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

 
                              Chapter CXV.

                   DEBATE IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

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

   1. Limiting general debate, Sections 5203-5211.
   2. Committee may not change limit fixed by House. Sections 
     5212-5216.
   3. Motion to limit not in order in Committee. Section 5217.
   4. General decisions. Sections 5218-5220.
   5. Rule and practice of five-minute debate. Sections 5221-5223.
   6. Closing the five-minute debate. Sections 5224-5232.
   7. Relevancy of debate in Committee of the Whole. Sections 
     5233-5256.

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

  5203. The motion to close general debate in Committee of the Whole is 
made pending the motion that the House resolve itself into committee, 
and though not debatable, the previous question is sometimes asked to 
prevent attempts at amendment of the motion.--On February 21, 1897,\1\ 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union were 
considering a bill (S. 3307) relating to the Potomac Flats Park, when 
Mr. Joseph W. Babcock, of Wisconsin, asked unanimous consent that 
general debate be closed.\2\
  Mr. Joseph Wheeler, of Alabama, having objected, Mr. Babcock moved 
that the committee rise. This motion being decided in the affirmative, 
the committee accordingly rose; and the Speaker having resumed the 
chair, Mr. Henderson, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union, reported that that committee had had under 
consideration the bill (S. 3307) and had come to no resolution thereon.
  Mr. Babcock thereupon moved that the House resolve itself into 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further 
consideration of the bill S. 3307; and pending that motion, submitted 
the further motion that in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union debate should be limited to ten minutes.
  The motion to limit debate was first agreed to, and then the question 
was put on the motion to go into Committee of the Whole.
  On January 11, 1898,\3\ Mr. William H. Moody, of Massachusetts, moved 
that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union for the further consideration of the legislative, 
executive, and judicial appropriation bill; and pending that moved that 
all debate in the Committee of the Whole House
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 2218.
  \2\ For an account of the evolution of the practice of closing 
general debate in Committee of the Whole, see section 5221 of this 
volume.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 518, 519.
                                                            Sec. 5204
on the state of the Union should cease at 5 o'clock that day. On the 
latter motion, in accordance with a frequent practice, he demanded the 
previous question, thus preventing amendments to his proposition as to 
time, unless the House should first vote down the previous question.\1\
  5204. A motion to limit general debate in Committee of the Whole is 
not in order in the House until after such debate has begun.--On April 
8, 1884,\2\ the House had under consideration a bill relating to the 
boundaries between Indian Territory and Texas. Pending a motion to go 
into Committee of the Whole, Mr. John H. Evins, of South Carolina, 
further moved that when the Committee of the Whole next resumed 
consideration of the bill, all general debate thereon should be limited 
to one hour.
  Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, made the point of order that the last 
motion was not in order, for the reason that there had been no general 
debate in the Committee of the Whole on the bill.
  The Speaker \3\ held that the motion to limit general debate in the 
Committee of the Whole could not be made until such debate had been 
actually entered upon, and upon the statement of the official reporter 
on duty at the time that there had been no general debate, held the 
motion of Mr. Evins to limit debate to be not in order at this time.
  5205. On January 27, 1852,\4\ Mr. William H. Polk, of Tennessee, 
submitted the following resolution:

  Resolved, That all debate in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union on the joint resolution (No. 12) authorizing the 
joint committee on printing to contract with Messrs. Donelson and 
Armstrong for printing and binding the census shall cease in one hour 
after the committee shall take the same up (if the committee shall not 
sooner come to a conclusion upon the same); and the committee shall 
then proceed to vote on such amendments as may be pending, or offered 
to the same and shall then report it to the House, with such amendments 
as may have been agreed to by the committee.\5\

  Mr. Thomas L. Clingman, of North Carolina, made the point of order 
that, inasmuch as the said joint resolution had not yet been considered 
in Committee of the Whole, it was not competent under the rule to 
submit a proposition to close debate on it. Mr. Clingman asserted that 
such had been the practice of the House in the past, and that it was 
supported by the wording of the rule:

  The House may, at any time, by a vote of the majority of the Members 
present, suspend the rules and orders for the purpose of going into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and also for 
providing for the discharge of the Committee of the Whole House and the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union from the further 
consideration of any bill referred to them, after acting without debate 
on all amendments pending, and that may be offered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ In a case where the previous question had been ordered on a 
motion to close debate Speaker pro tempore Crisp held that the thirty 
minutes of debate was allowable under the rule for the previous 
question (first session Forty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 1125; Record, 
p. 3028), but this is a highly exceptional ruling, and not in harmony 
with the theory of the rule in question. (See secs. 5443-5446 of this 
volume.)
  \2\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 1010; Record, p. 
2767.
  \3\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 267, 268; 
Globe, p. 403.
  \5\ This was the regular form of resolution at that time for 
discharging the Committee of the Whole by closing debate, under the 
rule quoted as part of Mr. Clingman's point of order.
Sec. 5206
  The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order and held the resolution 
to be in order.
  Mr. Clingman having appealed, Mr. Harry Hibbard, of New Hampshire, 
moved to lay the appeal on the table. On a yea and nay vote this motion 
was decided in the negative, yeas 76, nays 107. The question being 
taken on the appeal, the decision of the Chair was overruled, ayes 59, 
noes 96.
  5206. On April 23, 1902,\2\ Mr. E. Stevens Henry, of Connecticut, 
moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the Senate 
amendments to the bill (H. R. 9206) relating to oleomargarine and other 
dairy products.
  Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, 
asked if it would be in order to move that general debate close in one 
hour.
  The Speaker \3\ said:

  Not at present; not until after some debate has taken place.

  5207. The motion in the House to limit general debate on a bill in 
Committee of the Whole must apply to the whole and not a part of the 
bill.
  Form of motion made in the House to limit general debate in Committee 
of the Whole. (Footnote.)
  On July 30, 1888,\4\ the House being in Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union, considering the general deficiency 
appropriation bill, Mr. James N. Burnes, of Missouri, moved that the 
Committee rise. This motion having been agreed to, and the House having 
resumed its session, Mr. Burnes made this motion:

  I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
general appropriation bills; and pending that motion I move that when 
the House shall again resolve itself into Committee of the Whole 
general debate upon that part of the bill preceding the last section be 
limited to forty minutes.

  Mr. Richard W. Townshend, of Illinois, made the point of order that 
it was not in order for the House at this time to make such an order.
  The Speaker \5\ said:

  The Chair has so stated. The Chair has stated that, under the rules, 
the House can proceed without limiting the debate, but if limited at 
all it must be on the entire bill. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Townshend) makes the point of order against the motion, and the point 
is sustained.\6\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4585.
  \3\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Fiftieth Congress, Record, p. 7039; Journal, p. 
2507.
  \5\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \6\ The hour for closing general debate is often fixed in the 
committee or in the House by unanimous consent. But if objection is 
made the following resolution is usually moved, pending the motion that 
the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole:
  ``Resolved, That all debate in the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union (or Committee of the Whole House, as the case 
may be) on (here insert title of bill or subject upon which it is 
proposed to close debate) shall cease (here insert time at which it is 
proposed to close debate) when its consideration is next resumed.''
  This resolution is not debatable, but the previous question is 
sometimes moved to prevent amendment.
                                                            Sec. 5208
  5208. After the vote has been taken on the motion to go into 
Committee of the Whole it is too late to offer a motion to close 
general debate in the Committee of the Whole.--On February 28, 1901,\1\ 
Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, moved that the House resolve itself 
into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill (H. R. 5499) relating to the Revenue-Cutter 
Service.
  The question having been put to the House, and the yeas and nays 
having been ordered and taken on it, but the result not yet having been 
announced by the Chair, Mr. Hepburn proposed a motion that general 
debate in Committee of the Whole be closed in twenty-five minutes.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that the 
motion was not in order at this time.
  After debate the Speaker \2\ held:

  The Chair is of opinion that there is this difference which the 
gentleman from Iowa perhaps overlooks. When a motion is made to go into 
Committee of the Whole House, before that motion is put it has been 
usual to say, ``Pending that, I move to close debate.'' But this is not 
that situation. The motion has been put and voted upon, and it seems to 
the Chair that must be announced before another motion can be made.
  No one knows yet whether we are going into committee or not until the 
announcement is made. The House does not know whether this matter is to 
be considered or not, and it seems to the Chair that after having been 
taken, his first duty is to announce the result of that vote. On this 
question the yeas are 157, the nays 92, answering present 2: the ayes 
have it, and the motion is carried.

