by the 
House, and that the printer of the Congressional Globe be instructed 
not to insert the speech in which such words occur in the Congressional 
Globe.

  Mr. Garrett having expressed regret to the House, Mr. Garfield 
modified his resolution, and it was agreed to in the following form:

  Whereas A. E. Garrett, a Representative from the Third district of 
Tennessee, has this day, in open session, expressed to the House his 
regret that he caused to be printed in the Daily Globe of April 14, 
1871, a speech containing a passage in gross violation of the rules and 
privileges of this House: Therefore,
  Resolved, That the printers of the Globe shall be instructed not to 
print said speech in the Congressional Globe, and that no further 
action be taken in the premises.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ James G. Blaine, of Maine, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Forty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 156, 196; 
Globe, pp. 671, 672.
                                                            Sec. 7007
  Subsequently, on April 18, this resolution was reconsidered and so 
modified as to exclude only the offensive portions of the speech.
  7007. On December 12, 1884,\1\ Mr. A. J. Warner, of Ohio, as a 
question of privilege, submitted the following preamble and resolution:

  Whereas Hon. Joseph D. Taylor, of Ohio, on the 5th day of July, 
1884--the House being in session, and having under consideration the 
Mexican pension bill with Senate amendments--having obtained the floor, 
occupied the time of the House for six minutes in remarks upon said 
bill; and
  Whereas on the 7th day of July said Joseph D. Taylor obtained leave 
to extend his remarks in the Record; and
  Whereas, instead of extending his remarks under said leave, said 
Joseph D. Taylor did, after the adjournment of Congress, have printed 
in a copy of the Record, bearing date of issue August 1, 1884, a 
written speech or paper, not embracing his remarks in the House, but 
containing sentences and paragraphs reflecting upon Members of the 
House in their representative capacity, upon committees of the House, 
and upon the House itself, and referring to and reporting, or 
purporting to report, the action of and occurrences in one of the 
committees of the Senate--all in violation of the implied obligation in 
his leave to extend his remarks in the Record, and in violation of the 
privileges and rules of the House: Therefore
  Be it resolved, That the parts of said speech reflecting upon Members 
of the House, or of any committee of the House, or on the House itself, 
or relating to what took place in any committee of the Senate are 
unparliamentary and an abuse of the privileges of the House, and of its 
leave to print, and are hereby declared not to be a legitimate part of 
the official debates of the House.

  The extracts presented with the resolution charged committees of the 
House with not deigning to consider certain bills and intimated that 
certain bills in the interest of the soldiers had been suppressed by 
stealth and cowardice. Another sentence denounced the attitude of the 
House as an outrage on justice. Another passage explained certain 
changes in a Senate committee which had resulted in action by that 
committee.
  After debate a motion to refer the preamble and resolution to the 
Committee on Rules was decided in the negative, yeas 94, nays 161. The 
preamble and resolution were then agreed to, yeas 164, nays 62.
  7008. On March 18, 1892.\2\ Mr. George Fred Williams, of 
Massachusetts, rising to a question of personal privilege, called the 
attention of the House to the fact that Mr. Joseph H. Walker, of 
Massachusetts, under a leave to print, had published in the Record 
words not spoken in the House, which reflected on certain of his 
Massachusetts colleagues, on the officers of the House, and on Members 
of the Senate. After debate the subject was referred to the Committee 
on Printing, with instructions to report whether or not the privileges 
of the House had been violated and whether any portions should be 
expunged from the Record.
  On March 21 \3\ Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, reported from 
the committee the following resolutions:

  Resolved, That the House, deeming it a high duty that the courtesy 
and decorum required by parliamentary law and practice should 
characterize debate and the conduct of Members at all times in their 
official relations, hereby expresses its disapproval of the 
unparliamentary language used by Hon. Joseph H. Walker, a 
Representative from the State of Massachusetts, in that portion of his 
speech printed in the Record on the 17th instant, but which was not 
delivered on the floor. And considering
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 73-76; Record, 
pp. 205-217.
  \2\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 107; Record, p. 
2193.
  \3\ Journal, pp. 110, 159; Record, pp. 2271, 3631; Appendix, p. 622.
Sec. 7009
it impracticable to separate the unparliamentary portions of said 
speech from such parts thereof as may be parliamentary: Therefore
  Be it further resolved, That the Public Printer is directed to 
exclude, etc. [describing the portions to be excluded].

