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

 
                             Chapter CXVI.

                           READING OF PAPERS.

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

   1. Rule and its history. Section 5257.
   2. Provisions of Parliamentary law. Sections 5258, 5259.
   3. General decisions. Sections 5260-5266.
   4. As to messages of the President. Sections 5267-5272.
   5. As related to suspension of the rules. Sections 5273-5284.
   6. Instances of objections to reading. Sections 5285-5291.
   7. Reading of reports. Sections 5292-5295.
   8. In relation to the previous question, conference reports, 
     etc. Sections 5296-5299.

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

  5257. When a Member objects to the reading of a paper other than one 
on which the House is to give a final vote, the question as to the 
reading is determined by vote without debate.
  The right of a Member to demand the reading of a paper on which he is 
called to vote is recognized in the rules of the House.
  Present form and history of Rule XXXI.
  Rule XXXI provides:

  When the reading of a paper other than one upon which the House is 
called to give a final vote is demanded, and the same is objected to by 
any Member, it shall be determined without debate by a vote of the 
House.

  The first rule on this subject dates from November 13, 1794,\1\ when 
the House adopted this rule:

  When the reading of a paper is called for which has been before read 
to the House, and the same is objected to by any Member, it shall be 
determined by a vote of the House.

  As early as 1802 this rule was changed to the following form:

  When the reading of a paper is called for, and the same is objected 
to by any Member, it shall be determined by a vote of the House.\2\

  In this form the rule continued until the revision of 1880, when the 
present form was adopted. In their report \3\ at that time the 
Committee on Rules say that they amended the old rule so as to make it 
applicable only to papers ``other than one upon which the House is 
called to give a final vote,'' thus reaffirming or recognizing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third and Fourth Congresses, Journal, p. 228 (Gales and Seaton 
ed.).
  \2\ The rule appears first in this form in the draft of the rules 
printed in the Journal of January 7, 1802. (First session Seventh 
Congress, Journal, p. 39, Annals; p. 410).
  \3\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 202.
                                                            Sec. 5258
the right of a Member to demand the reading of a paper on which he is 
called to vote. This is the long-established rule and practice of the 
English Parliament.
  5258. Under the parliamentary law every Member has the right to have 
a paper once read before he is called to vote on it.
  The reading of papers other than the one on which the vote is taken 
is usually permitted under the parliamentary law without question, but 
if objection is made the Speaker must take the sense of the House.
  A Member may not, as a matter of right, require the reading of a book 
or paper on suggesting that it contains matter infringing on the 
privileges of the House.
  If there is an evident abuse of the patience of the House, and 
objection is made, the Member must have leave of the House to read a 
paper in his place, even though it be his own written speech.
  Section XXXII of Jefferson's Manual has these provisions in regard to 
the reading of papers:

  Where papers are laid before the House or referred to a committee, 
every Member has a right to have them once read at the table before he 
can be compelled to vote on them,\1\ but it is a great though common 
error to suppose that he has a right, toties quoties, to have acts, 
journals, accounts, or papers on the table read independently of the 
will of the House. The delay and interruption which this might be made 
to produce evince the impossibility of the existence of such a right. 
There is, indeed, so manifest a propriety of permitting every Member to 
have as much information as possible on every question on which he is 
to vote that, when he desires the reading, if it be seen that it is 
really for information and not for delay, the Speaker directs it to be 
read without putting a question, if no one objects; but if objected to, 
a question must be put. (2 Hats., 117, 118.)
  It is equally an error to suppose that any Member has a right, 
without a question put, to lay a book or paper on the table, and have 
it read, on suggesting that it contains matter infringing on the 
privileges of the House. (Ib.)
  For the same reason, a Member has not a right to read a paper in his 
place, if it be objected to, without leave of the House. But this rigor 
is never exercised but where there is an intentional or gross abuse of 
the time and patience of the House.
  A Member has not a right even to read his own speech, committed to 
writing, without leave. This also is to prevent an abuse of time, and 
therefore is not refused but where that is intended. (2 Grey, 227.)

  5259. Before the adoption of rules, while the House was proceeding 
under general parliamentary law, the Speaker held that a Member in 
debate on an election case might not have read, as a matter of right, 
the record of testimony.--On February 1, 1890,\2\ before the adoption 
of rules, the House proceeding under general parliamentary law, and the 
contested election case of Smith v. Jackson being under debate, Mr. 
Charles T. O'Ferrall, of Virginia, sent to the Clerk's desk a printed 
record of the testimony and called for the reading of it.
  The Speaker \3\ ruled that it could not be read; not even as a part 
of Mr. O'Ferrall's remarks; neither could the gentleman be allowed to 
read it himself.
  After discussion, the Speaker said:

  The rule of parliamentary practice has always been recognized in 
regard to that, and has been recognized by the rules of this House (and 
that is only a declaration of the ordinary parliamentary law),
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ See an instance in the Senate wherein a Senator was denied the 
right to have a paper read before voting on a motion to table it, but 
obtained the reading only by a vote of the Senate. (Second session 
Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 3385.)
  \2\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 1019.
  \3\ Thomas B. Reed of Maine, Speaker.
Sec. 5260
which is that a printed document, or a document other than one upon 
which the vote is finally to be taken, meaning a bill, resolution, or 
something of that nature, can only be read by consent of the House. 
That is a recognition in the old rules of a simple common parliamentary 
doctrine.
  Of course the Chair has not the power to enforce against the 
gentleman any rule unless it be by the support of the House itself. It 
is simply the duty of the Chair to state the rule as he understands it, 
and the gentleman must not make a confusion, or even the House, between 
a court of justice and a deliberative body. * * * It is a recognized 
fact, and the reason why the documents are printed is for the 
information of Members, to be read by themselves for their own 
instruction, and the Chair can appeal to the unbroken experience of all 
gentlemen upon this floor in regard to this matter, both in this and 
other parliamentary bodies. * * *

  As an inquiry, Mr. Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, said:

  Do I understand the Chair to hold that the gentleman from Virginia, 
in a contested-election case, may not read to the House such portions 
of the testimony as he thinks should be called to their attention?