  5209. General debate in Committee of the Whole may not be limited on 
a series of bills by one motion.--On February 7, 1899,\3\ the House was 
proceeding under the following special order:

  Resolved, That immediately after the reading of the Journal on 
Tuesday and Wednesday, February 7 and 8, the House proceed to consider 
such bills as may be indicated by the Committee on Public Buildings and 
Grounds, such consideration to be first had in Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union, and the consideration of such bills in 
the House or in Committee of the Whole House to continue during the two 
days mentioned.

  Mr. David H. Mercer, of Nebraska, moved that the House resolve itself 
into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, for the 
purpose of considering bills reported to the House by the Committee on 
Public Buildings and Grounds, and pending that, moved that the general 
debate in the Committee of the Whole be limited to ten minutes to each 
bill,
  Mr. Alexander M. Dockery, of Missouri, made a point of order on this 
motion.
  The Speaker \4\ sustained the point of order.
  5210. A proposition for division of time is not in order as a part of 
a motion to limit general debate in Committee of the Whole.--On January 
29, 1900,\5\ Mr. James W. Wadsworth, of New York, moved that the House 
resolve itself into Committee of the Whole for the further 
consideration of the bill (H. R. 3988) ``to reorganize and improve the 
United States Weather Bureau,'' and pending that motion moved that the 
general debate upon the bill be concluded at
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 292, 293; 
Record, pp. 3235, 3236.
  \2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \3\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 1561; Journal, p. 
143.
  \4\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1285, 1286.
Sec. 5211
5 o'clock that evening, the time to be equally divided between those 
opposed to the bill and those in favor of it.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The Chair will state for the information of the House that the 
question of the division of time should be arranged in Committee of the 
Whole and should not be coupled with this motion. * * * If it were 
otherwise, it would deprive the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
of the right of recognition which he should have and place it in the 
hands of the Speaker. That matter must go untrammeled into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.\2\

  5211. On March 13, 1902,\3\ Mr. Eugene F. Loud, of California, moved 
that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union for the further consideration of the Post-Office 
appropriation bill.
  And pending that motion he further moved that general debate be 
closed in two hours, the time to be controlled on the one side by 
himself, and on the other by Mr. John A. Moon, of Tennessee.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The gentleman from California moves that general debate in Committee 
of the Whole on the Post-Office appropriation bill be limited to two 
hours. The other part of his motion is not in order.

  The several motions having been agreed to, and a question as to 
control of time arising in Committee of the Whole, the Chairman \4\ 
said:

  The Chair understood the Speaker to hold that he could not include in 
the motion the condition that the time was to be controlled by the 
gentleman from California and the gentleman from Tennessee. The Chair 
will take the instruction of the Committee upon the control of the 
time.

  5212. The House having fixed the time when general debate in 
Committee of the Whole shall cease, the Committee may not extend it 
even by unanimous consent.--On February 22, 1853,\5\ the House was in 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, considering the 
Indian appropriation bill.
  The time for general debate, which had been fixed by the House, 
having expired, Mr. Volney E. Howard, of Texas, moved that the 
Committee rise, with a view of extending the time for closing debate. 
Mr. Graham N. Fitch, of Indiana, made the point that this could not be 
done, there having been a motion to reconsider, which was laid on the 
table.
  The Chairman suggested that the only way in which the time could be 
extended would be by unanimous consent in the House.
  Messrs. Volney E. Howard, of Texas, George S. Houston, of Alabama, 
and Robert W. Johnson, of Arkansas, expressed the opinion that the 
Committee of the Whole could by unanimous consent extend the time, the 
Committee being composed of the same Members as the House.
  The Chairman \6\ ruled that the Committee was acting in pursuance of 
an order of the House. The House had directed that at a certain hour 
debate must be closed
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \2\ Of course by unanimous consent, which would in effect be a 
special order, the House might divide the time of the Committee of the 
Whole.
  \3\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 2737, 2738.
  \4\ Charles E. Littlefield, of Maine, Chairman.
  \5\ Second session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, pp. 784, 785.
  \6\ Thomas S. Bocock, of Virginia, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 5213
and the action of the Committee be reported to the House. He did not 
know that there was any power to extend the time for closing the debate 
except in the House. The Chairman said that he acted in this matter not 
only in pursuance of previous decisions, but in accordance with his own 
deliberate judgment; for, while the Committee consisted of the same 
Members as the House of Representatives, it was a different body. The 
Committee could do nothing except in pursuance of the order of the 
House. The action taken by the House bound the Committee.
  Mr. Johnson having taken an appeal, the Chairman was sustained.
  5213. On December 10, 1897,\1\ the House was in Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union considering the pension 
appropriation bill, the House having limited general debate. As the 
limit was about to expire, Mr. William A. Stone, of Pennsylvania, asked 
unanimous consent that additional time be allowed in order that a 
certain Member might speak.
  In declining to entertain the request the Chairman \2\ said:

  The Chair will suggest to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that after 
the first paragraph of the bill has been read the gentleman can take 
the floor, and it will be in the province of the Committee then to 
extend his time under the five-minute rule.

  5214. On January 24, 1852,\3\ the bill (H. R. 46) ``providing for 
carrying into execution in further part the twelfth article of the 
treaty with Mexico,'' was under consideration in Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union.
  The time fixed by the House for the termination of general debate 
having arrived, there were several propositions that the time might be 
lengthened by unanimous consent.
  The Chairman \4\ said:

  The Chair decides that the resolution of the House terminating debate 
upon this bill in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, 
being imperative and unconditional in its terms, can not, even by 
unanimous consent, be disregarded.

  5215. On June 6, 1902,\5\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union was considering the bill (S. 3653) ``for the 
protection of the President of the United States, and for other 
purposes,'' when Mr. Malcolm R. Patterson, of Tennessee, asked for an 
extension of the time of general debate.
  The Chairman \6\ said:

  The Chair is obliged to rule that the House having fixed the time, it 
is not possible for the Committee of the Whole to extend it.

  5216. On February 22, 1904,\7\ the House was in Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the naval 
appropriation bill under an order limiting general debate to five hours 
on the side of the majority and an equal time on the side of the 
minority.
  The time having been used, excepting twenty minutes of the time of 
the majority, it was proposed to begin the reading of the bill for 
amendment, no Member of the majority desiring the floor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 81, 95.
  \2\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
  \3\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, p. 384.
  \4\ George W. Jones, of Tennessee, Chairman.
  \5\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 6398, 6399.
  \6\ Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, Chairman.
  \7\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2226.
Sec. 5217
  Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, on the minority side, asked 
unanimous consent to be recognized for twenty minutes.
  The Chairman \1\ said:

  The Chair is unwilling to entertain that request, the House having 
fixed the time--five hours on either side. The five hours of the 
minority having expired, if the majority do not see fit to use their 
time, the Chair will hold that that has expired also, and will direct 
the reading of the bill.

  5217. The motion to close general debate may not be made in Committee 
of the Whole.--On February 28, 1901,\2\ the House had resolved itself 
into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill (H. R. 5499) relating to the Revenue-Cutter 
Service.
  Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, moved that all general debate on the 
pending bill be closed after two hours.
  Mr. Thaddeus M. Mahon, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that 
the motion to close general debate could not be made in Committee of 
the Whole.
  After debate the Chairman \3\ held:

  Looking to the long practice of the House, so far as it come has 
under the observation of the present occupant of the chair, it has been 
uniform to the effect that the Committee of the Whole has no power to 
limit debate except debate under the five-minute rule upon items of a 
bill.
  Now, the fifth subdivision of Rule XXIII provides that ``When general 
debate is closed by order of the House any Member shall be allowed,'' 
etc. But there is nowhere any provision for the limitation of general 
debate in the Committee of the Whole House.
  Now, take these two rules together, one providing by inference for 
closing debate in the Committee of the Whole, the other providing for 
the limitation of debate under the five-minute rule, it seems to the 
Chair there can be no doubt that the two construed together have the 
effect of bringing this result, that the House may decide to go into 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill and make a limit 
of time during which general debate shall proceed; but when without 
limitation the House goes into Committee of the Whole, the Chair is of 
the opinion that there is no power of limitation of general debate 
beyond the ordinary motions to rise, and other motions of that 
character. Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

  5218. The rule for closing general debate in Committee of the Whole 
applies to messages of the President as well as bills, and may be 
applied to a particular portion of a message.--On December 31, 1851,\4\ 
the Speaker announced as the business first in order a resolution 
submitted by Mr. Thomas L. Clingman, of North Carolina:

  Resolved, That all debate in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union, upon so much of the President's message as relates 
to Louis Kossuth, shall cease in half an hour after the committee shall 
again resume its consideration (if the committee shall not sooner come 
to a conclusion upon the same); and the committee shall then proceed to 
vote on such propositions as may be pending or offered in reference to 
the same, and shall then report it to the House, with such propositions 
as may have been agreed to by the committee.\5\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, Chairman.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 3236, 3237.
  \3\ Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, Chairman.
  \4\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 146, 147; 
Globe, pp. 168, 169.
  \5\ This resolution was offered to close a debate that had begun, and 
it has always been the practice of the House to limit general debate 
only after it has begun. The reason for this practice is found in the 
origin of the rule limiting debate. (See see. 5221 of this volume.)
                                                            Sec. 5219
  Mr. Edward Stanly, of North Carolina, made the point of order that 
the rule closing debate did not apply to the message of the President 
of the United States, but only to bills, and that consequently the 
resolution was not in order.
  The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order on the ground that 
although under a strict construction of the rule referred to nothing 
but bills would seem to be embraced, yet the uniform practice of the 
House had been to include under it all subjects referred to the 
Committee of the Whole. In confirmation that such had been the 
practice, he referred to the action of the House upon the President's 
message during the last Congress.
  In this decision the House acquiesced.
  Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, made the point of order that the 
resolution was not in order, on the ground that it was not competent 
for the House to discharge the Committee of the Whole from a part of 
the message and not the whole.
  The Speaker decided that inasmuch as the President's message \2\ 
contained allusions to various and distinct subjects upon which the 
committee might act and report separately, it was manifestly in the 
power of the House to direct that all debate be closed upon any one of 
the subjects therein alluded to.
  On appeal by Mr. Jones this decision was sustained by a vote of 92 to 
64.
  5219. General debate in Committee of the Whole is not necessarily 
closed by failure of those entitled to the floor to proceed in 
debate.--On December 15, 1904,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union was considering a bill (H. R. 4831) relating to 
the improvement of currency conditions, the arrangement made in the 
House as to general debate being that it should be equally divided as 
to time, Mr. Ebenezer J. Hill, of Connecticut, having control of the 
time on the majority side, and Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, the 
time on the minority side.
  After the majority had consumed about an hour of time, and the 
minority about twenty minutes, Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, 
who was in charge of the minority time in the absence of Mr. Bartlett, 
announced that there was no further demand for time on his side, and 
suggested that the general debate should close.
  Thereupon Mr. Hill proposed to yield further time on the minority 
side.
  Thereupon Mr. Williams objected, saying:

  But the gentleman from Connecticut can not yield to anybody now. The 
agreement in the House was that the time should be divided equally 
between those in advocacy of the bill and those in opposition to the 
bill. Gentleman on his side have already consumed more than an hour of 
time, while on this side we have consumed about twenty minutes.

  Mr. Hill having asked for a decision, the Chairman \4\ said:

  The time on that side of the House, represented by the gentleman from 
Mississippi, could be made equal, of course, in general debate; but 
general debate can not be closed by a refusal of one side of the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \2\ It is not now the custom of the House to consider the President's 
annual message in Committee of the Whole. That committee distributes 
the message to the standing committees.
  \3\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress. Record, p. 321.
  \4\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvaina, Chairman.
Sec. 5220
House to go on and debate the question. * * * The Chair thinks that 
under an agreement, such as was had in this case, it is not in the 
power of one side to close debate by refusing to go on.

  Thereupon Mr. Williams moved that general debate be closed.
  The Chairman said:

  The gentleman from Mississippi appreciates the fact that general 
debate can not be closed by order of the Committee of the Whole; it can 
only be closed in the House.

  5220. The time occupied in reading a bill in Committee of the Whole 
does not come out of the time allowed for general debate.--On February 
24, 1875,\1\ the House was in Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union for the consideration of H. R. 4729, a bill making 
appropriations for the sundry civil expenses of the Government, and for 
other purposes.
  Objection having been made to the request of Mr. James A. Garfield 
that the first reading of the bill be dispensed with, Mr. Garfield 
asked of the Chair whether or not the time occupied in reading the bill 
would come out of the time allowed for general debate.
  The Chairman,\2\ after considering the question, held that the 
reading of the bill would not come out of the time allowed for general 
debate.
  5221. The rule governing the five-minute debate on amendments in 
Committee of the Whole.
  The rules contemplate that general debate in Committee of the Whole 
shall be closed by order of the House before amendments may be offered.
  An amendment once offered in Committee of the Whole may not be 
withdrawn.
  Present form and history of section 5 of Rule XXIII.
  Section 5 of Rule XXIII provides:

  When general debate is closed by order of the House, any Member shall 
be allowed five minutes to explain any amendment he may offer, after 
which the Member who shall first obtain the floor shall be allowed to 
speak five minutes in opposition to it, and there shall be no further 
debate thereon; but the same privilege of debate shall be allowed in 
favor of and against any amendment that may be offered to an amendment; 
and neither an amendment nor an amendment to an amendment shall be 
withdrawn by the mover thereof unless by the unanimous consent of the 
Committee.

  This form is substantially that of the revision of 1880. Previous to 
that time the following rule, which dated from April 7, 1789,\3\ had 
been in existence:

  Upon bills committed to a Committee of the Whole House, the bill 
shall be first read throughout by the Clerk, and then again read and 
debated by clauses, leaving the preamble to be last considered. The 
body of the bill shall not be defaced or interlined; but all 
amendments, noting the page and line, shall be duly entered by the 
Clerk, on a separate paper, as the same shall be agreed to by the 
committee, and so reported to the House. After report, the bill shall 
again be subject to be debated and amended by clauses before a question 
to engross it be taken.

  The portions of this rule relating to consideration in Committee of 
the Whole are continued practically in present practice; but the 
consideration by paragraphs does not now exist in the practice of the 
House itself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Forty-third Congress, Record, p. 1699.
  \2\ Mr. George G. Hoskins, of New York, Chairman.
  \3\ First session First Congress, Journal, p. 11.
                                                            Sec. 5221
  Prior to 1841 there was no limit to the time which a member might 
occupy when once in possession of the floor. The hour rule\1\ had not 
been adopted, and in Committee of the Whole, where the previous 
question did not apply, and where a member might speak an unlimited 
time, whether in general debate or on an amendment, the problem of 
getting through with bills seems to have become very important and 
urgent. In 1840 the bill ``to provide for the collection, safe-keeping, 
transfer, and disbursement of the public revenue'' was in Committee of 
the Whole several weeks, and was rescued only by the suspension of the 
rules by a two-thirds vote and the adoption of a special order taking 
the bill from the Committee of the Whole and making it in order at once 
in the House.\2\
  In 1841 the Whig party came into power in the House, but did not have 
the two-thirds majority which would be necessary to take a bill from 
Committee of the Whole in this manner. On June 22, 1841, the House sent 
to the Committee of the Whole a bill ``to appropriate the proceeds of 
the sale of public lands and to grant preemption rights.'' This bill 
was still being debated in Committee on July 6, when the Committee on 
Rules, after much opposition,\3\ secured the adoption of a rule 
providing that by the vote of the majority (instead of two-thirds) the 
House might suspend the rules for the purpose of discharging the 
committee of the Whole from the consideration of any bill referred to 
them after acting without debate upon all amendments pending and that 
might be offered. Immediately upon the adoption of this rule, and under 
authority of it, a resolution was agreed to closing the general debate 
on the public land bill at 7 p. m. and directing that the bill be 
reported to the House after pending amendments were voted on. This 
taking of the bill from the Committee of the Whole was marked by high 
party excitement. To the reporter of debates it seemed as if ``chaos 
were come again,'' and a thunderstorm of unusual violence without 
seemed a fitting accompaniment to the turmoil within.\4\ The hour rule 
of debate was also adopted for the first time during the excitement of 
this evening.
  The method of closing general debate in Committee of the Whole by a 
resolution adopted by a majority in the House was continued at the next 
session of Congress,\5\ since business could not be transacted without 
it.
  On June 13, 1842,\6\ a rule was proposed to permit in Committee of 
the Whole a motion to close debate, but it was laid on the table, yeas 
102, nays 91. And thereafter the rule of 1841 for discharging the 
Committee of the Whole, after acting without debate on all amendments, 
continued in force, but was used for the real purpose of closing 
general debate, since after that was closed and the bill had been 
amended, an order to report it would follow as a matter of course. In 
the revision of the rules in 1880 the rule of 1841 was dropped, except 
for the reference in the words ``when general debate is closed by order 
of the House,'' but the practice of the House has continued as before, 
the motion to close general debate being made pending the motion to go 
into Committee of the Whole.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ See section 4978 of this volume.
  \2\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 1156-1158; also 
remarks of Mr. Medill, first session Twenty-seventh Congress, Globe, p. 
152.
  \3\ First session Twenty-seventh Congress, Globe, p. 132.
  \4\ First session Twenty-seventh Congress, Globe, p. 155.
  \5\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Globe, pp. 126, 257; 
Journal, p. 560.
  \6\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 949; Globe, 
p. 619.
Sec. 5221
  The rule of 1841, however, was only the beginning of the present 
system of guiding business in Committee of the Whole. There was found 
to be great inconvenience in the requirement that amendments should be 
voted on without debate after the closing of general debate, and on 
December 18, 1847, a rule was adopted ``that where debate is closed by 
order of the House any Member shall be allowed in Committee five 
minutes to explain any amendment he may offer.''\1\ In a few years a 
practice grew up whereby a Member would offer an amendment, debate five 
minutes, and withdraw it, thus allowing another Member to offer another 
amendment and repeat the performance. While the five-minute rule was 
generally in high favor, this practice produced much delay and 
irrelevancy. Therefore, on August 14, 1850,\2\ the House added to the 
words ``any Member shall be allowed in Committee five minutes to 
explain any amendment he may offer,'' the following provision:

  After which any Member who shall first obtain the floor shall be 
allowed to speak five minutes in opposition to it, and there shall be 
no further debate on the amendment; but the same privilege of debate 
shall be allowed in favor of and against any amendment that may be 
offered to the amendment; and neither the amendment nor an amendment to 
the amendment shall be withdrawn by the mover thereof unless by the 
unanimous consent of the Committee.

  This plan of permitting five minutes of debate on an amendment had 
been tried temporarily during consideration of an appropriation bill on 
February 20, 1845,\3\ at the suggestion of Mr. Charles J. Ingersoll, of 
Pennsylvania.
  The provision that an amendment once offered might not be withdrawn 
did not prevent the offering of amendments for purposes of obstructive 
debate, and on March 22, 1854,\4\ the Committee on Rules reported a 
plan for closing debate on a paragraph or section; but it was not 
adopted.
  The object of this rule was patent. The famous Kansas-Nebraska bill 
was pending, and the minority party were prepared to obstruct it 
indefinitely by five-minute debate, so that it might never get out of 
Committee of the Whole. They were engaged in carrying this purpose into 
effect when on May 22, 1854,\5\ Mr. Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, 
moved to strike out the enacting words of the bill, saying that if the 
committee should agree to the motion the action would be reported to 
the House and the question would be on agreeing to the report. If the 
friends of the bill should vote to nonconcur in the report, they would 
then have the bill before the House, to do with as the majority might 
determine. Although this procedure was denounced, especially by Mr. 
Israel Washburn, Jr., of Maine, as an outrageous trampling on the 
rights of the minority, the Chairman \6\ sustained it, and the bill was 
passed.
  After this it became a common practice to take bills from the 
Committee of the Whole in this way until the revision of 1860, when Mr. 
Washburn, in reporting from the Committee on Rules, presented a plan, 
which is now section 6 of Rule XXIII,\7\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Thirtieth Congress, Globe, p. 47.
  \2\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Globe, pp. 1566-1575; 
Journal, p. 1265.
  \3\ Second session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 422-424; 
Globe, p. 317.
  \4\ First session Thirty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 550, 551; 
Globe, pp. 715-717.
  \5\ First session Thirty-third Congress, Globe, p. 1241.
  \6\ Edson B. Olds, of Ohio, Chairman.
  \7\ See section 5224 of this volume.
                                                            Sec. 5222
for modifying the rule relating to the enacting clause,\1\ so as to 
prevent the practice, and also this additional provision for the five-
minute rule:

  Provided further, That the House may, at any time after five minutes' 
debate has taken place upon a proposed amendment or any section or 
paragraph of the bill, close the debate upon such section or paragraph, 
or, at their election, upon the pending amendments only.

  This provision was not originally in this form, the words ``or 
paragraphs'' having been inserted on recommendation of Mr. John S. 
Millson, of Virginia, who said he did not propose to interfere with the 
right of the House to close debate upon the whole section, but thought 
it wise to have the power apply also to the paragraphs.\2\
  The revision of 1880 \3\ left the provisions of the rule in its 
present form, except that in 1885 \4\ the clause prohibiting debate on 
the motion to close debate was inserted.
  5222. A Member who has occupied five minutes on a pro forma 
amendment, may not, by making another pro forma amendment, lengthen his 
time.--On March 22, 1904,\5\ while the post-office appropriation bill 
was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union, Mr. Thomas S. Butler, of Pennsylvania, was recognized in 
debate under the five-minute rule, having made a pro forma amendment to 
strike out the last word of the pending matter.
  At the expiration of his five minutes, Mr. Butler proposed another 
pro forma amendment in order that he might continue for five minutes 
more.
  The Chairman \6\ said:

  That motion is hardly in order. The Chair is of the opinion that when 
a gentleman is addressing the committee and his time has expired he is 
not entitled to offer a pro forma amendment and hold the floor for five 
minutes more. The motion would not be in order.

  5223. During the five-minute debate recognitions are not necessarily 
alternated between the political divisions of the House, but are 
governed by conditions relating to the pending question.--On June 26, 
1902,\7\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union was 
considering under the five-minute rule the bill (S. 2295) temporarily 
to provide for the affairs of civil government in the Philippine 
Islands, when Mr. John W. Gaines, of Tennessee, raised a question as to 
recognitions, as between the majority and minority sides of the House.
  The Chairman \8\ said:

  The Chair will state that on an amendment there is of course allowed 
five minutes debate on each side, and no more, except by unanimous 
consent. The Chair has followed this rule--that when an amendment is 
offered, no matter on which side, it is of course an attack upon the 
bill which is being
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ See section 5326 of this volume.
  \2\ First session Thirty-sixth Congress, Globe, p. 1188.
  \3\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 206.
  \4\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 3126, 3127.
  \5\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3532.
  \6\ Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, Chairman.
  \7\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 7446.
  \8\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
Sec. 5224
defended by the committee; and the Chair therefore has held that it is 
always but fair--and the Chair thinks the committee will agree with 
him--that when the bill is attacked, no matter upon which side, a 
member of the committee should be next recognized to defend the bill. * 
* * That makes no difference upon which side the time is occupied.

  5224. The Committee of the Whole may, after the five-minute debate 
has begun, close debate on the section, paragraph, or pending 
amendments; but this does not preclude further amendment.
  Present form and history of section 6 of Rule XXIII.
  Section 6 of Rule XXIII provides:

  The committee may, by the vote of a majority of the Members present, 
at any time after the five minutes' debate has begun upon proposed 
amendments to any section or paragraph of a bill, close all debate upon 
such section or paragraph, or, at its election, upon the pending 
amendments only (which motion shall be decided without debate); but 
this shall not preclude further amendment, to be decided without 
debate.

  This rule relates to the same subject as section 5 of Rule XXXIII, 
and its history is the same.\1\
  5225. A motion to close debate under the five-minute rule is not in 
order until such debate has begun.--On June 13, 1902,\2\ the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, under the five-minute 
rule, was considering the bill (S. 3057) for the reclamation of arid 
lands by irrigation, when, a paragraph having been read, with an 
amendment proposed by the committee, Mr. John F. Shafroth, of Colorado, 
moved that all debate on the paragraph and amendments close in ten 
minutes.
  The Chairman \3\ said:

  The Chair will remind the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Shafroth] that 
the motion to close debate in the committee can not be made until the 
debate has commenced.

  5226. The five-minute debate may be closed after one speech of five 
minutes.--On December 18, 1900,\4\ the bill (S. 1929) to provide for 
eliminating certain grade crossings in the city of Washington, was 
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, under the five-minute rule, and Mr. John F. Fitzgerald had 
addressed the committee for five minutes on the pending amendment,
  Thereupon Mr. Joseph W. Babcock, of Wisconsin, moved that debate on 
the amendment and amendments thereto close in one minute.
  Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, made the point of order that 
debate could not be closed until the time allowed by the rules--five 
minutes for and five against the proposition--had expired.
  After debate the Chairman \5\ said:

  The Chair is very clearly of the opinion that by section 5,\6\ five 
minutes' debate is allowed for an amendment proposed and five minutes 
against that amendment and then the debate closes itself with-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ See section 5221.
  \2\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6745.
  \3\ James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, Chairman.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 409, 410.
  \5\ William H. Moody, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
  \6\ Of Rule XXIII. (See sec. 5221.)
out any motion. The sixth paragraph, which was adopted ten years later 
than the one just referred to, provided for closing debate at any time 
after it shall have begun. It would have been entirely unnecessary if 
it had been limited to the condition described in paragraph 5, because 
the debate then is closed without any motion, or upon the interposition 
of the point of order by any gentleman on the floor. The Chair 
therefore rules that the motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin is in 
order, that debate upon this amendment be closed in one minute.

