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

 
                             Chapter CXXI.

                    THE ORDINARY MOTION TO REFER.\1\

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

   1. Reference with instructions. Sections 5521-5528.\2\
   2. Limitations of motion to refer with instructions. Sections 
     5529-5544.
   3. Instructions to report ``forthwith.'' Sections 5545-5551.
   4. Instructions to Committee of Whole. Section 5552, 5553.
   5. In relation to other motions. Sections 5554-5557.
   6. The motion to recommit. Sections 5558-5563.
   7. As to debate on the motion to refer. Sections 5564-5568.

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

  5521. The ordinary motion to commit may be amended, as by adding 
instructions, unless such amendment is prevented by moving the previous 
question.
  The motions to refer, commit, and recommit are practically the same.
  On July 25, 1882,\3\ the regular order being called for, the House 
resumed, under the special rule, the consideration of the bill (H. R. 
3902) permitting the use of domestic materials in the construction of 
steam and sailing vessels for foreign account, the pending question 
being on the motion of Mr. William D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, to refer 
the bill and pending amendment to the Committee on Ways and Means,
  Mr. John Randolph Tucker, of Virginia, moved to amend that motion by 
adding certain instructions.
  Mr. Dudley C. Haskell, of Kansas, made the point of order that the 
motion to refer might not be amended.
  After debate the Speaker \4\ held:

  The Chair does not remember to have passed on the precise question 
here involved. The parliamentary practice has been to permit an 
amendment to a motion to refer or commit, or recommit, which is 
substantially the same thing. That, in the opinion of the Chair, is 
limited to one motion without amendment, under the new rule, after the 
previous question has been ordered on the passage of a bill or joint 
resolution. In that case the Chair thinks a fair interpretation of the 
rule limits it to a single motion, and therefore, for that reason, an 
amendment can not be made, because the House is operating under the 
previous question, and the operation of the previous question is to 
bring the House to a vote on the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Not in order in Committee of the Whole. (Sec. 4721 of Vol. IV.)
  Not in order to refer a conference report to standing or select 
committee. (Sec. 6558 of this volume.)
  \2\ Division of the question in order on vote on motion to refer with 
instructions. (Secs. 6134-6137 of this volume.)
  \3\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6475; Journal, 
p. 1724.
  \4\ J. Warren Keiffer, of Ohio, Speaker.
Sec. 5522
main question at the earliest practicable moment. The Chair thinks, 
under a strict construction, after the previous question has been 
called or ordered, it can only allow a motion to commit, but no 
amendment to it, and this it has so held.\1\
  But that does not apply to this case, as the previous question has 
not been demanded, and parliamentary practice would admit of an 
amendment to this motion to refer; and therefore the Chair holds the 
motion of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Tucker] to amend the motion 
to refer with instructions to be in order.

  5522. It has been held not in order to move to instruct a committee 
on the first reference of a matter to it.--On February 15, 1887,\2\ at 
the conclusion of a decision by the Speaker in reference to the 
function of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Albert S. Willis, of Kentucky, 
as a parliamentary inquiry, asked whether or not a motion to refer a 
matter to the Committee on Rules with instructions would be in order.
  The Speaker \3\ replied:

  The Chair has always held that it is not competent to move 
instructions upon the reference of a matter which has not been reported 
by a committee. Matters reported to the House by a committee can be 
recommitted with or without instructions under the rules of the House.

  5523. On April 4, 1792,\4\ the House resumed the consideration of the 
resolutions reported by the Committee of the Whole House on Monday 
last, to whom was referred a report of the Secretary of the Treasury on 
the subject of the public debt; whereupon--

  Ordered, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the first, 
second, fourth, sixth, seventh, and eighth resolutions; and that Mr. 
Fitzsimons, Mr. Laurance, Mr. Key, Mr. Macon, and Mr. Smith (of South 
Carolina) do prepare and bring in the same.

  A motion being made and seconded--

  That it be an instruction to the committee last appointed to report a 
provision for a loan of the remaining debts of the individual States;

  The motion was objected to as out of order.
  The Speaker \5\ sustained the point of order.
  An appeal being taken, the question was put, ``Is the said motion in 
order!`` \6\, and decided in the negative.
  5524. On January 30, 1882,\7\ Mr. Speaker Keifer expressed the 
opinion that a motion to instruct a committee on referring a bill on 
its introduction, was not proper.\8\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ See Chapter CXXII, section 5569, etc., for later practice in this 
respect.
  \2\ Second session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 1785.
  \3\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Second Congress, Journal, p. 164 (old ed.), 561 
(Gales and Seaton ed.).
  \5\ Jonathan Trumbull, of Connecticut, Speaker.
  \6\ The present mode of putting the question on appeal is, ``Shall 
the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?''
  \7\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 727.
  \8\ A notable instance of instruction of a committee occurred on 
February 8, 1836, when the House agreed to the following resolution:
  ``Resolved, That all memorials which have been offered, or may 
hereafter be presented to thin House, praying for the abolition of 
slavery in the District of Columbia, and also the resolutions offered 
by an honorable Member from Maine [Mr. Jarvis], with the amendment 
thereto proposed by an honorable
                                                            Sec. 5525
  5525. On December 14, 1868,\1\ Mr. James W. Grimes, of Iowa, in 
addressing the Senate, said:

  During the time that I have been here, and, as I have been told 
frequently by those who were much longer in the Senate when I came 
here, from the foundations of the Government to this time, a resolution 
has never been passed instructing one of the committees of this body. 
The object of a reference to a committee is to enable them to consider 
the subject and report their judgment, and their judgment alone, and 
the Senate is presumed to act upon it.

  5526. When a bill is recommitted with instructions relating only to a 
certain portion the committee may not review other portions.--On 
February 5, 1896,\2\ the District of Columbia appropriation bill had 
been refused a passage, and that vote had been reconsidered.
  The question then recurred on the passage of the bill, when Mr. 
Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, moved to recommit the bill to the 
Committee on Appropriations, with instructions to reexamine and report 
a new paragraph of so much of the bill as appeared under the subhead 
``For charities.''
  Mr. Alexander M. Dockery, of Missouri, submitted a parliamentary 
inquiry as to whether or not it would be competent for the Committee on 
Appropriations, in case the motion should prevail, to review other 
paragraphs of the bill than the one specifically mentioned.
  The Speaker \3\ expressed the opinion that it would not be in order.
  5527. A bill to establish a department of commerce and labor may be 
recommitted with instructions to report instead two bills establishing 
separate departments of commerce and labor.--On January 17, 1903,\4\ 
the House had ordered to be read a third time the bill (S. 569) to 
establish a department of commerce and labor.
  Thereupon Mr. William Richardson, of Alabama, moved as follows:

  Resolved, That the pending bill be recommitted to the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce with instructions to report a bill or 
bills to the House to create and establish two separate departments, a 
department of labor and a department of commerce, each of the same 
dignity as existing Departments and each with a secretary in the 
Cabinet of the President, and to assign to each of the departments 
proper and relative bureaus.