  The Speaker replied:

  By no means. The Chair did not decide anything of the sort. * * * The 
gentleman had a perfect right to refer to a document and read portions 
and comment upon it. But the gentleman from Georgia will see the 
difference between that and reading an entire document, as the 
gentleman has proposed.

  5260. When a paper on which the House is to vote has been read once, 
the reading may not be required again unless the House shall order it 
read.
  A paper not before the House for action, but related to the pending 
matter, may be read by order of the House if there is objection to the 
request of a Member.
  On August 28, 1852,\1\ while the House was considering Senate 
amendments to the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill, Mr. Meredith 
P. Gentry, of Tennessee, raised a question of order concerning the 
rule:

  When the reading of a paper is called for, and the same is objected 
to by any Member, it shall be determined by a vote of the House.

  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair holds that a paper in the shape of a bill, for instance, to 
be voted upon, must be read under the law, and that you can not 
dispense with the reading unless you dispense with the rules.\3\ But if 
the paper has been read once, it is not within the power of any one 
Member to demand that it shall be read a second time. The rule provides 
that if he be sustained by a vote of the House he may have it read. 
Again, it will embrace another case like this: if a Member asks that a 
paper not before the House--a letter, for instance--be read, and it is 
objected to, he may, by a vote of the House, have it read. A bill or 
amendment to be voted on must be read under the rule--the rule commands 
it--and it can not be dispensed with except by a vote of two-thirds.\4\

  5261. On a motion to refer a report the reading of it may be demanded 
as a matter of right by a Member; but the latest ruling leaves
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, p. 2416.
  \2\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \3\ The rule at this time was as follows: ``When the reading of a 
paper is called for, and the same is objected to by any Member, it 
shall be determined by a vote of the House.''
  \4\ Mr. Speaker Boyd omitted one evident qualification of this 
principle, viz, that the paper or letter which is not before the House 
for action should relate to the pending matter of business if the 
question of reading it is to be forced on the attention of the House. 
Evidently a Member might not displace the order of business to have 
read a paper unrelated to the business in order.
                                                            Sec. 5261
to the House to decide whether or not an accompanying record of 
testimony shall be read.--On July 2, 1856,\1\ the Speaker announced as 
the business first in order the report of the select committee 
appointed under the resolutions of the House of the 19th of March last 
to inquire into and collect evidence in regard to the troubles in 
Kansas, etc., submitted on the previous day, the pending question being 
on the motion submitted by Mr. Israel Washburn, jr., and upon which the 
main question was ordered to be put, ``that it be referred to the 
Committee of Elections and printed; and that leave be given to the 
minority of the said committee to submit a report at any time within 
ten days, and to take additional testimony, and, when submitted, that 
the same be referred to the Committee of Elections and printed.''
  The Clerk resumed and finished the reading of so much of the report 
as consisted of the statements and deductions of a majority of the 
committee.
  The reading of the balance of the report, consisting of the Journal, 
testimony, etc., having been called for,
  Mr. Thomas L. Clingman, of North Carolina, moved to dispense with the 
reading of the same.
  Mr. Burton Craige, of North Carolina, submitted, as a question of 
order, that it was not competent for a majority to deprive any Member 
desiring it of the privilege of having the entire report read.
  The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order and decided that the 
motion to dispense with the reading could not be entertained while any 
Member objected, on the ground that, under the parliamentary law, on a 
question of the reference of papers, if a Member insisted they shall be 
read, nobody could oppose it; he did not think that the fifty-seventh 
rule of the House related to such papers as were before the House for 
its action. The Speaker said:

  The gentleman from North Carolina moved that the further reading of 
the report of the committee be dispensed with. Objection being made, 
and a question of order being raised, the Chair decides that, as the 
motion pending is that the report be printed and referred to 
committees, it is the right of a Member of the House to have the report 
read. The Chair asks leave simply to make this suggestion, that 
according to the understanding of the Chair the fifty-seventh rule 
refers to papers laid before the House on which no action of the House 
is to be had, as, for example, if the question of admitting the State 
of Kansas be the pending question, and a Member of the House should ask 
that the report of the committee of investigation be read, the Chair 
would decide that it was not the right of a Member to have that report 
read, because no action of the House was called for on that report; but 
if the motion were submitted that a report bearing on that question 
should be read, it would be the duty of the Chair to submit the motion, 
and the majority would have the power to decide. That is the Chair's 
understanding of the application of the fifty-seventh rule--that it 
refers exclusively to papers on which no action of the House is had. 
The Chair desires to say nothing more on this question than to refer to 
the paragraph on the ninety-fourth page of the Manual, which is, that 
where a paper is to be referred to a committee, if a Member insists 
that it shall be read, no other Member can object.* * * The distinction 
between the reading of papers upon which action of the House is to be 
had and of those on which no action is to be taken covers a great 
principle of right. If the majority of the House may, by a simple vote, 
dispense with the reading of a paper upon which the House is called to 
act, great wrong may be done.\3\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 1146; Globe, p. 
1535.
  \2\ Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ The rule at this time was somewhat different from the present 
rule. (See sec. 5257.)
Sec. 5262
  Mr. Clingman having appealed, the decision of the Chair was 
sustained, 176 yeas to 7 nays.
  5262. On February 20, 1889,\1\ the question was on a motion to 
recommit the report of the investigation of school-site purchases in 
the District of Columbia, when Mr. William. P. Taulbee, of Kentucky, 
demanded the reading of the evidence accompanying the report.
  The Speaker \2\ held:

  The rule of the House, as it has been laid down, is that the matter 
which is to be voted upon shall be read if the reading is demanded; but 
if it is insisted that the proof shall be read, that question will have 
to be decided by the House. The House does not vote upon the proof. It 
is simply a question now with the House whether it shall have it read 
or not. * * * All committees of investigation are required to report 
back the evidence taken, but it constitutes no part of the matter upon 
which the House is required to vote. * * * The Chair overrules the 
point of order, and will, if the gentleman insists upon the reading, 
let it be decided by the House whether it shall be read or not.