  5227. The motion to close the five-minute debate, while not 
debatable, is amendable.--On June 13, 1902,\1\ the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union was considering the bill (S. 
3057) for the reclamation of arid lands by irrigation, when, in the 
course of the debate under the five-minute rule, a motion was made to 
close all debate on the paragraph and pending amendment. To this 
amendment a motion was made and entertained to amend by fixing the time 
for closing in ten minutes.
  Later, during consideration of the same bill, a similar situation 
arose, the Chairman \2\ stating the question as follows:

  The Chair will state the question. The gentleman from Wyoming moved 
that all debate on the paragraph and pending amendments thereto close 
in ten minutes, and to that the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Shafroth] 
moved an amendment that all debate close in five minutes, and then the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Underwood] moved a substitute to close 
debate at once. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado to perfect the original motion by the gentleman 
from Wyoming that all debate close in five minutes on the paragraph and 
the amendments thereto.

  Mr. James M. Robinson, of Indiana, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, 
asked if the motion was debatable.
  The Chairman replied that it was not.
  5228. The closing of debate on the last section of a bill considered 
under the five-minute rule does not preclude debate on a substitute for 
the whole text of the bill.--On June 13, 1902,\3\ the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union was considering the bill (S. 
3057) for the reclamation of arid lands by irrigation, when the last 
section was read, debate was limited on the section and amendments, and 
the time fixed for the limit of debate expired.
  Thereupon Mr. James M. Robinson, of Indiana, proposed an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute for the whole text of the bill and was 
proceeding to debate.
  A question being raised, the Chairman \2\ at first held that debate 
was not in order; but later said:

  The Chair was under the impression that this was offered as an 
amendment to the last section of the bill, and therefore that debate 
was not in order. It was offered as a substitute, and debate is in 
order. The motion to close debate can not be entertained until debate 
has begun. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Robinson].

  5229. The right to limit debate on the pending section of a bill 
pending in the Committee of the Whole under the five-minute rule may be 
exercised by the House as well as by the Committee of the Whole.--On 
October 25, 1893,\4\ Mr. Thomas C. McRae, of Arkansas, moved that the 
House
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6744.
  \2\ James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, Chairman.
  \3\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6777.
  \4\ First session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 154.
Sec. 5230
resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union for the purpose of considering bill (H. R. 119) to protect forest 
reservations, and pending this Mr. McRae moved that debate on the 
pending section of the bill be limited to five minutes.
  Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, moved to amend the latter motion by 
substituting thirty minutes for five minutes.
  Mr. Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, moved to amend the amendment by 
striking out thirty and inserting forty-five.
  Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, made the point of order that 
under clause 6 of Rule XXIII, to wit: ``The committee may at any 
time,'' etc., ``close debate,'' the House having thus conferred this 
power on the Committee of the Whole could not itself continue to 
exercise that power.
  The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order, holding that the rule 
did not confer upon the committee the exclusive right to limit debate 
on matters pending before it, and did not take away from the House its 
power in the premises.\2\
  5230. An exceptional instance wherein the House closed the five-
minute debate on a section of a bill in Committee of the Whole before 
all of the section had been read for amendment.--On February 12, 
1885,\3\ Mr. Albert S. Willis, of Kentucky, moved that the House 
resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union for the purpose of taking up the river and harbor appropriation 
bill, and pending that motion he moved that all debate on the pending 
section and amendments thereto be limited to one hour and a half.\4\
  As it appeared from the debate on the point of order which 
subsequently arose, one-half of the section had been read and debated 
by paragraphs under the five-minute rule.
  When the motion of Mr. Willis had been made, Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of 
Maine, made the point of order that under the rules of the House debate 
could not be limited on the section. He admitted that the framers of 
the rule seemed to have had in mind that the House should have the 
power to close debate on either the section or the paragraph; \5\ and 
he recalled also that the question had been raised during the 
discussion on the tariff bill of 1883; \6\ but the universal practice 
of the House for many years had been that debate could not be closed on 
provisions of a bill that had not been read. Half the paragraphs in the 
section had been read and debated, but the remainder had not been.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ Section 6 of Rule XXIII (see sec. 5224 of this volume) is now in 
the same form as at the time of this ruling. November 2, 1893, the rule 
was amended so as to give in express terms the ``House or the 
committee'' power to close the five-minute debate. That change was not 
retained after the Fifty-third Congress.
  \3\ Second session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 1604-1612.
  \4\ This motion is not often made in this way in the recent practice 
of the House. Motions to close general debate in the Committee of the 
Whole are so made, but after general debate has ceased and the five-
minute debate for amendments has begun the committee and not the House 
generally regulates the closing of debate, but not necessarily so.
  \5\ See remarks of Messrs. Washburn and Millson on this point during 
revision of rules in Thirty-sixth Congress. (Globe, March 15 and 16, 
1860.) Also see Record, second session Forty-eighth Congress, pp. 1609, 
1611.
  \6\ For this debate see Record for February 17, 1883.
                                                            Sec. 5231
  The Speaker pro tempore \1\ ruled as follows:

  The Chair will state the point of order raised by the gentleman from 
Maine; and the argument submitted by him would in the opinion of the 
Chair be very well directed to a general appropriation or revenue bill. 
The river and harbor bill has been held more than once to be neither a 
general appropriation bill nor a revenue bill. The debate to which the 
gentleman alludes affecting the tariff bill, in the judgment of the 
Chair, does not apply in this case. If this were a general 
appropriation or a revenue bill the Chair would have no doubt as to the 
correctness of the views of the gentleman from Maine, but as a river 
and harbor bill has never been held to be either one or the other, the 
Chair does not think the point of order is well taken. The Chair will 
ask the Clerk to read the sixth clause of Rule XXIII.
  ``The House may, by the vote of a majority of the Members present, at 
any time after five minutes' debate has begun upon proposed amendments 
to any section or paragraph to a bill, close all debate upon such 
section or paragraph, or, at its election, upon the pending amendments 
only; but this shall not preclude further amendment, to be decided 
without debate.''
  The Chair is not disposed to bar the House of its right to debate. * 
* * It is within the power of the House to continue debate upon this 
section, or the paragraph, as long as it pleases; but under the clause 
of the rule read by the Clerk, this being neither a general 
appropriation nor a revenue bill, it is clear to the mind of the 
present occupant of the chair that it is competent for a majority of 
the Members here present to limit debate upon the pending section. The 
Chair therefore overrules the point of order made by the gentleman from 
Maine [Mr. Reed].

  Upon an appeal, which was debated at length,\2\ the Chair was 
sustained, the appeal being laid on the table by a vote of 121 yeas to 
103 nays.\3\
  5231. A motion is not in order in the House to close debate on a 
paragraph of a bill in Committee of the Whole until such debate has 
begun.--On May 27, 1886,\4\ Mr. William H. Hatch, of Missouri, moved 
that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union for the consideration of bills raising revenue.
  Pending this, Mr. Hatch moved that when the House again resumes in 
said committee the further consideration of the bill of the House 
defining butter, etc., all debate on section 3 and amendments thereto 
be limited to ten minutes.\5\
  Mr. Nathaniel J. Hammond, of Georgia, made the point of order that 
the motion of Mr. Hatch to limit debate on the pending section was not 
in order, for the reason that it contained three distinct paragraphs, 
and that debate could not be closed on a paragraph not reached.
  The Speaker \6\ sustained the point of order on the ground stated, 
and held that under clause 6 of Rule XXIII debate could not be closed 
on a paragraph until debate has actually begun upon it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, Speaker pro tempore.
  \2\ Mr. J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, sustained the ruling, arguing that 
it was the intention of the framers of the rule to allow the House to 
close debate either on sections or paragraphs, (Second session Forty-
eighth Congress, Record, p. 1609.)
  \3\ For other rulings that river and harbor bill is not a general 
appropriation bill see sections 3897-3903 of Volume IV of this work.
  \4\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 1736; Record, pp. 
5004, 5005.
  \5\ It is unusual to move in the House to close debate on a paragraph 
(which is to be distinguished from general debate) of a bill under 
consideration in Committee of the Whole, because a rule provides that 
such a motion maybe made in Committee of the Whole. (See sec. 5224 of 
this volume.)
  \6\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
Sec. 5232
  The record of debate gives the statement of the Speaker in full:

  The Chair finds on examination of the Record that when the reading of 
the first paragraph of the third section had been concluded in 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Hammond] arose for the purpose of arresting the 
further reading; but the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union thereupon announced that the entire section 
would be read, but amendments would be received to the paragraph. The 
Chair thinks, inasmuch as every bill must consist of one or more 
sections--appropriation bills, for instance, containing in a single 
section 100 or more paragraphs--the House can not close debate on a 
paragraph till debate has begun upon it.