  Thereupon Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order 
against the motion--

  That it directs the Committee on interstate and Foreign Commerce to 
report a bill creating a department of labor, which, under the rules of 
the House, can not be done by this committee. The
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member from Virginia [Mr. Wise], together with every other paper or 
proposition that may be submitted in relation to the subject, be 
referred to a select committee, with instructions to report:
  ``That Congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere in 
any way with the institution of slavery in any of the States of this 
confederacy; and
  That, in the opinion of this House, Congress ought not to interfere 
in any way with slavery in the District of Columbia, because it would 
be a violation of the public faith, unwise, impolitic, and dangerous to 
the Union. Assigning such reasons for these conclusions as, in the 
judgment of the committee, may be best calculated to enlighten the 
public mind, to allay excitement, to repress agitation, to secure and 
maintain the just rights of the slave-holding States, and of the people 
of this District, and to restore harmony and tranquillity amongst the 
various sections of the Union.'' (First session Twenty-fourth Congress, 
Journal, p. 316.)
  \1\ Third session Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 63.
  \2\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1342.
  \3\ Thorn B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 928; Journal, 
p. 134.
Sec. 5528
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce has not jurisdiction, and 
could not have jurisdiction, of a bill to organize a department of 
labor. * * * I make the further point that a bill to create a 
department of labor is not germane as an amendment to the bill pending 
before the House.

  In the debate Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, said:

  I desire only to say that it is competent for the House of 
Representatives to refer a bill to any committee that it choose. A 
particular committee might not have jurisdiction in the first place 
without the direct action of the House. A bill might inadvertently be 
referred to a committee not having jurisdiction of the subject under 
the rules, and the House might correct such reference, because under 
the rules the bill would not go there. But it is competent for the 
House in its majesty, as the House sits here this evening, to refer 
this or any other bill to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce.

  The Speaker pro tempore \1\ said:

  The Chair is very clearly of opinion that the 6ew expressed by the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Richardson] as to the power of the House 
to refer this matter to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce states correctly the situation.

  After debate on the question of germaneness, the Speaker pro tempore 
said:

  There is no question in the mind of the Chair as to the power of the 
House to authorize the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to 
report a bill creating a department of labor, if the House sees fit to 
refer that subject to that committee. This is a bill creating a 
department of commerce and labor. The proposition contained in the 
motion is to return this bill to that committee with instructions to 
separate the two branches of the subject, and to report instead of a 
measure for one department a measure for two departments, covering the 
same subjects as are now covered in the bill pending before the House. 
The Chair holds that the motion is germane. The point of order is 
therefore overruled. The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Richardson] to recommit the bill with instructions, 
as read by the Clerk.\2\
  5528. Reasoning from the parliamentary law that a part of a bill may 
be committed to one committee and a part to another, it was held in 
order in the Senate to recommit a bill with instructions to report it 
as two bills.--On June 16, 1836,\3\ the Senate was considering the bill 
to regulate the public deposits, Mr. Silas Wright, of New York, having 
moved to recommit the bill with the substitutes reported by the select 
committee and the amendments adopted by the Senate to the Committee on 
Finance with instructions to divide them into two separate bills so 
that one should contain all that related to the deposit banks and the 
other all that related to the surplus.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Speaker pro tempore.
  \2\ There is, however, a ruling made on a different theory. On August 
27, 1888, the previous question had been ordered on the bill (H. R. 
10896) making appropriations to supply deficiencies, etc., and under 
the operation thereof the bill was engrossed and read the third time.
   Mr. Charles E. Hooker, of Mississippi, moved to recommit the bill 
with instructions to strike out section 4 thereof, and to report the 
subject-matter of said section as a separate bill.
   Mr. Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, made the point of order that the 
motion was out of order, for the reason that it is not in order to move 
to recommit a bill with instructions to report the same together with a 
separate bill.
   The Speaker sustained the point of order. (First session Fiftieth 
Congress, Journal, p. 2682; Record, p. 8012.) There is some doubt as to 
who was in the chair when this ruling was made. The Record indicates 
that Mr. Speaker Carlisle was presiding, while the Journal indicates a 
Speaker pro tempore, probably Mr. Benton McMillin, of Tennessee; for 
Mr. Crisp, who, on August 25 (Journal, p. 2664), had been elected 
Speaker pro tempore, raised the point of order, and consequently could 
not have been in the chair.
  \3\ First session Twenty-fourth Congress, Debates, p. 1782.
                                                            Sec. 5529
  Mr. John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, having raised a question of 
order, the Presiding Officer,\1\ stated that he had no doubts on the 
subject as to the power of the Senate. It could not only recommit the 
whole bill, but any portion of a bill, leaving the residue of it 
precisely as it stood either in committee or in the House. The 
parliamentary rule was precise. They could commit any portion of a bill 
to one committee and the other portion to another committee, with 
instructions; and if they could thus commit two parts of the same bill 
to two different committees, it followed, of course, that they could 
instruct one committee to separate a bill into two parts. When it came, 
thus separated, before the Senate it was in their power to take either 
proposition, or both, as the majority might decide.
  The Presiding Officer quoted Jefferson's Manual in support of his 
view.
  5529. It is not in order to do indirectly by a motion to commit with 
instructions what may not be done directly by way of amendment.
  To a bill proposing the admission of one Territory into the Union an 
amendment proposing the admission of another Territory is not germane.
  On February 12, 1859,\2\ the House resumed the consideration of the 
bill of the Senate (S. 239) for the admission of Oregon into the Union; 
and the question being on the third reading of the bill, Mr. Galusha A. 
Grow, of Pennsylvania, proposed to submit an amendment, in the nature 
of a substitute, the amendment being, in substance, an enabling act for 
the Territories of Oregon and Kansas.
  Mr. John M. Sandidge, of Louisiana, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not in order, on the ground that it was not germane to 
the bill.
  The Speaker \3\ decided that the amendment was out of order under the 
fifty-fifth rule, which declares that ``no motion or proposition on a 
subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under 
color of amendment.''
  From this decision of the Chair Mr. Grow appealed, and the appeal, on 
motion of Mr. Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, was laid on the table 
by a vote of 126 yeas to 92 nays.
  Mr. John G. Davis, of Indiana, moved to recommit the bill to the 
Committee on the Territories, with the following instructions:

  Insert a clause therein, or add a section thereto, repealing so much 
of the act entitled ``An act for the admission of the State of Kansas 
into the Union,'' approved May 4, 1858; as prohibits the people of 
Kansas from forming a constitution and asking admission into the Union 
as a State until ``it is ascertained by a census, duly and legally 
taken, that the population of said Territory equals or exceeds the 
ratio of representation required for a Member of the House of 
Representatives of the Congress of the United States.''