  5263. The early practice was not uniform as to the right of a Member 
to demand the reading of a paper which it was proposed to print.--On 
March 3, 1827,\3\ a motion was before the House to print a report of a 
select committee on the memorial of the Colonization Society.
  Mr. James Hamilton, of South Carolina, demanded the reading of the 
report.
  Objection being made, the Speaker \4\ decided that the question on 
reading must be determined by a vote of the House.
  Mr. Hamilton appealed, but after debate withdrew the appeal, and the 
House acquiesced in the decision of the Chair.
  5264. On March 4, 1834,\5\ Mr. James K. Polk, of Tennessee, moved 
that the report of the Committee on Ways and Means on the withdrawal of 
deposits from the Bank of the United States be printed.\6\
  Mr. Clement C. Clay, of Alabama, called for the reading of the 
report.
  A question being raised, and a motion made to dispense with the 
reading, the Speaker \7\ said that the Member from Alabama had a right 
to have the report read before he could be required to vote, and that 
it was not in order to move to dispense with the reading nor in the 
power of the majority of the House so to direct. The rule which 
declared that, when the reading of a paper is called for, and the same 
is objected to, that the House shall determine by a vote whether it is 
to be read or not, did not apply to the case of a paper first presented 
for the consideration and action of the House. That rule was adopted, 
no doubt, in consequence of its having been supposed that this right of 
a Member to have a paper read for information extended to all papers 
which were on the table, or in the possession of the House, and on 
which the House might have passed. To guard against the delay and 
inconvenience which would have arisen from the exercise of such a right 
the forty-second rule \8\ was adopted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fiftieth Congress, Record, p. 2118; Journal, p. 
571.
  \2\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Nineteenth Congress, Journal, p. 494; Debates, p. 
1532.
  \4\ John W. Taylor, of New York, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Twenty-third Congress, Debates, pp. 2868, 2869.
  \6\ Reports are now printed under provisions of a rule and law.
  \7\ Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, Speaker.
  \8\ See section 5257 of this volume for the rule then and now.
                                                            Sec. 5265
  That rule, however, was only applicable, in the opinion of the Chair, 
to papers upon the table or in possession of the House, and did not 
apply to papers first presented to the House and on which action was to 
be had. When any paper was thus presented for the first time, in the 
business and proceedings of the House, any Member had a right to have 
it read through once at the table before he could be compelled to give 
any opinion or vote in relation to it; but, having been once read it 
was, like every other paper that belonged to the House, to be moved \1\ 
to be read, if again desired, and if objection be made the sense of the 
House was to be taken by the Chair. This was an important right to each 
individual Member, one of the few that could be exercised by him 
against the opinion of the House, and which no majority could, as the 
law was, deprive him of. It had been so regarded, and held sacred, by 
the individual who filled the Chair, and he had been sustained by the 
practice and decision of the House. In 1802 the question was first 
raised, in relation to a communication from the then Secretary of War; 
a motion having been made to dispense with the reading of it, it was 
decided by Mr. Speaker Macon to be out of order (no doubt for the 
reasons now stated, though that did not appear), and approved by a vote 
of more than four to one. A difference of opinion had probably arisen 
on the subject, the Speaker said, in consequence of the rules as laid 
down in the Manual. The authority of Hatzel, which Mr. Jefferson 
referred to as justifying the rule, had been entirely misapprehended. 
The practice of the House of Commons, certainly since the time of Mr. 
Onslow, was in accordance with the decision now made, and the right in 
question he had ever regarded as one highly important to each 
individual Member of this House.
  5265. On February 10, 1859,\2\ Mr. James M. Cavanaugh, of Minnesota, 
presented a memorial relating to navigation in the Red River of the 
North, and moved that it be referred to the Committee on Commerce and 
printed.
  Pending this motion, Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, called for 
the reading of the memorial.
  The Speaker \3\ decided that the question of the reading of the 
memorial should be submitted to the House, saying:

  Suppose, for instance, the Patent Office report is presented here 
and, upon the motion to print, a gentleman calls for the reading of the 
document. It would take two weeks to read the paper, and the Chair is 
of opinion that the rules of the House can not require that the time of 
the House shall be taken up for two weeks upon the mere requirement of 
a Member that the Patent Office report shall be read. The Chair thinks 
the majority of the House have the right to decide in such a case 
whether the paper shall be read or not.

  Mr. Jones having appealed, the appeal was laid on the table.
  5266. Illustration of the difficulty of conceding to a Member the 
right to have read any paper concerning which he is to vote.--On June 
24, 1840,\4\ Mr. George W. Crabb, of Alabama, moved to reconsider the 
vote of the House on the previous day, whereby Raymond's Political 
Economy had been received and placed in the Library of Congress.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Such motion has no privilege.
  \2\ Second session Thirty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 376; Globe, p. 
941.
  \3\ James L. Orr, of South Carolina, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Globe, p. 483.
Sec. 5267
  Mr. Levi Lincoln, of Massachusetts, proposed to have the book read.
  Mr. Hopkins L. Turney, of Tennessee, rising to a parliamentary 
inquiry, asked if it was in order to ask the reading of the book on the 
motion to reconsider.
  The Speaker \1\ decided that, as the gentleman from Massachusetts was 
called on to vote respecting this book, he had a right, under the rules 
of the House, to have it read if he so demanded.
  5267. While a message of the President is always read in full and 
entered on the Journal, the latest rulings have not permitted the 
reading of the accompanying documents to be demanded as a matter of 
right.--On January 24, 1877,\2\ the Speaker, as the first business in 
order on the Speaker's table, laid before the House a message from the 
President of the United States, transmitting certain documents in 
response to the following resolution of the House of Representatives:

  Resolved, That the President be requested, if not incompatible with 
the public interest, to transmit to this House copies of any and all 
orders or directions, emanating from him or from either of the 
Executive Departments of the Government to any military commander or 
civil officer, with reference to the service of the Army or any portion 
thereof in the States of Virginia, South Carolina, Louisiana, and 
Florida, since the 1st of August last, together with reports by 
telegraph or otherwise from either or any of said military commanders 
or civil officers.