  5232. In the absence of a rule by the House itself, the Committee of 
the Whole may by unanimous consent permit general debate during 
consideration of the bill for amendment.--On January 20, 1906,\1\ the 
urgent deficiency appropriation bill was under consideration in 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, general debate 
having been closed and the reading of the bill for amendment under the 
five-minute rule having proceeded. An amendment having been offered to 
appropriate for the transportation of silver coin, Mr. J. Warren 
Keifer, of Ohio, asked unanimous consent that an hour be given to 
discussion of the amendment, to be divided evenly between the two 
sides.
  Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, 
asked:

  Mr. Chairman, is it competent in the Committee of the Whole to 
provide by unanimous consent for general debate on any proposition? It 
would be, undoubtedly, competent for the Committee of the Whole to give 
to the gentleman from Ohio as much time as that committee may desire to 
give.

  The Chairman \2\ said:

  In the absence of the mandate made by the House before going into the 
Committee of the Whole, it is competent for the committee to make such 
a rule as the gentleman now asks to have made by unanimous consent.

  5233. It is the rule, well established in the practice of the House 
for many years, that the Member need not confine himself to the subject 
during general debate in the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union.--On April 18, 1840,\3\ the House was in Committee of the 
Whole on the state of the Union. Mr. John B. Weller, of Ohio, being 
entitled to the floor on the bill pending, which was the civil and 
diplomatic appropriation bill, proceeded to discuss the subject of 
banks, when Mr. Horace Everett, of Vermont, rose to a point of order, 
and asked whether it was proper for the gentleman to discuss the 
subtreasury bill.
  The Chairman \4\ said that, although great latitude had been allowed 
on this bill, he was compelled to decide that the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Weller] was not in order.
  Mr. Caleb Cushing, of Massachusetts, said that if this latitude of 
debate, which was in violation of the rules of the House, was to 
proceed, he wanted to talk on the South American and China trade. Mr. 
John Reed, of Massachusetts, said that he had never known such latitude 
to be allowed. He had proposed on a previous occa-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 1327.
  \2\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
  \3\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Globe, pp. 338, 340, 360.
  \4\ Zadoc Casey, of Illinois, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 5234
sion that all such discussion should take place on the President's 
message. As the House had refused, he hoped that full latitude would be 
permitted.
  On the next day Mr. Everett is reported to have addressed the House 
at considerable length on the subject, adverting to the change in the 
practice of the House as to general debate on the affairs of the Union, 
which used always to take place on a reference of the President's 
message, but was now irregularly indulged in on other bills. He laid 
the blame of the discursive character of the debate on the 
Administration side of the House, which first began it, but considered 
the debate, though not strictly regular, very valuable and 
important.\1\
  On May 8, 1826,\2\ during debate on the Creek treaty in the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, Mr. John Forsyth, of 
Georgia, was called to order for not confining his remarks to the 
subject before the House.
  The Chairman \3\ declared Mr. Forsyth out of order, which decision 
was sustained.
  5234. On February 23, 1849,\4\ Mr. Samuel F. Vinton, of Ohio, moved 
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union, and this was done. When in committee Mr. Vinton 
moved to take up the Post-Office appropriation bill. The bill was read 
through, and then, after two amendments had been proposed and ruled out 
of order, Mr. Thomas J. Turner, of Illinois, moved to strike out the 
first section, and began to speak on the subject of the Territories and 
slavery. Mr. Frederick A. Tallmadge, of New York, made the point of 
order that such discussion was not in order on a Post-Office bill.
  The Chairman \5\ held that, according to the universal usage, when 
the House was in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, all manner of matter was debated.
  An appeal was taken, and the Chair was sustained.\6\
  On the next day a resolution was adopted in the House that debate on 
the Post-Office bill should cease in Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union in two hours, at the end of which time 
amendments should be voted on. When the committee began its session the 
debate on the slavery question was resumed. At its close the amendments 
were offered.\7\
  5235. On July 30, 1850,\8\ the House went into Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union, and when in committee Mr. Thomas H. 
Bayly, of Virginia,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ From 1860 to 1880 the House had a rule whereby, when an 
appropriation bill was made a special order in Committee of the Whole, 
general debate on other subjects was not allowed. (See Globe, p. 1210, 
first session Thirty-sixth Congress).
  \2\ First session Nineteenth Congress, Debates, p. 2613.
  \3\ Lewis Condict, of New Jersey, Chairman.
  \4\ Second session Thirtieth Congress, Globe, pp. 587, 592.
  \5\ Hugh White, of New York, Chairman.
  \6\ On May 30, 1848 (first session Thirtieth Congress, Globe, pp. 
793, 797), this question had been debated very fully, and Chairman 
Robert Toombs, of Georgia, had held that the rules of the House 
applied, and that debate must be confined to the subject. He admitted 
that great latitude had been permitted, but did not consider himself 
bound by previous decisions. After long debate the decision was 
sustained, ayes 74, noes 72.
  \7\ This was before the system of five-minute debate had been 
perfected. (See sec. 5221 of this volume.)
  \8\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Globe, p. 1475.
Sec. 5236
moved to lay aside the California message with a view of taking up the 
pension appropriation bill. On a vote by tellers the message was laid 
aside. Then it was voted to take up the pension bill.
  After it had been read through and a proposition had been made to 
consider it by sections, Mr. Harvey Putnam, of New York, got the floor 
and proceeded to discuss the admission of California and slavery in the 
Territories.
  Mr. Alexander Evans, of Maryland, made the point that his remarks 
were irrelevant. The bill before the House was a pension bill, and the 
gentleman was discussing the slavery question.
  The Chairman \1\ decided that under the uniform practice a wide range 
of debate had always been allowed in Committee of the Whole on the 
state of the Union, and that the Chair therefore did not feel 
authorized to declare the remarks of the gentleman from New York out of 
order.
  On appeal the decision was sustained.
  5236. On July 20, 1852,\2\ the House was in Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union, and Mr. George S. Houston, of Alabama, 
moved to take up the Military Academy bill. Then Mr. Houston asked that 
there be no general debate, as he wished soon to call up another bill. 
The bill was then read through by the Clerk.
  Then Mr. Edson B. Olds, of Ohio, arose and said he proposed to make a 
political speech. After he had begun Mr. Edward Stanly, of North 
Carolina, arose to a point of order.
  The Chairman \3\ said he was of the opinion that, in accordance with 
the general practice of the House, general discussion might be 
permitted to go on.
  This decision was sustained, 94 yeas to 37 nays.\4\
  Then, after further debate, the bill was read for amendments.
  5237. On January 10, 1906,\5\ the Philippine tariff bill (H. R. 3) 
was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union, general debate not having yet been concluded.
  Mr. Morris Sheppard, of Texas, having the floor, proceeded to discuss 
an incident which had occurred recently at the White House, and which 
had no connection with the tariff bill.
  Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, made the point of order that he was 
not confining himself to the subject before the committee.
  The Chairman \6\ held:

  The Chair is of the opinion, and finds himself sustained by former 
rulings, that in Committee of the Whole House a Member must confine 
himself to the subject, but it has been universally held that in 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union a Member need 
not confine himself to the bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, p. 1856.
  \3\ John S. Phelps, of Missouri, Chairman.
  \4\ On June 1, 1880 (second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 
4019), in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
Chairman W. C. Whitthorne, of Tennessee, gave a full review of the 
principle that the member is not confined to the subject of the pending 
bill in general debate in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union.
  \5\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 932.
  \6\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 5238
or subject under debate. * * * The Chair will add that, as may be found 
in paragraph 885 of the Parliamentary Precedents of the House, on 
February 23, 1849, the question was squarely before the House in 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and the 
Chairman, Mr. Hugh White, of New York, ``held that, according to the 
universal usage, when the House was in Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union all manner of matter was debated.'' An appeal 
was taken and the Chair was sustained. There has never been a contrary 
ruling from that time until the present day. [Applause on the 
Democratic side.]
  The Chair finds that according to paragraph 888, the House then being 
in Committee of the Whole House, not on the state of the Union, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Payne] made a ruling that in that 
committee Members were confined to a discussion of the pending matter. 
It is, of course, so held in the House; but in Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union, in general debate, under the unbroken 
precedents of the last fifty years or more, the ruling has been uniform 
that all manner of matter may be debated. Of course there are other 
ways in which a gentleman having the floor may violate rules and be out 
of order, but the Chair is unable to sustain the point as to 
germaneness. The point would be good in Committee of the Whole, but not 
in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union while general 
debate is in progress.