  Mr. Sandidge made the point of order that the motion was out of 
order.
  The Speaker stated that inasmuch as it was not competent for the 
House to amend the bill in the manner proposed--the same not being 
germane--it was not in order for the House to instruct the committee to 
do what the House itself could not do. He therefore decided that the 
motion was out of order.\4\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ William R. King, of Alabama, Presiding Officer.
  \2\ Second session Thirty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 389; Globe, pp. 
1007, 1009.
  \3\ James L. Orr, of South Carolina, Speaker.
  \4\ On September 24, 1850 (First session Thirty-first Congress, 
Journal, pp. 1513, 1514; Globe, p. 1951), Mr. Speaker Cobb had decided 
that a proposition not in order as an amendment could not be offered as 
part of a motion to commit with instructions.
Sec. 5530
  From this decision of the Chair Mr. John G. Davis appealed, and on 
motion of Mr. James Hughes, of Indiana, the appeal was laid on the 
table, 118 yeas to 95 nays.
  5530. On February 13, 1851,\1\ the House was considering the joint 
resolution (No. 36) ``for the relief of Thomas Ritchie on the subject 
of the public printing,'' the pending question being on a motion to 
recommit with instructions providing that the same relief should be 
granted to the printers of the Thirtieth Congress.
  Mr. John A. McClernand, of Illinois, made a point of order that the 
provision of the instruction was out of order.
  The Speaker \2\ stated that inasmuch as the resolution under 
consideration contained but two sections--one of which provided for 
additional compensation to one of the Public Printers, and the other 
for auditing the accounts of the Public Printers during recess--it 
would be clearly out of order, under the uniform practice of the House, 
to amend the said resolution by a provision for the relief of other 
individuals. It was also well settled that it was not competent for the 
House to instruct the committee to do what it could not do itself. He 
therefore sustained the point of order, and decided the amendment to 
the instructions to be out of order.
  Mr. John Crowell, of Ohio, having appealed the decision of the Chair 
was sustained.
  5531. On July 27, 1886,\3\ the previous question had been demanded on 
the passage of a bill restoring to the United States certain lands 
granted to railroads, when Mr. Robert R. Hitt, of Illinois, moved to 
recommit the bill with instructions to report the Senate bill for which 
this substitute had been adopted.
  Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, made the point of order that 
this Senate bill was the text that the House had stricken out, and it 
was not in order to direct the committee to report that which the House 
had just rejected.
  The Speaker \4\ sustained the point of order, and held it was not in 
order to move the recommitment of a bill with instructions to report 
matter which would not be in order if offered as an amendment in the 
House. The House had just voted to strike out the text of the Senate 
bill and insert a new proposition, and it was not therefore in order to 
do indirectly by way of recommitment that which could not be done 
directly by way of amendment.
  5632. On August 23, 1890,\5\ the House had ordered the previous 
question on the passage of the bill relating to the manufacture and 
sale of ``compound lard,'' when Mr. William C. Oates, of Alabama, moved 
to recommit the bill with instructions to report therefore a 
substitute, which had already, in the previous consideration of the 
bill, been ruled out of order when offered as an amendment.
  Mr. Marriott Brosius, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that 
the motion was not in order, for the reason that the proposition was in 
violation of the rules of the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 271; Globe, p. 
526.
  \2\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 7613; Journal, p. 
2363.
  \4\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 984, 985; 
Record, p. 9105.
                                                            Sec. 5533
  Mr. Edward H. Funston, of Kansas, made the additional point of order 
that it was not in order to do by commitment what could not be done by 
way of amendment.
  The Speaker pro tempore\1\ sustained the said point of order made by 
Mr. Funston on the ground stated by Speaker Carlisle in the Forty-ninth 
Congress, that it was not in order to do indirectly by way of 
recommitment what it was not in order to do directly by way of 
amendment, and that as the proposition submitted by Mr. Oates had been 
ruled out of order as an amendment it was not in order by way of 
recommitment.
  5533. On March 3, 1892,\2\ the previous question had been ordered on 
the passage of the District of Columbia appropriation bill, when Mr. 
David B. Henderson, of Iowa, moved to recommit the bill to the 
Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the same to the 
House with the following amendment:

  On page 22, in line 15, strike out the word ``four'' ``and insert 
``six;'' ``and in line 20, strike out the word ``twelve'' and insert 
``thirty-five.''

  Mr. David A. De Armond, of Missouri, moved to amend the motion to 
recommit by adding thereto the following instructions:

  That the bill be further amended by striking out the word ``half ``in 
line 3, page 1, and insert in lieu thereof the word ``one-fourth, ``and 
by striking out the word ``half ``in line 5 of same page, and inserting 
in lieu thereof the word ``three-fourths.''

  Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, and Mr. Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, 
made the point of order against the amendment submitted by Mr. De 
Armond, that the amendment was not in order, for the reason that the 
proposed additional instructions required the committee to amend the 
bill by changing existing law, and that inasmuch as no retrenchment of 
expenditure thereby was apparent, such amendment would be a violation 
of clause 2, Rule XXI.\3\
  The Speaker \4\ overruled the point of order, holding as follows:

  The Chair is of the opinion that it is not competent to do by 
indirection that which could not be directly done; that it is not 
competent for the House to direct the committee to do something which 
the committee itself could not do by reason of a rule restricting it 
from such action. Therefore the question for the Chair to determine is 
whether this amendment would be in order in Committee of the Whole. 
Concededly it changes existing law. It is in order, then, if it reduces 
expenditures, and is not in order if it does not. This bill, a copy of 
which is before the Chair, provides ``That the half of the following 
sums named, respectively, is hereby appropriated out of any money in 
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and the other half out of the 
revenues of the District of Columbia.'' So there seems to be an amount 
of money in the Treasury recognized as the ``revenues of the District 
of Columbia,'' distinct from money in the Treasury from general 
sources; and this proposition, as the Chair understands, is to reduce 
the amount appropriated from the general fund--that raised for general 
purposes. Therefore the Chair thinks the amendment reduces 
expenditures, and is in order.