  The committee in their report found that the speech contained 
personalities aimed at Members of the House; that it arraigned the 
motives of Members; that it mentioned Members by name instead of by 
descriptive phrase; that it referred to a Member of the Senate not only 
by name but ``in a vulgar and common way;'' that it charged a Member of 
the Senate with influencing the action of the Speaker, and charged the 
Speaker with certain motives in taking a certain course of action. The 
committee concluded that these expressions would not be permitted on 
the floor, and that it should not be permissible to print in the Record 
that which might not be uttered on the floor.
  On April 25 the resolutions of the committee were considered, but the 
effort to agree to them was thwarted by obstructive tactics on the part 
of the minority. And they were never adopted, and the speech with the 
objectionable portions remained in the Record and appears in the 
Appendix.
  7009. General leave to print may be granted only by the House, 
although in Committee of the Whole a Member, by unanimous consent, is 
sometimes given leave to extend his remarks.--On May 28, 1902,\1\ the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union was considering 
the bill (H. R. 12704) to increase the subsidiary silver coinage, when 
Mr. Charles F. Cochran, of Missouri, asked unanimous consent that all 
Members who should address the committee on the bill might extend their 
remarks in the Record.
  The Chairman \2\ said:

  That request will have to be made in the House. * * * It can be done 
in individual cases by the committee, but general leave to print can 
not be granted by the Committee of the Whole House.

  7010. On February 8, 1905,\3\ while the railroad rate bill (H. R. 
18588) was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union, Mr. Robert Baker, of New York, asked unanimous 
consent for leave to extend his remarks in the Record.
  Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, raised the question of order 
that the Committee of the Whole might not entertain such a request.
  The Chairman \4\ said:

  The Chair will state to the gentleman that technically his point of 
order is correct, but it has been the practice in this committee to 
grant an individual request for leave to extend remarks in the Record.

  7011. An abuse of the leave to print in the Congressional Record 
gives rise to a question of privilege.--A Member having printed in the 
Record under leave to print a copyrighted poem, a question of privilege 
was raised, and the matter was referred to the Committee on Rules.\5\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6052.
  \2\ James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, Chairman.
  \3\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2137.
  \4\ Frank D. Currier, of New Hampshire, Chairman.
  \5\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2649. The 
committee permitted the poem to remain in the Record, and it appears on 
page 337 and succeeding pages of the Appendix of the Record of the 
second session Forty-sixth Congress.
                                                            Sec. 7012
  7012. A resolution to expunge from the Record a speech alleged to be 
an abuse of the leave to print must be entertained as a matter of 
privilege.
  An inquiry by the House as to an alleged abuse of the leave to print 
does not necessarily entitle the Member implicated to the floor on a 
question of personal privilege.
  It is for the House and not the Speaker to pass on an alleged abuse 
of the leave to print in the Congressional Record.
  On June 8, 1886,\1\ Mr. William D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, as a 
question of privilege, presented the following resolution:

  Whereas it appears from the publication in the Congressional Record 
of June 6 of a speech of Hon. Joseph Wheeler, of Alabama, purporting to 
have been made on the evenings of May 28 and June 4, by unanimous 
consent of the House, the House then having under consideration the 
Private Calendar under the special order of January 15, 1886, that said 
Joseph Wheeler had been guilty of an abuse of the order of the House, 
inasmuch as no part of said speech had been made in support of, or 
opposition to, or with reference to any bill granting a pension 
reported from the Committee on Invalid Pensions or the Committee on 
Pensions, or to a bill reported from the Judiciary Committee to remove 
political disabilities, which three classes of bills constituted the 
sole objects that might be considered under the said order of January 
15, in pursuance of which the said meetings of May 28 and June 4 had 
been held: Therefore,
  Be it resolved, That as the delivery of said speech and its 
publication in the Record were without sanction of the House and in 
contravention of its special order, the said speech be expunged from 
the Record, and that the Public Printer be directed to omit it from the 
permanent Record, and be prohibited from issuing any copy or copies 
thereof in pamphlet or other form from the columns of the daily Record.