  5238. On February 15, 1906,\1\ during general debate in Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union on the bill (H. R. 345) to 
provide for an increased annual appropriation for agricultural 
experiment stations and regulating the expenditure thereof, Mr. Sereno 
E. Payne, of New York, having the floor, proceeded to debate a question 
other than that involved in the pending bill.
  Mr. Augustus P. Gardner, of Massachusetts, raised the question of 
order that the gentleman from New York was not confining himself to the 
subject-matter of the bill.
  The Chairman \2\ said:

  The Chair will state that we are in Committee of the Whole House [on 
the state of the Union] and the gentleman is not bound to confine 
himself to the subject-matter of the bill.

  5239. In general debate in Committee of the Whole House the Member 
must confine himself to the subject.
  Instance wherein the Chair gave a casting vote in case of a tie on an 
appeal from his decision.
  On March 4, 1898,3 the House was in Committee of the Whole House,\4\ 
considering the bill (H. R. 285) for the relief of David D. Smith.
  Upon this bill, during general debate, Mr. Levin I. Handy, of 
Delaware, proceeded to make general remarks on the condition of the 
United States Treasury.
  Mr. Henry R. Gibson, of Tennessee, made the point of order that the 
remarks of the gentleman from Delaware were not addressed to the 
question before the committee.
  The Chairman \5\ sustained the point of order.
  From this decision Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, appealed. The 
vote being taken by tellers on the question, ``Shall the decision of 
the Chair stand as the judgment of the committee?'' there were 91 ayes 
and 91 noes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 2617.
  \2\ John A. Sterling, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 2497-2500.
  \4\ This should be distinguished from Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union, referred to in decisions in sections 5233, etc. 
(For distinction between the two committees see sec. 4705 of Vol. IV of 
this work.)
  \5\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 5240
  The Chairman voted in the affirmative and announced that the decision 
was sustained.\1\
  5240. In debate under the five-minute rule \2\ the Member must 
confine himself to the subject.--On August 17, 1850,\3\ the House being 
in Committee of the Whole, and a general appropriation bill being under 
consideration, an amendment was offered allowing Members $45 for 
stationery. Mr. Thomas H. Bayly, of Virginia (for the purpose of making 
a remark), moved to amend the amendment by making the sum $9.
  As Mr. Bayly began to speak the Chairman \4\ interposed, and stated 
that the question was now on the gentleman's amendment to the 
amendment, and the rule required the gentleman to confine his remarks 
to the amendment to the amendment.
  5241. On June 13, 1850,\5\ during the consideration of the message 
transmitting the constitution of California, in Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union, Mr. John Wentworth, of Illinois, had 
the floor in debate, when Mr. George Ashmun, of Massachusetts, made the 
point of order that during the five-minute debate Members should 
confine themselves to the subject of the amendments presented.
  The Chairman \6\ said:

  This rule is stringent in its provisions, but in five minutes it 
would be extremely difficult for the Chair to determine what use the 
gentleman from Illinois might make of his remarks, which he has 
submitted. In reference to the Missouri Compromise and the annexation 
of Texas the Chair did not feel it to be his duty to call the gentleman 
to order or to sustain the question of order raised by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts.

  Mr. Ashmun having appealed, the question was taken by tellers, and 
the decision of the Chair was overruled, ayes 77, noes 80.
  5242. On July 27, 1852,\7\ while the river and harbor appropriation 
bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union, the Chairman \8\ addressed the committee as 
follows:

  Before proceeding to the consideration of the pending amendments, the 
Chair asks the indulgence of the committee to state, in advance, a 
decision which he feels himself called upon to make relative to the 
further consideration of this bill. And, inasmuch as this decision will 
be an innovation upon the practice of the Committee of the Whole on the 
state of the Union, he announces it in advance, that no member of the 
committee, when called to order under it, may suppose the Chair 
personal or invidious, and that the committee, by an examination of the 
question, may be prepared to sustain or overrule the Chair.
  The thirty-fourth rule * * * is as follows:

  ``Any member shall be allowed in committee five minutes to explain 
any amendment he may offer; after which, any member first obtaining the 
floor shall be allowed to speak five minutes in opposition to the 
amendment.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ The tie vote would have sustained the Chair without his own vote. 
(See sec. 185 of Reed's Parliamentary Rules.)
  \2\ For this rule see section 5221 of this chapter.
  \3\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Globe, pp. 1594, 1596.
  \4\ Armistead Burt, of South Carolina, Chairman.
  \5\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Globe, p. 1194.
  \6\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Chairman.
  \7\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, p. 1938.
  \8\ Edson B. Olds, of Ohio, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 5243
  The Chair will feel himself bound to give a strict construction to 
this rule; and will hold, that all remarks upon the general merits of 
the bill will be out of order as ``explaining'' an amendment, and that 
all remarks touching the demerits of the bill will be out of order as 
opposing an amendment.

  5243. On April 22, 1890,\1\ the House was in Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union considering the legislative, executive, 
and judicial appropriation bill, under the five-minute rule.
  The paragraph under consideration relating to compensation of 
officers, clerks, and messengers of the Senate, Mr. Francis B. Spinola, 
of New York, was proceeding to discuss certain charges against a Member 
of the Senate.
  Mr. Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, made the point of order that the 
gentleman was not in order.
  The Chairman \2\ said:

  The Chair is prepared to decide the question of order. There is no 
necessity for debate. The Committee has under consideration a general 
appropriation bill making provision for the payment of the legislative, 
judicial, and executive salaries. The rule of the House has been read 
in the hearing of the Committee, and the Chair assumes that the members 
of the Committee are as familiar with the rule as the Chair. The Chair 
is familiar with the practice that has obtained since the present 
occupant of the chair has been a Member of the House, and knows that 
considerable latitude has always been allowed in debate in Committee of 
the Whole under this rule; but the Chair is clearly of the opinion--and 
there can be no doubt about it--that if the point of order is made in a 
case such as is presented now it is the duty of the Chair to hold that 
such remarks as have been indulged in are clearly not in order in 
discussing an amendment to this bill. The gentleman from New York has 
three minutes and the Chair hopes the gentleman will proceed in order.

  5244. On May 25, 1892,\3\ the House was in Committee of the 'Whole 
House on the state of the Union considering the sundry civil 
appropriation bill. The Committee were considering under the five-
minute rule a paragraph appropriating for the World's Columbian 
Exposition.
  Mr. Henry U. Johnson, of Indiana, having been recognized, proceeded 
to discuss a subject not contained in the paragraph, namely, the 
killing of Eli Ladd, in Henry County, Ind., to which reference had been 
made during the debate.
  Mr. Joseph D. Sayers, of Texas, having made the point of order that 
the gentleman from Indiana was not proceeding in order, the Chairman 
ruled that the gentleman from Indiana must confine himself to the 
question.
  Mr. Johnson having proceeded, he was again called to order by Mr. 
George D. Wise, of Virginia.
  The Chairman\4\ ruled that the gentleman from Indiana should take his 
seat.
  Mr. Charles A. Boutelle, of Maine, moved that the Member from Indiana 
be permitted to explain. This motion was decided in the negative.
  5245. On January 30, 1897,\5\ the agricultural appropriation bill was 
under consideration under the five-minute rule in Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union, and Mr. John F. Shafroth, of 
Colorado, having the floor, was proceeding to discuss the money 
question and the relations of gold and silver.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 3695.
  \2\ Lewis E. Payson, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \3\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Record, pp. 4689, 4690.
  \4\ Rufus E. Lester, of Georgia, Chairman.
  \5\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1355.
Sec. 5246
  Mr. James W. Wadsworth, of New York, having made the point of order 
that the gentleman was not speaking to the paragraph, the Chairman 
sustained the point of order.
  Mr. Shafroth having appealed from the decision, the Chairman\1\ said:

  The Committee is now discussing a particular item in an appropriation 
bill. Upon that the gentleman from Colorado arose and made a speech 
upon the question of silver, and other questions, which the Committee 
heard. The point of order was made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Wadsworth] that the remarks of the gentleman from Colorado were not 
upon the subject-matter of the paragraph under consideration by the 
Committee. Upon that the Chair held that the remarks were not in order. 
From that the gentleman from Colorado appeals, and the question is upon 
sustaining the decision of the Chair.