  5534. On February 17, 1893,\5\ Mr. William Mutchler, of Pennsylvania 
moved the previous question on the passage of the bill making 
appropriations for the payment of invalid and other pensions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Lewis E. Payson, of Illinois, Speaker pro tempore.
  \2\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 86, 87; Record, 
p. 1698.
  \3\ The present form of the rule is different. (See see. 3578 of Vol. 
IV of this work.)
  \4\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \5\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 96; Record, p. 
1754.
Sec. 5535
  Pending this, Mr. Amos J. Cummings, of New York, moved to recommit 
the bill with instructions to report an amendment providing that 
honorably discharged soldiers and sailors of the civil war should be 
preferred in the administration of the civil service.
  Mr. Mutchler made the point of order that the motion was not in 
order, for the reason that the amendment proposed in the instructions 
was a change of existing law and did not retrench expenditures in the 
manner provided by the rule.
  The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order.
  5535. On March 20, 1894,\2\ pending the question on the passage of 
the sundry civil appropriation bill, Mr. William W. Bowers, of 
California, proposed to recommit the bill with instructions to report 
an amendment for assistance to certain holders of Government land whose 
patents were threatened by legal procedure.
  Mr. Joseph D. Sayers, of Texas, made the point that the amendment 
proposed in the motion of Mr. Bowers was not in order, and that the 
motion was, therefore, not in order.
  The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order, holding that the House 
can not do indirectly, by means of a motion to recommit, what can not 
be done directly by amendment.
  5536. On June 16, 1894,\3\ the question being on the passage of the 
Indian appropriation bill, Mr. John H. Gear, of Iowa, moved that it be 
recommitted with instructions to report the same back to the House 
forthwith, amended as follows:

  Strike out all of the bill relating to Indian schools and insert in 
lieu thereof the following:
  ``For support of Government Indian day and industrial schools, and 
the erection and repair of Government school buildings on Indian 
reservations and at places where the Government has established and is 
now maintaining Government Indian schools, and for each and every 
purpose necessary in the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior for 
the establishment and proper conduct of such schools, $2,225,000: 
Provided, That pending the establishment of such schools on Indian 
reservations, the Secretary of the Interior may, in his discretion, 
during the fiscal year 1895, authorize contracts to be made with 
established schools not conducted by the Government, for the education 
and support of Indian pupils and to pay therefor from this 
appropriation; and the Secretary of the Interior shall report to the 
first regular session of the Fifty-fourth Congress, in detail, all 
expenditures made and authorized by him under this appropriation: 
Provided further, That nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the 
sending of Indian children, at no expense to the United States, to 
schools not conducted by the Government.''

  Mr. Charles Tracey, of New York, and Mr. Joseph H. O'Neil, of 
Massachusetts, made the point of order that the instruction was not in 
order, for the reason that the amendment provided therein was a change 
of existing law, or new legislation, not retrenching expenditure.
  The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order, holding that the scope 
and intent of the proposed amendment was to do away with the contract 
schools for Indians, and to establish Government schools, thus changing 
the present law in that respect.
  Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, appealed from the decision of the 
Chair.
  Mr. Tracey moved to lay the appeal on the table. The appeal was laid 
on the table, 158 yeas to 57 nays.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 256-258; 
Record, p. 3155.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 436; Record, pp. 
6433, 6434.
                                                            Sec. 5537
  5537. On June 27, 1894,\1\ Mr. Joseph H. Outhwaite, of Ohio, from the 
Committee on Rules, reported a resolution providing for the 
consideration of the bill (H. R. 353) to enable the people of New 
Mexico to form a constitution and State government and be admitted into 
the Union on an equal footing with the original States.
  After debate for thirty minutes, Mr. John F. Lacey, of Iowa, moved to 
recommit the resolution to the Committee on Rules, with instruction to 
amend the same by providing also for the consideration of the bill to 
admit into the Union the Territory of Oklahoma.
  Mr. Outhwaite made the point that the motion to recommit was not in 
order.
  The Speaker \2\ held that the amendment proposed in the motion of Mr. 
Lacey was not germane to the pending resolution, and therefore 
sustained the point of order.
  5538. On January 20, 1898,\3\ the bill (H. R. 6449) making 
appropriations for the diplomatic and consular service for the fiscal 
year ending June 30, 1889, was passed to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and the question was on its passage, the previous question having 
been ordered.
  Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, moved to recommit the bill to the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs with instructions to report it back with 
this amendment:

  That a condition of public war exists between the Government of Spain 
and the government proclaimed and for some time maintained by force of 
arms by the people of Cuba, and that the United States of America 
should maintain a strict neutrality between the contending parties, 
according to each all the rights of belligerents in the ports and 
territory of the United States.

  Mr. Robert R. Hitt, of Illinois, made the point of order that the 
amendment would not be germane and would be new legislation.
  The Speaker \4\ ruled that the motion to commit with instructions was 
not in order, upon the ground that a motion to commit, which would not 
be admissible as an amendment, was not admissible as instructions.
  5539. On February 16, 1899,\5\ the sundry civil appropriation bill 
had been passed to be engrossed and read a third time, when Mr. William 
P. Hepburn, of Iowa, moved that the bill be recommitted with 
instructions that there be added legislation providing for the 
construction of the Nicaragua Canal. 
  Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made the point of order that it 
was not in order to accomplish by a motion to recommit with 
instructions what could not be accomplished directly by an amendment.
  The Speaker \4\ Sustained the point of order.
  Mr. Hepburn appealed, whereupon Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, 
moved to lay the appeal on the table.
  On the succeeding day \6\ the appeal was laid on the table by a vote 
of 158 ayes to 95 noes, and so the decision of the Chair was sustained.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 453; Record, p. 
6908.
  \2\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 811.
  \4\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \5\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 1960; Journal, pp. 
170, 174.
  \6\ Record, p. 1995.
Sec. 5540
  5540. On February 26, 1904,\1\ the naval appropriation bill had 
passed to be engrossed and read a third time, and pending the question 
on the passage Mr. Adolph Meyer, of Louisiana, proposed a motion to 
recommit with certain instructions.
  Mr. George E. Foss, of Illinois, made the point of order that the 
instructions involved legislation on an appropriation bill.
  The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order, saying:

  The Chair, as he caught the reading of the motion, and he was paying 
as close attention as was possible for the Chair to do, is of opinion 
that several of the instructions in the motion cover legislation, and 
therefore, as you can not do indirectly that which you can not do 
directly, the Chair sustains the point of order.

  5541. On March 1, 1905,\3\ the pending question was on the passage of 
the bill (H. R. 18787) to amend the homestead laws as to certain 
unappropriated and unreserved lands in Colorado.
  Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, moved to recommit the bill with 
instructions to report it back with an amendment repealing section 2301 
of the Revised Statutes of the United States.
  Mr. Franklin E. Brooks, of Colorado, made a point of order that, as 
the amendment was not germane, the instructions were not in order.
  After debate, the Speaker \2\ held:

  On the motion the gentleman from Colorado makes the point of order 
that the instructions are not germane under the rules of the House, 
and, under the rules of the House, it is not debatable. This matter 
came up substantially on yesterday in the consideration of the bill 
before the House, and an amendment substantially the same as this in 
part was ruled out of order, and this amendment is clearly not germane, 
because it directs the reporting back of the bill with a provision that 
would repeal the commutation homestead act everywhere in the United 
States, this bill applying only to the State of Colorado. For that 
reason the Chair sustains the point of order.* * * The Chair reads from 
the Digest: ``It is not in order to move to recommit a bill with 
instructions to a committee to report an amendment which is not 
germane.'' Many precedents are given, running through a period of 
substantially fifty years. And again, the House can not do indirectly 
what it can not do directly. Therefore the Chair sustains the point of 
order.
  5542. After the previous question had been ordered it was once held 
in order to move to commit with instructions to strike out a portion of 
an amendment already agreed to, although such a purpose might not be 
accomplished directly by a motion to amend.--On February 25, 1895,\4\ 
the previous question had been ordered on the passage of the deficiency 
appropriation bill, when Mr. John W. Maddox, of Georgia, moved that the 
bill be recommitted to the Committee on Appropriations, with 
instruction to report the same forthwith with the provision for one 
month's extra pay to Members' clerks stricken from the bill.
  Mr. William A. Stone, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that, 
the House having just agreed to an amendment adding to the bill what it 
was proposed in said instruction to strike out, the said motion to 
recommit was not in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 2448, 2449.
  \2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \3\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3775.
  \4\ Third session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 156-158; Record, 
p. 2729.
                                                            Sec. 5543
  The Speaker \1\ held that inasmuch as the amendment which the House 
had just agreed to included several propositions, only one of which it 
was proposed by the present motion to have stricken out, the question 
on which the House had voted was not identical with the pending 
question. The motion to recommit with said instruction was therefore 
entertained.\2\
  5543. On a motion to commit with instructions the instructions may 
not authorize a committee to report at any time, as such authorization 
would constitute a change of the rules.--On January 12, 1883,\3\ the 
House was considering a bill to remove certain burdens on the American 
merchant marine, etc., and the previous question had been demanded on 
the passage of the bill, when Mr. Samuel S. Cox, of New York, moved 
that the bill be recommitted to the Committee on Commerce with 
instructions to report back to the House without delay a bill providing 
for the purchase, free admission, and registry of foreign-built 
vessels, and for the free admission of all material used in the 
construction and repair of vessels in American yards; and that the 
committee have leave to report at any time.
  Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, made the point of order that the 
provision relating to reporting at any time would cause a change of the 
rules.
  The Speaker \4\ said:

  The clause of the proposed instructions that the committee have 
authority to report at any time \5\ is not, in the opinion of the 
Chair, in order; and unless that clause be withdrawn the Chair will 
have to rule out the whole.\6\

  5544. On December 4, 1860,\7\ after the reading of the annual message 
of the President of the United States, Mr. Alexander R. Boteler, of 
Virginia, offered the following:

  Resolved, That so much of the President's message as relates to the 
present perilous condition of the country, be referred to a special 
committee of one from each State, with leave to report at any time.

  Mr. Thomas S. Bocock, of Virginia, made the point of order that to 
give the committee leave to report at any time would be to change the 
rules of the House.
  The Speaker \8\ sustained the point of order, saying that the motion 
could not be entertained in its present shape.
  5545. A bill may be committed with instructions that it be reported 
``forthwith;'' and in such a case the chairman of the committee to 
which
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ This ruling is exceptional. It is a well-understood rule that 
what is once inserted by way of amendment may not be amended by simply 
striking out a portion of it. (See secs. 5758-5771 of this volume); and 
it is also well understood that it is not in order to do indirectly by 
referring with instructions what may not be done directly by way of 
amendment.
  \3\ Second session Forty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 229; Record, 
pp. 1147, 1148.
  \4\ J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \5\ Under the later development of the rules this right to report at 
any time is valuable only in so far as it carries with it the right 
that the matter reported may be considered at anytime. Every Committee 
may report whenever its report is ready.
  \6\ Mr. Speaker Randall also decided this way in a case wherein the 
same point of order was made. (Second session Forty-fourth Congress, 
Journal, p. 285.)
  \7\ Second session Thirty-sixth Congress, Globe, p. 6.
  \8\ William Pennington, of New Jersey, Speaker.
Sec. 5545
it is committed makes a report at once without awaiting action of the 
committee.
  A bill having been considered in Committee of the Whole, and the 
House, pending a vote on the passage, having recommitted it with 
instructions that it be reported ``forthwith'' with an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, it was held that the substitute did not require 
consideration in Committee of the Whole.
  On February 27, 1891,\1\ the House had been considering the bill (S. 
3738) to place the American merchant marine engaged in the foreign 
trade on an equality with that of other nations, under the terms of a 
special order which, at a certain time, ordered the previous question 
to the passage.
  The bill had been ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, when 
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, moved to recommit the bill to the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, with instructions ``to 
report forthwith'' an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which he 
presented therewith.
  Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, made the point of order that the 
direction to the committee to report forthwith was not in order.
  The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order.
  The House having passed in the affirmative the motion of Mr. Cannon, 
the chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Mr. 
John M. Farquhar, of New York, immediately rose in his place and 
announced that, as chairman of that committee, he reported back the 
substitute bill as instructed by the House.
  Mr. Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, made the point of order that there 
had been no meeting of the committee, and that therefore its chairman 
could not, under the rules of the House, make report.
  The Speaker ruled:

  The Chair has some sympathy with the observations which have been 
made by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Crisp], because he himself made 
somewhat similar observations on the 10th day of July, 1886, upon a 
similar question; but the result was very much as the Chair will now 
decide, after stating what he thinks to be the parliamentary condition 
of affairs.
  The House of Representatives, considering the bill that was before 
it, passed it with sundry amendments. The rules of the House provide 
that after a bill has been ordered to a third reading--that is, after 
it passes the amendment stage--then the House has an opportunity to 
look at the bill as amended, and if not satisfied with it, it has a 
right under the rules to recommit with specific instructions. That is 
only another method of reconsidering its action. It may very often 
happen--the Chair will not say very often because it has been seldom in 
the experience of Members of the House, but it might happen--that an 
amendment was adopted by a majority composed of one set of Members and 
another amendment adopted by a majority composed of another set of 
Members, and that the majority of the House would not be in favor of 
both amendments together.
  It is to give opportunity to remedy this that the motion to recommit 
is permitted. Now, the form which that takes is a peremptory 
instruction on the part of the House to the committee to make that 
return; and it seems to the Chair, after consideration of the matter, 
that it would be adhering too much to technicalities to take the view 
entertained by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Crisp], and it would 
seem to be more suitable that the chairman of the committee should 
promptly obey the orders of the House and follow its direction.
  The gentleman from Georgia is correct in saying that the chairman of 
the committee is the mouthpiece of the committee, but the committee 
itself is the agent of the House, and the House has a perfect
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 3505-3508; 
Journal, pp. 312-321.
  \2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 5546
right to order the committee to do its will in whatever fashion it sees 
fit. In response to parliamentary inquiries, the Chair stated to the 
House what he thought to be the parliamentary law with regard to it, 
and the House has acted in that connection. That is the impression 
which the Chair entertains upon the subject. Such being the case, it 
seems as if the point of order should be overruled.
  5546. Mr. Crisp having made the point of order that the bill reported 
back must be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union, and Mr. W. C. P. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, having made 
the point that the bill should take its place on the Calendar, since 
the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries was not privileged to 
report at any time under the rules, the Speaker held:

  The Chair would be glad to have the attention of the House for a 
moment. The rules of the House must be construed having them all in 
view. This method of reference to a committee after a bill has been 
ordered to be engrossed is a part of a system of consideration. The 
Chair has already passed upon some parts of that system, and it is not 
necessary to repeat what he has said; but, according to the idea of the 
Chair, when the House ordered the committee to report a particular 
substitute back ``forthwith,'' that expression carried with it the 
right of immediate consideration; precisely as in Rule XI the 
expression ``The following-named committees shall have leave to report 
at any time'' carries with it the right of consideration at the time of 
the report.
  Such a course enables the House to finish the business upon which it 
has entered, and to finish it in accordance with the wishes of the 
Members of the House. On the proposition which has been made that this 
bill must go to the Committee of the Whole, the Chair desires to remind 
the House that the whole subject in the original bill was referred to 
the Committee of the Whole, and was therein discussed. No one proposed 
that the substitute which was offered after the House came out of 
Committee of the Whole should be sent back to that committee because it 
had not been there considered.
  No more can the substitute which the House has ordered to be reported 
forthwith be sent to the Committee of the Whole for consideration, for 
what could that committee do with it? The bill is here by the order of 
the House, and the subordinate of the House, the Committee of the 
Whole, could not act upon what the House itself has already acted upon. 
The House has directed this bill to be brought before it, and to be 
brought before it through the medium of the committee that had the 
original bill in charge.
  The whole subject, within the purview of the rules, has been 
considered by the Committee of the Whole, and the functions of that 
committee have been performed. The Committee of the Whole has reported, 
and the result thus far is that the House has disagreed with the 
Committee of the Whole so pointedly that it has substituted directly 
its own will for the will of the Committee of the Whole, and, after 
considering the bill, which had been ordered to a third reading, as 
amended, has directed the committee in charge of this matter to bring 
back to the House ``forthwith'' another bill. It seems to the Chair 
that that is a plain, logical system for the transaction of business, 
and that it will justify itself thoroughly in actual practice in the 
House. The Chair is not aware whether this question has been up fully 
before, but it has been up to some extent, and the Chair thinks that 
the debate on the 10th of July, 1886, will throw light upon the subject 
for such gentlemen as desire to examine it.

  Mr. John H. Rogers, of Arkansas, made the further point of order 
that, under the rules, neither the committees nor the chairman of the 
committee was authorized to make a report in the manner in which this 
bill had been reported.
  Mr. Charles H. Mansur, of Missouri, made the additional point of 
order that the proper construction of the word ``forthwith'' was the 
legal construction, which meant within twenty-four hours.
  The Speaker overruled the points of order.
  5547. On April 6, 1900,\1\ the House was considering the bill (S. 
222) to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii, and the bill 
having been read a third
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3866.
Sec. 5548
time, Mr. Richard Bartholdt, of Missouri, offered a motion that the 
bill be recommitted to the Committee on Territories with instructions 
to strike out of page 71, line 7, after the word ``allowed,'' the words 
``nor shall saloons for the sale of intoxicating liquors be allowed,'' 
and that the bill be reported back forthwith.
  Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, 
asked whether or not, the motion being adopted, it would be the duty of 
the gentleman in charge of the bill at once to report the bill back as 
instructed.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The Chair will state, in reply to the parliamentary inquiry of the 
gentleman from Illinois, that it has been held repeatedly that the 
chairman of the committee who reports the bill, if this motion should 
prevail, should report it back forthwith, without leaving his seat or 
consulting his committee; and the Chair will further state that in the 
recollection of the Chair, on a motion made by the gentleman from 
Illinois who makes the parliamentary inquiry, that ruling was made.

  The question being taken the motion was disagreed to.
  5548. It is in order to move to recommit with instructions to the 
committee to report ``forthwith'' a certain proposition; but 
instructions that the report be made on a certain day in the future 
involve a different principle.--On February 27, 1891,\2\ the House, 
acting under a special order, had passed to be engrossed and read a 
third time the bill (S. 3738) to place the American merchant marine 
engaged in the foreign trade upon an equality with that of other 
nations.
  The bill having been read a third time, and the question being on its 
passage, Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, moved that the bill be 
recommitted to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, with 
instructions to report the same forthwith, with an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, made the point of order that so 
much of the motion as instructed the committee to report forthwith was 
not in order, and that a similar motion made by him in respect to the 
silver-coinage bill had been ruled out by the Speaker on a point of 
order.
  The Speaker \3\ ruled the motion submitted by Mr. Cannon to be in 
order, and stated that no ruling was made by him on the motion made by 
Mr. Bland as to the silver bill, but that instead Mr. Bland modified 
his motion so as to require the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and 
Measures to report back a bill for the free coinage of silver.
  5549. On June 7, 1890,\4\ the House resumed the consideration of the 
special order, it being the bill of the House (H. R. 5381) authorizing 
the issue of Treasury notes on deposit of silver bullion, with 
amendments.
  The bill as amended was engrossed and read the third time, and the 
question was on its passage, when Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, 
submitted the following resolution:

  Resolved, That the bill be recommitted to the Committee on Coinage, 
Weights, and Measures, with instructions to strike out all after the 
enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 31 2-321; 
Record, pp. 3505-3508.
  \3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 713; Record, p. 
5813.
                                                            Sec. 5550
  ``That from and after the passage of this act all holders of silver 
bullion of the value of $50 or more, standard fineness, shall be 
entitled to have the same coined into standard silver dollars,'' etc.
  And that the committee report the bill so amended back to the House 
for consideration immediately after the reading of the Journal on next 
Tuesday, the 10th instant.

  Mr. Nelson Dingley, jr., of Maine, made the point of order that the 
clause directing the committee to report back the bill at a designated 
time was not in order, being a change of the rules. The Speaker \1\ 
sustained the point of order.\2\
  5550. It is in order to refer a matter already under consideration to 
a committee with instructions to report a bill forthwith, and such bill 
being reported is in order for immediate consideration.--On January 15, 
1842,\3\ during a time set apart by special order for the reception of 
petitions and memorials, Mr. Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, presented a 
petition of inhabitants of the county of Otsego, in the State of New 
York, praying Congress to repeal the act, passed at the last session, 
to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy. Thereupon, on motion of 
Mr. Boyd, it was--

  Ordered, That the memorial of the inhabitants of the county of 
Otsego, in the State of New York, be referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary, with instructions to report, instanter, in execution of an 
order of the House made on the 8th instant, a bill for the repeal of 
the act entitled ``An act to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy 
throughout the United States,'' approved 19th of August, 1841.