  Mr. John H. Reagan, of Texas, made the point of order that the 
remarks, having been made at an evening session by the unanimous 
consent of the House, could not be an offense against the House, and 
that no question of privilege was presented or involved.
  The Speaker \2\ ruled:

  It is not within the province of the Chair to decide whether the 
matter in question is or is not an abuse of the orders or rules of the 
House. It is alleged by the gentleman from Pennsylvania to be an abuse 
of the order of the House, and it is for the House itself to decide 
whether that allegation is true or not. All the Chair can do is to 
determine that the charge made and the motion made to expunge the 
speech from the Record, which contains the official proceedings of the 
House, presents a question which the Chair must entertain as a matter 
of privilege. It is for the House itself to say whether the charge made 
is true or not, and whether the speech in question should be expunged 
from the Record or not. The Chair can not decide that question.

  Mr. Springer made the further point of order that, under clause 5 of 
Rule XIV,\3\ the question presented by Mr. Kelley was not in order, 
business having intervened since the words excepted to were spoken.
  The Speaker held that that was also a question for the House to 
decide, and not within the duty or province of the Chair to pass upon.
  The speech of Mr. Wheeler, to which objection was made, had contained 
certain statements in regard to the late Secretary of War, Edwin M. 
Stanton, and in presenting the resolution Mr. Kelley denounced those 
statements as slanders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 5416, 5420; 
Journal, p. 1835.
  \2\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \3\ For this rule see section 5177 of this volume.
Sec. 7013
  Mr. Wheeler thereupon claimed, as a matter of personal privilege, the 
right to reply to what he termed the charge of slander thus made.
  The Speaker ruled:

  Unless the gentleman from Alabama can point out some statement in the 
speech of the gentleman from Pennsylvania which imputes to him some 
improper or some corrupt motive, or some false statement knowingly 
made, or some attempt to deceive and impose on the House, it presents 
no question of personal privilege, and that the only matter before the 
House is simply the merits of the proposition of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania to expunge from the Record a certain speech.
  The Chair will also state, in his opinion, when a motion is under 
consideration which implies in any degree the censure of a Member of 
the House there must necessarily be allowed more latitude of expression 
in reference to that matter than in the ordinary discussion of a matter 
of legislation pending before the House. Otherwise a charge against a 
Member could never be properly prosecuted on the floor of the House. 
The discussion of such matters, when it is confined legitimately to the 
merits of the proposition actually before the House, can not present 
questions of privilege of which the Member whose conduct is assailed 
can avail himself. * * *
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania did undoubtedly charge that the 
statements contained in the speech of the gentleman from Alabama were 
slanders upon the memory of Mr. Stanton, and he gave that as one of the 
reasons why the speech, under the circumstances, should be expunged 
from the Record. But the Chair thinks, as has just been stated, that 
when a charge is made against the conduct of a Member, or a motion to 
expunge some matter from the Record, the statement of the reasons why 
that should be done, if pertinent to the motion, does not present a 
question of privilege; otherwise there would be no end to the 
discussion of the proposition either on a motion to censure or to expel 
or to expunge matter from the Record; for every statement made, 
although absolutely necessary in order to inform the House what the 
charge really was, would involve a question of privilege, to which the 
Member could respond as a matter of right, and he could continue to 
exercise this right throughout the whole discussion any time the 
charge, or the reasons for it, should be repeated.

  7013. A motion for the correction of the Congressional Record may be 
made properly after the reading and approval of the Journal.--On July 
8, 1898,\1\ Mr. Levin I. Handy, of Delaware, made this motion:

  I move to correct the Record by striking out all on page 7578, all on 
page 7579, and on the following page, 7580, to wit, all beginning with 
the words ``The Dingley bill has done remarkably well'' down to and 
including the words ``This is all any nation assumes to do.''
  I make this motion, Mr. Speaker, because the language which I propose 
to strike out and expunge from the Record was not spoken on the floor, 
and because it was not and is not within the privilege to print given 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ray), in whose remarks it appears 
in the Record.

  Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked 
if the motion was in order at this time.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair thinks it is in order. It comes at the close of the reading 
of the Journal.\3\ The gentleman made his point as soon as the House 
met.