  The message having been read heretofore, was not read again.
  Mr. Stephen A. Hurlbut, of Illinois, demanded the reading of the 
papers accompanying the message.\3\
  Mr. Fernando Wood, of New York, objected to the reading of the 
accompanying documents.
  The Speaker \4\ said:

  The Chair thinks the demand for the reading of the accompanying 
documents can not be entertained. The rule provides for reading the 
message. * * * The Chair will submit the question to the House under 
Rule CXLI: ``When the reading of a paper is called for and the same is 
objected to by any Member, it shall be determined by a vote of the 
House.'' \5\

  5268. On December 18, 1893,\6\ the Speaker laid before the House two 
messages from the President, one transmitting documents relating to the 
relations of the United States and Hawaii.
  The messages having been read, were, with the accompanying documents, 
ordered to be printed and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. Charles A. Boutelle, of Maine, demanded the reading of certain 
telegrams and instructions of the Secretary of State accompanying the 
message previously read, and which had been referred to the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Robert M. T. Hunter, of Virginia, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 294-297; 
Record, p. 925.
  \3\ The accompanying documents were exceedingly voluminous. A Member 
said in the debate that the reading would require a week.
  \4\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
  \5\ Previously, on December 6, 1876 (second session Forty-fourth 
Congress, Journal, pp. 41, 42), Mr. Speaker Randall had ruled that on 
the demand of a Member both the President's message and the 
accompanying documents should be read, the question being on referring. 
(See sec. 5271.)
  \6\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 37-41; Record, 
pp. 374, 375.
                                                            Sec. 5269
  The Speaker held that the first message having been with the 
accompanying documents referred to a committee, it was not now in order 
to demand the reading of the documents except by the unanimous consent 
of the House.
  The Speaker \1\ also held that under the practice of the House the 
reading of documents accompanying a message from the President could 
not be demanded as a matter of right, but that the message itself was 
always read in full and entered in the Journal.
  By unanimous consent, the instructions and telegrams accompanying the 
first message were read by the Clerk.
  5269. On May 22, 1838,\2\ a message was received from the President 
of the United States, and, with the accompanying documents, was read. A 
ruling by the Chair at this time leaves it to be inferred that it was 
considered at that time a matter of right to have the accompanying 
documents read when messages were presented to the House.
  5270. On May 3, 1858,\3\ the Speaker laid before the House the 
following message from the President of the United States:

To the House of Representatives;
  In compliance with the resolutions of the House of Representatives of 
the 19th January, 1857, and 3d February, 1858, I herewith transmit the 
report of the Secretary of the Interior, with the accompanying 
documents.
                                               James Buchanan.    
    Washington, May 3, 1858.

  The reading of the accompanying documents having been called for, the 
question was put, ``Shall the same be read?'' and it was decided in the 
negative.
  Thereupon Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, demanded as a matter of 
right, in order that he might vote intelligently, that the papers be 
read.
  The Speaker \4\ decided that, after the vote just taken, it was not 
the right of a Member to have the papers read.
  Mr. Jones having appealed, the appeal was laid on the table.
  5271. On December 6, 1876,\5\ a message was received from the 
President of the United States, and the same having been laid before 
the House, Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, moved that the message 
be referred to the select committee appointed to investigate the recent 
election in the State of Louisiana.
  Mr. Omar D. Conger, of Michigan, as a question of order, demanded the 
reading of the message and accompanying document.
  The Speaker \6\ decided that, every Member having under the rules a 
right to demand the reading of a paper before voting on any question 
connected therewith, that right could only be taken from him by a 
suspension of the rules, which motion was not now in order, and that 
therefore the message and accompanying document must be read, as 
demanded by Mr. Conger.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Twenty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 943; Globe, p. 
400.
  \3\ First session Thirty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 730.
  \4\ James L. Orr, of South Carolina, Speaker.
  \5\ Second session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 40-42; Record, 
p. 69.
  \6\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
Sec. 5272
  5272. The documents which are a part of a message of the President 
are not read before the message is disposed of.--On May 11, 1846,\1\ a 
message relating to the troubles with Mexico was received from the 
President of the United States. The message having been read, a motion 
was made by Mr. Hugh A. Haralson, of Georgia, that the message and 
documents accompanying the same be laid on the table and printed.
  Mr. Robert C. Schenck, of Ohio, raised the question of order that a 
motion to lay the message and documents on the table was not in order 
until the reading of all the papers was completed.
  The Speaker \2\ decided that the motion of Mr. Haralson was in order.
  Mr. Schenck having appealed, the decision of the Chair was sustained.
  5273. It has generally, but not uniformly, been held that the right 
of the Member to have read the paper on which he is called to vote is 
not changed by the fact that the procedure is by suspension of the 
rules.--On February 26, 1859,\3\ Mr. John S. Phelps, of Missouri, moved 
that the rules be suspended so that he might report a bill for the 
modification of the tariff, and that Mr. Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont, 
might submit a substitute therefor, and that any other members of the 
Ways and Means Committee might have the opportunity to offer amendments 
thereto.
  The reading of the proposed amendments having been demanded, and 
objection being made thereto, the Speaker \4\ decided that it was a 
question for the House to determine as to whether the said papers 
should be, read.
  Mr. Henry C. Burnett, of Kentucky, having appealed, the appeal was 
laid on the table.
  5274. On July 24, 1854,\5\ the Speaker announced as the business 
first in order the motion submitted on a previous day by Mr. Williamson 
R. W. Cobb, of Alabama, to suspend the rules so as to enable him to 
move that the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union be 
discharged from the further consideration of the bill of the House (H. 
R. 34) granting a right of way and a donation of land to the State of 
Alabama for railroad purposes.
  Mr. Samuel A. Bridges, of Pennsylvania, asked that the bill be read 
for information.
  The Speaker having directed the Clerk to read the same, Mr. Thomas L. 
Clingman, of North Carolina, made the point of order that it was not 
competent for a Member to cause the bill to be read on a motion such as 
the pending one.
  The Speaker \6\ overruled the point of order, saying that gentlemen 
had a right to know for what purpose they were asked to suspend the 
rules.
  Mr. Clingman having appealed, the appeal was laid on the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 789; Globe, p. 
791.
  \2\ John W. Davis, of Indiana, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Thirty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 499; Globe, p. 
1411.
  \4\ James L. Orr, of South Carolina, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Thirty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 1193, 1194; 
Globe, p. 1888.
  \6\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 5275
  5275. On February 1, 1858,\1\ Mr. Marcus J. Parrott, of Kansas, moved 
that the rules be suspended, so as to enable him to present resolutions 
of the legislative assembly of Kansas Territory.
  The reading of the resolutions being called for, and objection being 
made thereto, the Speaker \2\ decided that it was the right of a 
Member, before being called upon to vote, to have the papers read.
  Mr. Burton Craige, of North Carolina, having appealed, the appeal was 
laid on the table.
  5276. On March 3, 1868,\3\ Mr. Speaker Colfax ruled that, on a motion 
to suspend the rules and have a protest entered on the Journal it was 
not in order to have the protest read to the House.
  5277. On June 19, 1878,\4\ Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, moved 
to suspend the rules and pass a bill relating to post routes, which he 
sent to the desk. Mr. Cannon then asked that the reading of the bill be 
waived.
  Objection being made, the Speaker \5\ held:

  So far as the experience of the Chair extends, and certainly 
according to his own uniform ruling, the right has always been conceded 
to a Member to have a proposition read upon which he was called to 
vote, so that he might know what he was to vote on.

  Mr. Benjamin F. Butler, of Massachusetts, asked if the rules might be 
suspended so as to dispense with the reading.
  The Speaker said:

  They can not.

  5278. The right of the Member to have read a paper on which the House 
is to vote may be abrogated by a suspension of the rules.\6\
  While one matter is before the House the motion to suspend the rules, 
if in order on the day, may be applied to the consideration of that 
matter, but it may not be used to displace it with a new matter.
  On February 9, 1857,\7\ the House proceeded to the consideration of 
the bill of the House (H. R. 187) ``establishing the collection 
districts of the United States, and designating the ports of entry and 
ports of delivery in the same, and for other purposes,'' which had been 
previously postponed until this day, the pending question being on its 
engrossment, upon which the previous question had been moved.
  Mr. Thomas J. D. Fuller, of Maine, having withdrawn the demand for 
the previous question, submitted an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute for the bill, and, after debate, moved the previous 
question. It was seconded, and the main question ordered to be put.
  The Speaker having stated the question to be on the amendment, in the 
nature of a substitute, submitted by Mr. Fuller, Mr. Muscoe R. H. 
Garnett, of Virginia, called for the reading of the same.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Thirty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 261; Globe, p. 
515.
  \2\ James L. Orr, of South Carolina, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 1632.
  \4\ Second session Forty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 4884, 4885.
  \5\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
  \6\ See, however, section 5277.
  \7\ Third session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 386; Globe, p. 
631.
                                                            Sec. 5279
  Mr. Fuller moved that the rules be suspended, so as to dispense with 
the reading.
  Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, made the point of order that it 
was not in order to move to suspend the rules after the previous 
question had been seconded \1\ and the main question ordered to be put.
  The Speaker \2\ stated that although it would not be in order to move 
to suspend the rules for the purpose of introducing, or having 
reference to a different subject, the present motion was clearly in 
order, and had so been held at former Congresses. He therefore 
overruled the point of order.
  From this decision of the Chair Mr. Jones appealed. The appeal was 
laid on the table, and the Chair was thereby sustained.
  5279. On March 2, 1857,\3\ on motion of Mr. Lewis D. Campbell, of 
Ohio, by unanimous consent, the bill of the House (H. R. 616) entitled 
``An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the year 
ending June 30, 1857,'' with the amendments of the Senate thereto, was 
taken up, and the House proceeded to its consideration. The reading of 
the amendments having been called for, Mr. Campbell moved that the 
rules be suspended. so as to dispense with the same.
  Mr. William Smith, of Virginia, made the point of order that it was 
not competent for the House to deprive a Member of the privilege of 
having a proposition read before voting upon it.
  The Speaker \2\ stated that the right to have a proposition read was 
derived from the rules, but that it was competent for the House to 
suspend the rules, and thereby deprive him of the privilege. He 
therefore overruled the point of order.
  From this decision of the Chair Mr. Smith appealed. And the question 
being put, ``Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of 
the House?'' it was decided in the affirmative.
  5280. On March 3, 1859,\4\ Mr. William H. English, of Indiana, the 
rules having been suspended for that purpose, introduced a bill (H. R. 
892) establishing certain post routes; which was read a first and 
second time.
  The reading of the bill in extenso having been called for, Mr. 
English moved a suspension of all rules requiring the same; which 
motion was agreed to, two-thirds voting in favor thereof.
  Mr. John S. Millson, of Virginia, made the point of order that the 
House having suspended its rules, and thereby placed itself under the 
parliamentary law, each Member had the right to insist upon the reading 
of the bill before he could be called upon to vote thereon.
  The Speaker \5\ overruled the point of order, saying:

  The practice is one of every-day occurrence. The Chair does not 
understand that when the rules are suspended to allow a particular 
thing to be done which could not be done under the rules it is a 
suspension of all the rules. The Chair understands it to be simply a 
suspension of such rules as prevent the Member from accomplishing what 
he desires to accomplish. * * * The Constitution declares that each 
House may determine the rules of its proceedings. For the purpose of 
this bill, the House
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ The second for the previous question is no longer required. (See 
sec. 5443 of this volume.)
  \2\ Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ Third session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 618; Globe, p. 
972.
  \4\ Second session Thirty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 572; Globe, p. 
1668.
  \5\ James L. Orr, of South Carolina, Speaker.
Sec. 5281
has declared that the bill shall be considered without being read in 
extenso. In making this decision the Chair follows the precedents which 
have existed for years, and which have been sustained by every House 
upon appeal, according to the recollection of the Chair.\1\