  Thereupon Mr. Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, demanded that the committee 
report instantly the bill.
  Mr. Millard Fillmore, of New York, objected on the ground that the 
House was now acting under a special order, and that the reception of 
petitions and memorials was the business in order.
  The Speaker \4\ stated that this was a novel case, and that he had 
searched in vain for precedents to guide him. He must therefore rely on 
his own convictions of propriety. On the 11th instant he had decided 
that it was not in order for the Committee on the Judiciary to report 
the bill repealing the bankruptcy law, which the House, on the 8th 
instant, had ordered the committee to report on the 11th, for the 
reason that between the time of making the order and the time of its 
execution business under the pending special order had not been 
completed. Therefore the decision was made that the report could not be 
made. This was a different case, inasmuch as the order for the 
committee to report was imperative, and the time fixed was 
``instanter,'' and it was, in fact, but a mere continuation of the same 
proceeding; and, considering that, if the committee could not be called 
upon to report now, the power of the majority to carry out its 
intentions would become nugatory, the Speaker felt himself bound by the 
order of the House to call upon the committee to report the bill.
  Mr. Caleb Cushing, of Massachusetts, having appealed, the appeal was 
laid on the table, yeas 101, nays 98.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \2\ The Record (p. 5813) shows that the Speaker made no ruling, but 
that Mr. Bland, when the point of order was made, withdrew that part of 
the motion, assuming that it would be held out of order.
  \3\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 189-199, 
202, 207; Globe, pp. 134-138.
  \4\ John White, of Kentucky, Speaker.
Sec. 5551
  Thereupon Mr. Daniel D. Barnard, of New York, chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, in execution of the order of the House, 
reported a bill (No. 72) to repeal the act to establish a uniform 
system of bankruptcy.
  The bill having been received and read a first time, Mr. Robert C. 
Winthrop, of Massachusetts, objected to any proceeding at this time on 
the bill on the ground that the order of the House had been fully 
executed by the reporting of the bill, and was therefore exhausted, and 
that the bill must take its place with business on the Speaker's table, 
and be taken up and proceeded with according to the rules when that 
class of business should be in order.
  The Speaker sustained the point of order, but on an appeal, and on 
the succeeding day, this decision was reversed, yeas 99, nays 118.
  Sec. 5551. A bill recommitted under Rule XVII with instructions that 
it be reported ``forthwith'' was, when reported, again passed to be 
engrossed and read a third time.--On January 30, 1904,\1\ the House was 
considering the bill (H. R. 10418) to ratify and amend an agreement 
with the Sioux tribe of Indians of the Rosebud Reservation, in South 
Dakota, and making appropriation and provision to carry the same into 
effect.
  The bill having been engrossed and read a third time, Mr. David E. 
Finley, of South Carolina, moved that the bill be recommitted to the 
Committee on Indian Affairs with instructions that it be reported 
forthwith with a certain amendment.
  The motion being agreed to, Mr. Charles H. Burke, of South Dakota, 
from the Committee on Indian Affairs, at once reported the bill with 
the amendment specified.
  Mr. Robert Baker, of New York, having made a point of order, the 
Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair is informed, and his recollection without the information 
concurs with the information, that this is the usual proceeding and 
that there are precedents. The Clerk will read section 1022 of Hinds's 
Parliamentary Practice.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  ``Sec. 1022. A bill may be recommitted with instructions that it be 
reported back forthwith, and this report may be made at once by the 
chairman of the committee and is not subject to the point that it must 
be considered in the Committee of the Whole if it has previously been 
considered there.

  The amendment reported by Mr. Baker was then agreed to.
  The question being taken on the engrossment and third reading of the 
bill, a quorum failed on the division. Thereupon the House adjourned.
  On February 1 \3\ the bill coming up, Mr. Burke moved the previous 
question on the bill to its passage. This motion was agreed to, and 
under the operation thereof the bill was engrossed, read a third time, 
and passed.\4\
  5552. A bill is sometimes recommitted to the Committee of the Whole 
with instructions.--On February 25, 1833,\5\ the House passed to the 
consideration of the bill (H. R. 641) to reduce and otherwise alter the 
duties on imports. This
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 225; Record, 
pp. 1428, 1429.
  \2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \3\ Journal, p. 227; Record, p. 1469.
  \4\ The reengrossment of the bill, under operation of the previous 
question was in accordance with the procedure on February 27, 1891 
(second session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 319).
  \5\ Second session Twenty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 415-423; 
Debates, p. 1772.
                                                            Sec. 5553
bill had been reported from the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union with certain amendments, a portion of which had been 
acted on by the House.
  Mr. Robert P. Letcher, of Kentucky, moved to strike out all after the 
enacting clause and insert a new text,\1\ which he presented.
  This motion being objected to, Mr. Letcher moved that the bill be 
recommitted to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, with instructions to amend the same to read as follows: i. e., 
in accordance with a new draft of a bill, which he presented.
  This motion was agreed to, yeas 95, nays 54.
  The House at once resolved itself into Committee of the Whole; and 
the Committee of the Whole amended the bill as directed. The substitute 
was read in Committee; but apparently there was no debate. The 
Committee then rose and reported the bill to the House.
  The House concurred in the amendment of the Committee of the Whole.
  5553. On April 10, 1828 \2\ the motion pending was to recommit the 
tariff bill to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union (whence it had been reported with amendments), with certain 
instructions.
  Mr. Michael Hoffman, of New York, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, 
asked if it were competent for the House to instruct the Committee of 
the Whole what amendments they should report.
  The Speaker \3\ decided that it was competent for the House so to 
instruct the Committee. Here the motion was to ``inquire into the 
expediency of making certain specific amendments,'' which the Chair 
pronounced to be perfectly in order. The decision was acquiesced in by 
the House.
  Mr. Benjamin Gorham, of Massachusetts, inquired whether, if the bill 
were recommitted, it would be in order to confine the Committee of the 
Whole, as proposed by the motion.
  The Speaker said that the committee, if not instructed, would have 
the whole bill before them open to amendment; but the House might 
restrain them by instructions to the consideration of a single section, 
or a single point in the bill.
  In this decision the House also acquiesced.
  5554. The question of consideration being pending, a motion to refer 
is not in order.--On February 26, 1901.\4\ Mr. James D. Richardson, of 
Tennessee, had offered a resolution relating to the right of 
supervision proper to be exercised over the Congressional Record by the 
Speaker.
  Mr. John F. Lacey, of Iowa, raised the question of consideration.
  Mr. James S. Sherman, of New York, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, 
asked if it would be in order to move to refer the resolution to the 
Committee on Rules.
  The Speaker \5\ held that the question of consideration must be 
disposed of first.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ This text was the Clay bill, already presented in the Senate. It 
passed the Senate without amendment and became a law.
  \2\ First session Twentieth Congress, Journal, p. 1039; Debates, pp. 
2260-2262.
  \3\ Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3093.
  \5\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
Sec. 5555
  5555. The motion to refer, the previous question not being ordered, 
has precedence of the motion to amend.--On March 7, 1902,\1\ Mr. Joel 
P. Heatwole, of Minnesota, chairman of the Committee on Printing, 
reported a joint resolution (H. J. Res. 26) providing for the Special 
Report on the Diseases of the Horse.
  After consideration Mr. Heatwole moved to recommit the bill.
  Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, proposed an amendment.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair will say that under Rule XVI the motion to recommit has 
precedence over the motion to amend, and that therefore the Chair will 
put the motion to recommit.