  7014. Since the reporters of debates have become officers of the 
House a correction of the Congressional Record has been held to be a 
question of privilege.--On February 17, 1854,\4\ Mr. Speaker Boyd held 
that there was no privilege whatever connected with the Congressional 
Globe, and that a proposition to correct it had no standing as a 
question of privilege.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 6799.
  \2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \3\ The Speaker omitted to add the approval of the Journal also, for 
obviously a motion to correct the Record might not be offered while the 
question on the approval of the Journal was pending.
  \4\ First session Thirty-third Congress, Globe, p. 443.
                                                            Sec. 7015
  7015. On June 24, 1870,\1\ Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, 
presented a letter from the publishers of the Globe in relation to 
changes made in the report of a remark made by Mr. Randall in 
controversy with Mr. Benjamin F. Butler, of Massachusetts. The change 
had been made by Mr. Butler. Mr. Speaker Blaine declined to hold that 
this involved a question of privilege.
  7016. On January 23, 1877,\2\ Mr. William Hartzell, of Illinois, 
sought the floor announcing that he wished to move a correction of the 
Record.
  The Speaker \3\ said:

  Heretofore it has been ruled that the correction of the Record is not 
a privileged question; but since the reporters have become, in the 
fullest sense, officers of the House, the Chair is inclined to believe 
that the correction of the Record is, equally with the correction of 
the Journal, a privileged question. He therefore recognizes the 
gentleman to make such a correction.

  7017. A question as to the accuracy or propriety of anything 
contained in the official records of debates may be submitted to the 
House as a matter of privilege.
  As a general principle the Speaker has no control over the official 
record of debates.
  A Member having abused a leave to print on the last day of a session, 
the House condemned the abuse and declared the matter not a legitimate 
part of the official debates.
  The House condemned as unparliamentary a printed speech for its 
reflections on Members, committees of the House, and the House itself, 
and for its references to alleged occurrences in a committee of the 
Senate.
  On December 12, 1884,\4\ Mr. A. J. Warner, of Ohio, rising to a 
question of privilege, presented the following preamble and resolution:

  Whereas Hon. Joseph D. Taylor, of Ohio, on the 5th day of July, 
1884--the House being in session, and having under consideration the 
Mexican pension bill with Senate amendments--having obtained the floor, 
occupied the time of the House for six minutes in remarks upon said 
bill; and
  Whereas on the 7th day of July said Joseph D. Taylor obtained leave 
to extend his remarks in the Record; and
  Whereas instead of extending his remarks under said leave, said 
Joseph D. Taylor did, after the adjournment of Congress, have printed 
in a copy of the Record, bearing date of issue August 1, 1884, a 
written speech, or paper, not embracing his remarks in the House, but 
containing sentences and paragraphs reflecting upon Members of the 
House in their representative capacity, upon committees of the House, 
and upon the House itself, and referring to and reporting, or 
purporting to report, the action of and occurrences in one of the 
committees of the Senate--all in violation of the implied obligation in 
his leave to extend his remarks in the Record, and in violation of the 
privileges and rules of the House: Therefore,
  Be it resolved, That the parts of said speech reflecting upon Members 
of the House, or of any committee of the House, or on the House itself, 
or relating to what took place in any committee of the Senate, are 
unparliamentary and an abuse of the privileges of the House and of his 
leave to print, and are hereby declared not to be a legitimate part of 
the official debates of the House.

  Mr. Thomas M. Browne, of Indiana, made the point of order that no 
question of order was presented.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Forty-first Congress, Journal, p. 1081; Globe, pp. 
4797, 4798.
  \2\ Second session Forty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 832, 833.
  \3\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 205, 217; 
Journal, pp. 73, 74.
Sec. 7018
  The Speaker,\1\ in ruling, said:

  The gentleman from Ohio in this resolution asks for the judgment and 
action of the House itself as to whether or not this publication in the 
Record is a violation of the rules. The question the Chair has to 
decide is whether the gentleman has the right as a matter of privilege 
to ask the judgment of the House on a matter affecting the official 
record of its debates. * * *
  The question, and the only question, for the Chair to determine is 
whether it is not sufficient when a Member rises in his place on the 
floor and suggests that certain things have been done in violation of 
the rules of the House and asks the judgment of the House upon the 
statement he makes--whether it is not the duty of the Chair to submit 
that question to the House for its determination. * * *
  If the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Taylor, for instance, whose remarks 
are complained of, was on the floor addressing the House, any 
gentleman, although he might be speaking in entire accordance with the 
rules of the House, would have the right to rise to a question of 
privilege, and make a point of order that his remarks were not in order 
under the rules of the House, and the gentleman would be required to 
suspend until the matter had been passed upon by the Chair.
  The difference between the two cases is simply this, that now the 
matter to which reference is made has passed beyond the control of the 
Chair, because it has gone into the official record of the debates of 
the House over which the Chair has no control, but over which the House 
has itself complete control.
  The Chair thinks that although the complaint made by the gentleman 
from Ohio might prove to be entirely without foundation, yet it is his 
privilege to present the matter to the House, his right to call the 
attention of the House to it as a matter of privilege; and the Chair 
must submit the question to the House for its action under all the 
practice and rulings heretofore.

  After debate, in which Mr. Taylor participated, the House agreed to 
the resolution, yeas 164, nays 62.
  7018. On January 7, 1892,\2\ Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, 
as a question of privilege, offered the following resolution:

  Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the joint Committee on Printing be, and is hereby, ordered to 
examine into the errors in the index to the Congressional Record of the 
present session of Congress, and, if possible to do so, to take such 
steps as will in future remedy the defects and correct the errors 
therein.

  Mr. James B. McCreary, of Kentucky, having raised a question of order 
as to whether or not the resolution was privileged,
  The Speaker pro tempore\3\ said:

  It is the custom of the House to keep a journal of its proceedings 
and also a record, setting forth the proceedings more fully than they 
are set forth in the Journal. The Chair thinks that whatever affects 
its integrity, if it has omissions, is a question of privilege. * * * 
The Chair thinks that under the usual practice of the House all 
questions affecting the integrity of the Record are privileged.

  7019. A resolution to correct the Congressional Record is privileged, 
and such correction is not within control of the Speaker.--On March 8, 
1902,\4\ after the reading and approval of the Journal, Mr. John W. 
Gaines, of Tennessee, called the attention of the Chair and the House 
to an alleged error in the report of certain remarks made by himself on 
the preceding day.
  The Speaker \5\ said:

  The correction of the Record is privileged, but if the gentlemen do 
not agree in respect to it, a resolution of the House will have to be 
submitted. * * * The gentleman from Tennessee must realize the fact 
that this is not a matter within the control of the Presiding Officer, 
and there is nothing before the House now unless he offers a resolution 
or makes a motion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Record, p. 194.
  \3\ Benton McMillin, of Tennessee, Speaker pro tempore.
  \4\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2524.
  \5\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 7020
  7020. A question of privilege as to an alleged error in the Record 
may not be raised until the Record has appeared.--On April 24, 1900,\1\ 
during consideration of the joint resolution (S. 116) ``to provide for 
the administration of civil affairs in Porto Rico pending the 
appointment and qualification of civil officers provided for in the act 
approved April 12, 1900, entitled,'' etc., extracts from the notes of 
the reporters of debates were read in a decision on a point of order.
  Mr. Ebenezer J. Hill, of Connecticut, claiming the floor on a 
question of privilege, proposed to correct the Record just read.
  The Speaker \2\ held that it could not be done until the succeeding 
day.
  7021. A resolution to omit from the manuscript copy of the 
Congressional Record certain remarks declared out of order does not 
present a question of privilege.--On January 27, 1885,\3\ during debate 
on the subject of certain alleged alterations in the notes of the 
reporters of the House, Mr. John D. White, of Kentucky, was several 
times called to order for not confining himself to the subject under 
consideration.
  At the conclusion of Mr. White's remarks, Mr. Samuel S. Cox, of New 
York, rising to a question of privilege, offered this resolution:

  Resolved, That the remarks of Mr. White, of Kentucky, on the 
resolution which he submitted this morning were delivered out of order, 
and that the official reporters be directed to omit them from the 
Record.