  Mr. Millson having appealed, the appeal was laid on the table and the 
decision of the Chair was thereby sustained.
  5281. On March 2, 1865,\2\ on motion of Mr. Justin S. Morrill, of 
Vermont, the rules having been suspended for that purpose, the bill of 
the House (H. R. 744) entitled ``An act to amend an act entitled `An 
act to provide internal revenue to support the Government, to pay 
interest on the public debt, and for other purposes,' approved June 30, 
1864,'' with the amendments of the Senate thereto, was taken up.
  The reading of the amendments having been called for, on motion of 
Mr. Morrill, the rules were suspended so as to dispense with the same.
  Mr. William S. Holman, of Indiana, insisted upon the reading of the 
amendments.
  The Speaker \3\ decided that inasmuch as the rules were suspended so 
as to dispense with their reading, he was not entitled to have them 
read.
  From this decision of the Chair Mr. Holman appealed; and the question 
being put, ``Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of 
the House?'' it was decided in the affirmative.
  5282. On July 24, 1876,\4\ Mr. Washington C. Whitthorne, of 
Tennessee, moved that the rules be suspended, so as to enable him to 
submit, and the House to consider and agree to, the following 
resolution:

  Resolved, That the report of the Committee on Naval Affairs, together 
with that of the minority, made upon alleged abuses, errors, and frauds 
in the naval service, be printed, and that the consideration of said 
reports be made the special order for Friday next after the morning 
hour.

  Mr. John H. Baker, of Indiana, demanded the reading of the report, 
and made the point of order that he had the right to have the report 
read before voting upon any proposition connected therewith.
  The Speaker pro tempore \5\ overruled the point of order, on the 
ground that the right being derived from the rules a Member could be 
deprived of that right by a suspension of the rules.
  5283. On August 28, 1852,\6\ the House having under consideration the 
civil and diplomatic appropriation bill with Senate amendments thereto,
  Mr. Edward C. Cabell, of Florida, called for the reading of the 
Senate amendments.
  Mr. Thomas L. Clingman, of North Carolina, moved that the rules be 
suspended, so as to enable him to move that the reading of the 
amendments be dispensed with.
  Mr. Presley Ewing, of Kentucky, made the point of order that the 
motion was not in order, on the ground that each Member had a right to 
have every proposition
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ The Speaker thereupon cited the decision of the Speaker in the 
preceding Congress on the point of order made by Mr. William Smith.
  \2\ Second session Thirty-eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 397, 398; 
Globe, p. 1334.
  \3\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 1331; Record, p. 
4861.
  \5\ Milton Sayler, of Ohio, Speaker pro tempore.
  \6\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, p 1116; Globe, p. 
2416.
Sec. 5287
read upon which he might be called to vote, and that it was not in the 
power of the House to deprive him of that right.
  The Speaker \1\ decided that the motion was in order. He admitted 
that a Member had the right to have a proposition read before he could 
be called to vote upon it. This right, however, was derived from the 
rules,\2\ and, by a suspension of those rules, he was clearly of the 
opinion that he might be deprived of it. The propriety of suspending 
the rules for that purpose was a matter to be judged of by Members in 
giving their votes.
  On an appeal the decision of the Chair was sustained.\3\
  5284. On March 12, 1860,\4\ Mr. Luther C. Carter, of New York, moved 
to suspend the rules so as to enable him to submit a preamble and 
resolution which he presented. During the reading of the said preamble 
and resolution, Mr. Daniel E. Sickles, of New York, moved that the 
rules be suspended to enable him to move that the reading of the 
preamble and resolution be suspended.
  Mr. John S. Millson, of Virginia, made the point of order that the 
reading of the paper having been objected to, it was competent for the 
House, by a majority vote, to determine whether or not it should be 
read.
  The Speaker \5\ overruled the point of order.
  Mr. Sickles's motion was then agreed to.
  The question being put on the motion to suspend the rules, the motion 
was disagreed to.
  The resolution and preamble do not appear on the journal.
  5285. A Member in debate usually reads or has read by the Clerk such 
papers as he pleases, but this privilege is subject to the authority of 
the House if another Member objects.--On January 30, 1833,\6\ Mr. Dutee 
J. Pearce, of Rhode Island, in the course of a tariff speech, sent to 
the Clerk's desk to be read in his time, a long document relating to 
the subject under consideration.
  During the reading Mr. Erastus Root, of New York, rising to a 
question of order, asked whether it was competent for the Member to 
read or cause to be read a printed speech.
  The Chair \7\ decided that it was the undoubted right of the 
gentleman from Rhode Island to send to the Clerk any statement or 
testimony which he might be anxious to have read.
  5286. On January 10, 1840,\8\ Mr. Nathan Clifford, of Maine, in the 
course of a speech on the New Jersey contested election cases, proposed 
to have read at the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \2\ The Globe (p. 2416) shows that the rule giving the Member the 
right to have a paper on which he must vote read was cited from 
Jefferson's Manual, and the suspension of the rules suspended this rule 
as well as all others.
  \3\ On March 3, 1853 (second session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, 
p. 401), the rules were suspended and a motion was agreed to for 
dispensing with the reading of the Senate amendments to the naval 
appropriation bill.
  \4\ First session Thirty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 500; Globe, pp. 
1113, 1114.
  \5\ William Pennington, of New Jersey, Speaker.
  \6\ Second session Twenty-second Congress, Debates, p. 1515.
  \7\ James M. Wayne, of Georgia, Chairman.
  \8\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 193; Globe, p. 
115.
                                                            Sec. 5287
Clerk's table, as a part of his speech, a paper relating to the subject 
before the House.
  Mr. Luther C. Peck, of New York, objecting, Mr. Clifford asked leave 
of the House, and on the question, ``Shall the statement be read?'' 
there appeared, yeas 110, nays 68.
  5287. On February 9, 1837,\1\ during the discussion of a resolution 
to censure Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, for having proposed 
to present to the House a petition signed by certain slaves, Mr. George 
Evans, of Maine, in discussing the subject of slavery, was proceeding 
to read from the debates on that subject in the Virginia convention.
  Mr. Albert G. Harrison, of Missouri, objected.
  The Speaker \2\ sustained the objection, on the ground that no 
gentleman could, under the rule, read any paper to the House without 
its leave.
  5288. On March 26, 1836,\3\ during the consideration of a contested 
election case from North Carolina, Mr. William J. Graves, of Kentucky, 
having the floor in debate, sent a document to the Clerk's desk to be 
read.
  Mr. Churchill C. Cambreleng, of New York, objected to the reading.
  Mr. Graves moved that the document be read, and the question being 
taken by yeas and nays, the House decided, yeas 106, nays 76, that the 
document should be read.
  5289. Instances wherein the request of a Member to have read a paper 
not before the House for action has encountered objection and been 
referred to the House.--On April 3, 1896,\4\ in Committee of the Whole 
House, Mr. C. J. Erdman, of Pennsylvania, having the floor for debate, 
proposed to have read as part of his remarks a certain paper, which he 
sent to the Clerk's desk.
  Mr. Theodore L. Poole, of New York, objected.
  The Chairman \5\ then put the question: ``Shall the paper be read?'' 
And the committee decided it in the negative.
  5290. On March 30, 1897,\6\ the House was in Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union considering the tariff bill.
  Mr. Jacob H. Bromwell, of Ohio, having the floor for debate, proposed 
to have read as part of his remarks a communication which he sent to 
the Clerk's desk.
  Mr. William H. Fleming, of Georgia, objected to the reading of the 
letter.
  The Chairman \7\ said:

  Rule XXXI of the House provides that when the reading of a paper, 
other than one upon which the House is called to give a final vote, is 
demanded, and the same is objected to by any Member, it shall be 
determined without debate by a vote of the House.
  Following that rule, the Chair will put the question whether or not 
this paper shall be read.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Twenty-fourth Congress, Debates, p. 1668.
  \2\ James K. Polk, of Tennessee, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Twenty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 574; Debates, 
p. 2986.
  \4\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 3557.
  \5\ William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, Chairman.
  \6\ First session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp.  507, 513, 514.
  \7\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 5291
  5291. On January 21,1898,\1\ the House was in Committee of the Whole 
House considering the bill (H. R. 4829) relating to the claim of the 
Book Agents of the Methodist Episcopal Church South against the United 
States.
  During the debate Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, sent up to the 
Clerk's desk and asked to have read in his time a report made on this 
claim in a preceding Congress.
  Mr. William H. Fleming, of Georgia, objected to the reading of the 
report from the Clerk's desk, citing Rule XXXI in support of the point.
  The Chairman \2\ ruled:

  The Chair understands that several rulings have been made in the 
direction stated by the gentleman from Georgia, generally at Friday 
night sessions. Rule XXXI reads as follows:
  ``When the reading of a paper other than one upon which the House is 
called to give a final vote is demanded, and the same is objected to by 
any Member, it shall be determined without debate by a vote of the 
House.''
  Now, when these rules were revised in the Forty-sixth Congress, the 
report states as follows:
  ``Rule CXLI''--now Rule XXXI--``has been retained, with an amendment 
making it applicable only to papers `other than one upon which the 
House is called to give a final vote,' thus reaffirming or recognizing 
the right of a Member to demand the reading of a paper on which he is 
called to vote. This is the long-established rule and practice of the 
English Parliament, and the committee quote as pertinent what is said 
on the subject by one of the most distinguished English writers on 
parliamentary law, Mr. Hatsell. He says:
  `` `Where papers are laid before the House or referred to a 
committee, every Member has a right to have them once read at the table 
before he can be compelled to vote on them, but it is a great though 
common error to suppose that he has a right, toties quoties, to have 
acts, journals, accounts, or papers on the table read independently of 
the will of the House. The delay and interruption which this might be 
made to produce evince the impossibility of the existence of such a 
right. There is, indeed, so manifest a propriety of permitting every 
Member to have as much information as possible on every question on 
which he is to vote that when he desires the reading, if it be seen 
that it is really for information and not for delay, the Speaker 
directs it to be read without putting a question, if no one objects; 
but if objected to, a question must be put.'
  ``It appears in the revision as Rule XXXI.''
  That was the report of the committee revising the rules. * * * Of 
course, the gentleman can read the report himself. It has been the 
practice of the House to allow the Clerk to read it; but under the 
strict construction of the rule and the interpretation given it by the 
Committee on Rules the Chair feels constrained to follow this 
precedent, although he is very much in doubt whether Rule XXXI ever 
contemplated any such proceeding.

  5292. The reading of a report is in the nature of debate.--On January 
22, 1847.\3\ the House proceeded to the consideration of the bill (H. 
R. 494) for the relief of John C. Stewart and others, reported from the 
Committee of the Whole House, the question being on ordering the bill 
to be engrossed.
  Mr. John R. J. Daniel, of North Carolina, demanded the reading of the 
report accompanying the bill.
  The Speaker \4\ decided that it was not in order to read reports 
accompanying
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 846.
  \2\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
  \3\ Second session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 212.
  \4\ John W. Davis, of Indiana, Speaker.
Sec. 5293
bills on the first and fourth Fridays of each month, the reports being 
arguments, and therefore in the nature of debate.\1\
  Mr. Daniel appealed, but subsequently withdrew the appeal.
  5293. A Member may not have a report read at the Clerk's desk in his 
own time, if objection be made, without leave of the House; and even 
has been debarred from reading it himself in his place.--On April 
13,1900,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House was considering the bill 
(S. 1194) granting an increase of pension to John B. Ritzman, and Mr. 
W. Jasper Talbert, of South Carolina, asked to have read in his time a 
paper relating, not to the bill under consideration, but to the general 
subject of pensions.
  The Chairman \2\ held that this would be in order only by unanimous 
consent.
  Mr. Talbert then proposed to read the paper himself.
  The Chair \3\ held that this would not be in order.
  Mr. Talbert having appealed, the decision of the Chair was sustained, 
ayes 52, noes 8.
  Later, the bill (H. R. 1419) relating to the pension of Annie B. 
Goodrich, being under consideration, Mr. Talbert asked for the reading 
of the report.
  The Chairman \3\ said:

  The gentleman from South Carolina, as the Chair understands it, can 
ask that this report be read in his time, he having now taken the floor 
upon this bill; but if objection is made to the reading of the report, 
it is a question for the House to say whether it shall be read or not.