  The Chair was sustained by 70 yeas to 40 nays.
  5246. On March 29, 1897,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union were considering the tariff bill under the five-
minute rule, the paragraph relating to ``clays or earths'' being before 
them.
  Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, having taken the floor, Mr. John 
Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked if it was 
in order for the gentleman from Missouri to make a silver speech under 
guise of debate on the paragraph.
  The Chairman \2\ said:

  The gentleman from Pennsylvania makes a parliamentary inquiry, and 
the Chair must respond to it. Section 5 of Rule XXIII provides that--
  ``When general debate is closed by order of the House, any Member 
shall be allowed five minutes to explain any amendment he may offer, 
after which the Member who shall first obtain the floor shall be 
allowed to speak five minutes in opposition to it.''
  The Chair thinks the clear meaning of that provision is that the 
debate shall be confined to the subject under consideration. It is true 
that heretofore great latitude has been allowed in Committee of the 
Whole, but the Chair thinks that at no time has that latitude been 
extended so far as to allow debate beyond the provisions of the bill, 
even when it has tolerated debate beyond the portion of the bill 
immediately under consideration.

  5247. On February 24, 1898,\4\ the sundry civil appropriation bill 
was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union under the five-minute rule, when Mr. Lemuel E. Quigg, of New 
York, proposed to reply to certain charges made on the previous day in 
regard to campaign funds in the State of New York.
  Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made the point of order that this 
did not relate to the subject under consideration.
  The Chairman sustained \1\ the point of order.
  5248. On March 11, 1898,\5\ the House was in Committee of the Whole 
House considering under the five-minute rule the bill (H. R. 4936) for 
the allowance of claims for stores and supplies under the Bowman Act. 
Mr. James Hamilton Lewis, of Washington, having been recognized, 
proceeded to discuss a statement made in the public prints concerning 
the boundary between the United States and Canada.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 438.
  \3\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2142.
  \5\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 2735, 2736.
                                                            Sec. 5249
  Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, made the point of order that 
the remarks of the gentleman were not germane to the subject before the 
Committee.
  The Chairman\1\ sustained the point of order.
  5249. On March 25, 1898,\2\ the House was in Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union considering the naval appropriation 
bill.
  The Clerk having read, for debate under the five-minute rule, the 
paragraph relating to ``Pay, miscellaneous'' of the Navy, Mr. Charles 
S. Hartman, of Montana, secured the floor and was proceeding to speak 
on the issues of national party politics, when Mr. Charles A. Boutelle, 
of Maine, made the point of order that the gentleman was not addressing 
himself to the measure before the House.
  The gentleman from Montana urged that in Committee of the Whole on 
the state of the Union it was permissible to discuss the general 
condition of the country.
  The Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order, making a distinction 
between general debate and debate under the five-minute rule.
  On an appeal taken by Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, the decision of 
the Chair was sustained, 116 ayes to 99 nays, on a vote by tellers.
  Then, on motion of Mr. Benton McMillin, of Tennessee, the House voted 
that the gentleman from Montana might proceed in order.
  Again on the same day Mr. Hartman was called to order, and Mr. Joseph 
W. Bailey, of Texas, moved that he be permitted to proceed in order.
  Mr. Nelson Dingley, of Maine, raised the point that the motion 
prescribed by the rule\4\ was that the gentleman should be allowed to 
explain.
  So Mr. Bailey modified his motion, and the question being put, the 
House decided--116 nays to 104 yeas--that the gentleman from Montana 
should not be permitted to explain.\5\
  5250. On February 26, 1898,\6\ during the consideration of the sundry 
civil appropriation bill, under the five-minute rule, in Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union, the paragraph relating to 
the care of national cemeteries was read.
  Mr. James Hamilton Lewis, of Washington, being recognized, proceeded 
to discuss the relations of the United States with Spain.
  Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made the point of order.
  The Chairman\1\ sustained the point of order.
  5251. On February 2, 1899,\7\ the river and harbor bill (H. R. 11795) 
was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union, and was being read for amendments under the five-minute 
rule, when the following paragraph was read:

  Improving Forked Deer River, Tennessee: For maintenance, $3,000.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman
  \2\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 3226-3236.
  \3\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
  \4\ See section 5175 of this volume.
  \5\ During the debate a precedent (Record, p. 2503, first session 
Fifty-fourth Congress), was cited, wherein it was held that gentlemen 
were not held to the subject in debating under the five-minute rule.
  \6\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 2244, 2245.
  \7\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record p. 1399.
Sec. 5252
  Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, moved to strike out the last word, 
and was proceeding to debate the subject of the improvement of the 
Muskingum River in Ohio.
  Mr. Theodore E. Burton, of Ohio, made the point of order that the 
gentleman from Iowa was not confining himself to the subject before the 
House.
  The Chairman \1\ said:

  The gentleman from Iowa is familiar with the rule that during the 
five-minute debate remarks must be germane to the pending proposition. 
* * * In conformity with the uniform rule the gentleman from Iowa 
should confine himself to the matter under consideration.

  5252. On February 9, 1900,\2\ a Friday evening session, the House was 
in Committee of the Whole House, and the bill granting a pension to 
Sarah Potter was before the committee.
  A motion was pending to amend the bill by inserting the words 
``subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws.''
  Mr. Thetus W. Sims, of Tennessee, having been recognized, was 
proceeding to discuss the general subject of pensions, when Mr. James 
A. Norton, of Ohio, made the point of order that the gentlemen from 
Tennessee was not confining himself to the subject.
  The Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order.
  5253. On April 20, 1900,\4\ the naval appropriation bill was under 
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
under the five-minute rule, the Clerk having read the paragraph 
relating to contingent expenses of the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts.
  Mr. John W. Gaines, of Tennessee, being recognized, was proceeding to 
read in his own time a paper relating to the manufacture of armor 
plate.
  Mr. Thaddeus M. Mahon, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that 
the gentleman from Tennessee was not confining himself to the subject.
  The Chairman \5\ sustained the point of order.
  5254. On June 5, 1900,\6\ the Senate amendments to the Military 
Academy appropriation bill were under consideration in Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union, and the question was on an 
amendment relating to the pay of certain watchmen.
  Mr. John J. Lentz, of Ohio, having the floor, proposed to discuss a 
different subject; a point of order was made by Mr. William B. Shattuc, 
of Ohio.
  The Chairman \7\ said:

  The point of order is well taken. * * * The Chair will call the 
attention of the gentleman from Ohio to the fact that the committee is 
considering the amendment under the five-minute rule. The gentleman's 
colleague from Ohio has made the point of order that the remarks of the 
gentleman are not in order, and the Chair has ruled that they are not 
in order. The gentleman has insisted on his point of order, and the 
gentleman is not proceeding in order in debate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1676.
  \3\ William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, Chairman.
  \4\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4482.
  \5\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
  \6\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 6742.
  \7\ Adam B. Capron, of Rhode Island, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 5255
  5255. On January 28, 1901,\1\ the bill (H.R. 13423) for the 
codification and revision of the postal laws was under consideration in 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and the Clerk 
was reading the bill by sections for amendment.
  Mr. Dennis T. Flynn, of Oklahoma, having moved to strike out the last 
word, was proceeding to discuss a bill not then before the committee 
relating to certain Indian affairs.
  Mr. John H. Stephens, of Texas, made the point of order that the 
debate was irrelevant.
  The Chairman \2\ held:

  The Chair sustains the point of order. * * * The Chair will state 
that when a bill is being read by sections the gentleman must confine 
his remarks to the pending section.

  5256. On February 23, 1907,\3\ the sundry civil appropriation bill 
was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union, the amendment being pending:

  Insert the following:
  ``For the continuation of the analysis and testing of the coal, 
lignite, and other mineral fuel substances belonging to the United 
States, in order to determine their fuel value, etc., under the 
supervision of the Director of the Geological Survey, to be immediately 
available, $250,000.''

  Mr. Richard Bartholdt, of Missouri, as an amendment to the amendment, 
moved to strike out the last word, and was proceeding:

  What the gentleman from Minnesota said about the character and 
standing of the St. Louis engineer who wrote the letter about fuel 
tests is true--

  Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, here interposed with the point of 
order that the gentleman from Missouri was not speaking to his 
amendment.
  The Chairman \4\ sustained the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1585.
  \2\ George P. Lawrence, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 3806.
  \4\ James E. Watson, of Indiana, Chairman.