  The Speaker \4\ said:

  If anything hereafter should be printed in the Record which ought not 
to be there, or anything should be omitted which ought to be there, the 
Chair would consider that that presented a question of privilege. * * * 
But there has nothing appeared as yet in the Record which it is alleged 
is out of order. * * * The point of order is made against the motion of 
the gentleman from New York, Mr. Cox, that it is not privileged; and 
the Chair thinks it is not a privileged motion.

  7022.  A resolution relating to the distribution of the Congressional 
Record to persons other than Members was held not to present a question 
of privilege.--On February 6, 1897,\5\ Mr. James D. Richardson, from 
the Committee on Printing, presented, as involving a question of 
privilege, this resolution:

  Resolved, etc., That the Public Printer be, and is hereby, authorized 
and directed to supply to each newspaper correspondent whose name 
appears in the Congressional Directory, and who makes application 
therefor, one copy of the daily Congressional Record, the same to be 
sent to the office address of each member of the press, or elsewhere in 
the city of Washington, as he may direct.

  The Speaker \6\ decided that the resolution could not come up as a 
question of privilege.
  7023. Offensive words having already been stricken from the 
Congressional Record, a question of privilege may not arise 
therefrom.--On July 28, 1892,\7\ Mr. Joseph Wheeler, of Alabama, 
submitted as a question of privilege
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4616.
  \2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 1024; Journal, 
p. 356.
  \4\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \5\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1632.
  \6\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \7\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 340; Record, p. 
6896.
Sec. 7024
that on yesterday Mr. Thomas E. Watson, of Georgia, in the course of 
his remarks, had used this language:

  On page 7367, the gentleman from Alabama (meaning Mr. Wheeler) says 
this:

  ``On passage of the bill (the reapportionment bill favorable to the 
Republicans) 113 Democrata voted against, and 114 rascally Republicans 
voted for, and 13 leprous Greenbackers voted with the Republicans.''

  He denied that he had used the language ``rascally Republicans'' and 
``leprous Greenbackers,'' and claimed the right to the floor to refute 
said charge.
  Mr. Nelson Dingley, of Maine, made the point of order that no 
question of privilege was presented by Mr. Wheeler.
  The Speaker,\1\ sustaining the point of order, held that the matter 
presented did not present a question of privilege under the rule.
  It appears from the record of debate that Mr. Watson had already 
corrected his remarks, saying that he had no intention of attributing 
the portions complained of to Mr. Wheeler, and did not in fact do so, 
although the Record made it appear that he did. This fact was stated by 
the Speaker in his ruling.
  7024. The rules governing the publication of the Congressional Record 
prescribe the conditions under which Members may revise their remarks.
  Rules governing the furnishing of copy under leave to print in the 
Congressional Record.
  The insertion of maps or diagrams in the Congressional Record is 
within the control of the Joint Committee on Printing.
  The arrangement, style, etc., of the Congressional Record is 
prescribed by the Joint Committee on Printing.
  On May 5, 1888, the Joint Committee on Printing 2 adopted the 
following rules for the publication of the Congressional Record:

  First. When copy is taken out for revision by Senators, 
Representatives, or Delegates, it should be returned to the Government 
Printing Office not later than 12 o'clock midnight, in order to insure 
its publication in the Record on the morning following; and if said 
copy is not furnished at the time specifled, the Public Printer is 
authorized to withhold it from the Record for one day, and in no case 
will a speech be printed in the Record on the day after its delivery if 
the copy be furnished later than 12 o'clock midnight.
  Second. The copy of speeches containing large tabular statements to 
be published in the Record should be in the hands of the Public Printer 
not later than 6 o'clock p.m. on the day prior to their publication.
  Third. Proofs of ``leaves to print'' and advance speeches will not be 
furnished on the night of the day on which the copy is received, but 
will be sent on the following day, should it be possible to do so 
without causing delay in the publication of the regular proceedings of 
Congress.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ The act of March 3, 1873 (17 Stat. L., p. 510) had provided that 
``until a contract for publishing the debates of Congress is made, such 
debates shall be printed by the Congressional Printer, under the 
direction of the Joint Committee on Public Printing on the part of the 
Senate.'' An act of February 8, 1881 (21 Stat. L., pp. 516, 517), 
placed the indexing of the Record under charge of the Joint Committee 
on Printing. And finally, the act of January 12, 1895 (28 Stat. L., p. 
603), provides that the