  The committee then decided, ayes 1, nays 55, that the report should 
not be read.
  Mr. Talbert then proposed to read the report in his own time.
  The Chairman \3\ ruled that this was not in order, reading the 
rule.\4\
  5294. The reading of a report, being in the nature of debate, is not 
in order after the previous question is ordered.--On June 10, 1834,\5\ 
during consideration of the contested election case of Moore and 
Letcher, the previous question again recurring, Mr. Thomas A. Marshall, 
of Kentucky, called for the reading of that portion of the report of 
the Committee on Elections which contained a statement of the votes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Rule 30 at that time provided: ``On the fast and fourth Friday of 
each month, the Calendar of Private Bills shall be called over, and the 
bills to the passage of which no objection shall then be made shall be 
first considered and disposed of.'' (Journal, p. 537.)
  \2\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 4136, 4137.
  \3\ Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, Chairman.
  \4\ Jefferson's Manual, p. 147, provides: ``It is equally an error to 
suppose that any member has a right, without a question put, to lay a 
book or paper on the table, and have it read, on suggesting that it 
contains matter infringing on the privileges of the House.
  ``For the same reason, a Member has not a right to read a paper in 
his place, if it be objected to, without leave of the House. But this 
rigor is never exercised but where there is an intentional or gross 
abuse of the time and patience of the House.
  ``A Member has not a right even to read his own speech, committed to 
writing, without leave. This also is to prevent an abuse of time, and 
therefore is not refused but where that is intended. (2 Grey, 227.)''
  \5\ First session Twenty-third Congress, Journal, p. 726.
                                                            Sec. 5295
  The Speaker \1\ decided that under the 36th rule,\2\ which declared 
that on a previous question there should be no debate, the reading of 
the portion of the report called for would not be in order, as it was 
in the nature of an argument, which, at this stage of the proceedings, 
was forbidden.
  5295. On July 19, 1886,\3\ the House was about to vote upon a 
concurrent resolution relating to the printing of the Civil Service 
Commissioners' Report, the previous question having been ordered, when 
Mr. James Reid, of North Carolina, called for the reading of the 
report.
  The Speaker \4\ held:

Debate is not in order, and the reading of the report is in the nature 
of debate. The House does not vote on the report, but simply on the 
resolution.

  5296. The previous question being ordered, a Member may not ask a 
decision of the House on his request for the reading of a paper not 
before the House.--On July 19, 1850,\5\ the previous question had been 
demanded on a resolution relating to the election of the Delegate from 
New Mexico, and this demand had been seconded.\6\
  Mr. Willis A. Gorman, of Indiana, moved that the whole question be 
laid on the table.
  Mr. William Duer, of New York, rose and submitted an amendment which 
he gave notice of his intention to offer at the proper time, to the 
resolution under consideration, and which he asked might be read at the 
Clerk's desk for the information of the House.
  Objection being made, the Speaker was about to submit the question to 
the House to determine whether or not the said paper should be read, 
when Mr. Thomas L. Clingman, of North Carolina, raised the question of 
order that it was not in order to submit the said question to the 
House, the paper proposed to be read not being regularly before the 
House.
  The Speaker \7\ decided that under the rule, and in pursuance of the 
decision of the 9th instant,\8\ when the same question was raised, the 
question must be submitted to a vote of the House to determine as to 
the reading of the paper.
  Mr. Clingman having appealed, the decision of the Chair was 
overruled, yeas 84, nays 103. So it was decided that it was not in 
order to submit the question to the House.
  5297. The previous question having been demanded on a resolution 
adopting rules for the House, a demand for the reading of the rules, 
which were not a part of the resolution, was overruled.--On December 2,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John Bell, of Tennessee, Speaker.
  \2\ Now section I of Rule XVIL See section 5443 of this work.
  \3\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 7154, 7155.
  \4\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 1149; Globe, pp. 
1411, 1412.
  \6\ The second of the previous question was by a majority vote. It is 
no longer required.
  \7\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \8\ On that date the Speaker ruled as on this occasion, and was 
sustained. (Journal, p. 1112.)
                                                            Sec. 5298
1901,\1\ at the time of the organization of the House, Mr. John 
Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, offered the following resolution:

  Resolved, That the rules of the House of Representatives of the 
Fifty-sixth Congress be adopted as the rules of the House of 
Representatives of the Fifty-seventh Congress, etc.

  Before the vote was taken on agreeing to this resolution, and pending 
a demand for the previous question, Mr. Claude A. Swanson, of Virginia, 
called for the reading of the rules of the Fifty-sixth Congress.
  The Speaker \2\ held that the demand was not in order.
  5298. Pending consideration of a conference report it is not in order 
to demand the reading of the amendments to which it relates.--On March 
3, 1857,\3\ pending the question on agreeing to the report of the 
committee of conference on the tariff bill, the main question having 
been ordered, Mr. Ebenezer Knowlton, of Maine, called for the reading 
of the Senate amendments referred to in the report.
  The Speaker \4\ decided that the report was the only paper the 
reading of which could be insisted upon at this time.
  Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, having appealed, the appeal was 
laid on the table.
  5299. It has been held in the Senate that when the reading of a paper 
is objected to it must be determined by vote of the Senate.--On June 
30, 1868,\5\ in the Senate, the credentials of Thomas W. Osborn, as 
Senator-elect from Florida, were before the Senate, when Mr. Jonathan 
Doolittle, of Wisconsin, presented and asked to have read the 
credentials of William Marvin, a contesting claimant for the same seat.
  Mr. Timothy 0. Howe, of Wisconsin, objected to the reading of the 
paper.
  The President pro tempore \6\ said:

  The reading being objected to, it can only be ordered by a vote of 
the Senate.

  The question being taken, the paper was ordered to be read, ayes 21, 
noes 8.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 47.
  \2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \3\ Third session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 677.
  \4\ Nathaniel P. Banks, Jr., of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \5\ Second session Fortieth Congress, Globe, pp. 3600-3602.
  \6\ Benj. F. Wade, of Ohio, President pro tempore.