  5556. It was held in the Senate that a pending motion might not be 
referred to a committee.--On June 30,1868,\3\ in the Senate, a motion 
was made that the oath be administered to Thomas W. Osborn, Senator-
elect from Florida.
  Mr. Thomas A. Hendricks, of Indiana, proposed to refer this motion 
with certain papers to the Committee on the Judiciary, and Mr. Henry B. 
Anthony, of Rhode Island, made such a motion.
  Mr. John Conness, of California, made the point of order that it was 
not in order to refer a pending motion to a committee.
  The President pro tempore \4\ said:

  They are entirely independent motions, and the first made must be 
disposed of first. The question now is, Shall the Senator-elect from 
Florida be admitted to take the oath and his seat? The Senator from 
Rhode Island moves that that motion be referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary. I can hardly think that that is in order, because you could 
never get a decision in that way. Motion after motion might be put, and 
the last one would have to go to a committee. I know of no case where 
motions of that kind have been referred, and I think I can see great 
difficulty in establishing such a rule.

  Mr. Anthony raised the point that had his motion been reduced to 
writing it would have been in order to refer it.
  The President pro tempore said:

  The Chair has already stated that in his opinion a motion to refer 
another motion is not in order. It takes nothing with it in this case. 
There are many motions that can be made that can be referred, because 
they take some substantial thing along with them to be deliberated upon 
and decided by the committee. But here is a motion to admit this 
Senator to take the oath. A motion to refer that motion to a committee 
takes nothing with it; there is nothing for the committee to consider; 
and therefore, and because of its inconvenience, the Chair believes it 
not to be in order; that it would establish a bad rule. If Senators 
think that is a wrong decision, and probably it may be, they will take 
an appeal and settle the question.

  No appeal was taken.
  5557. After discussion the Senate decided out of order a motion to 
refer an amendment to a pending bill without the bill itself.--On May 
9, 1906,\5\ the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 
12987) to amend an act entitled ``An act to regulate commerce,'' 
approved February 4, 1887, and all
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2495.
  \2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 3606.
  \4\ Benjamin F. Wade, of Ohio, President pro tempore.
  \5\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 6553-6559.
                                                            Sec. 5557
acts amendatory thereof, and to enlarge the powers of the Interstate 
Commerce Commission.
  There was pending an amendment proposed by Mr. John F. Dryden, of New 
Jersey, which had been amended by the Senate on motion of Mr. Stephen 
B. Elkins, of West Virginia.
  Mr. Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, moved to refer the amendment as 
amended to the Committee on Interstate Commerce.
  Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, made the point of order that the 
amendment might not be committed to a committee.
  Mr. Nelson W. Aldrich, of Rhode Island, requested the following rule 
of the Senate to be read:

                   Rule XXII.--Precedents of motions.
  When a question is pending, no motion shall be received but--
  To adjourn.
  To adjourn to a day certain, or that when the Senate adjourn it shall 
be to a day certain.
  To take a recess.
  To proceed to the consideration of executive business.
  To lay on the table.
  To postpone indefinitely.
  To postpone to a day certain.
  To commit.
  To amend.
Which several motions shall have precedence as they stand arranged; and 
the motions relating to adjournment, to take a recess, to proceed to 
the consideration of executive business, to lay on the table, shall be 
decided without debate.

  Mr. Aldrich further said:

  The parliamentary law as understood in the Senate is Jefferson's 
Manual, which was made years ago the authority of the Senate upon all 
questions of parliamentary law not included within the Senate rules. I 
call attention to page 106, where it is said in terms:
  ``A particular clause of a bill may be committed without the whole 
bill.''
  * * * If we can commit a clause, we certainly can commit an amendment 
or a proposed clause. The only difference is that one is a clause and 
the other is a proposed clause.

  Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massachusetts, said:

  Mr. President, I am as anxious as anybody could possibly be to have 
this subject, which I think a large and complicated one, referred to a 
committee, so that before the conclusion of the session we may act upon 
it intelligently and better than we possibly can now; but I can not 
vote, Mr. President, to attain that result, which is easily attainable 
in an orderly manner and in conformity with what I believe to be 
parliamentary law, in a manner which I believe to be contrary to 
parliamentary law and contrary to the practice of the Senate.
  An amendment has no existence except in connection with the measure 
to which it is proposed. When we send amendments to a committee to 
consider, it is because the bill to which they are proposed is in a 
committee in a state of preparation; but this bill is before the 
Senate; it is not before the committee; and there is no bill before the 
committee relating to this subject. If there were a bill before the 
committee relating to this matter--the divorcing of railroads from the 
ownership of coal lands--it would be then perfectly proper to refer 
these amendments for the consideration of the committee in connection 
with that bill. But to take the amendment away from the bill by which 
alone it can have parliamentary existence, I do not believe can 
possibly be done.
  I have looked as well as a very brief time would permit me to do so 
at the very full collection of precedents of the House which were 
prepared for the House, and there is not a suggestion in all the 
innumerable questions that have arisen about amendments and committal 
that a motion to commit
Sec. 5558
could ever be applied to an amendment by itself. A motion to commit 
invariably applies--and every decision in this great work shows that it 
applies--to the bill, to the subject before the House, and not to an 
amendment to the subject or the proposition before the House. The first 
words of the eighteenth chapter on amendments are:
  ``Under the rule relating to amendments the following motions are in 
order: To amend; to amend that amendment; for a substitute; and to 
amend the substitute.''
  These are all the motions that are in order in regard to an 
amendment.
  Our standing rule simply establishes the order of motions. It does 
not say what we can commit. Those are the motions, in their order, 
which may apply to the proposition before the Senate, or, like a motion 
to adjourn, apply only to the action of the body and not to the 
proposition then pending. * * * The motion to commit, the Senator from 
Wisconsin suggests, must apply to some substantive proposition. The 
substantive proposition before the Senate is the bill, and nothing 
else. The amendment is a mere attachment proposed to the bill, which 
may come into existence, or may have no existence; but it is here only 
because the bill is here. If there was no bill here, nobody would 
suggest that an amendment could be discussed when no bill existed to 
which it could apply.
  Mr. President, I can find nothing in the general parliamentary law 
that refers to anything but the committal of the subject before the 
body. There is an utter absence of any suggestion, in any volume of 
rules at which I have been able to look, that it was ever contemplated 
that an amendment by itself could be committed to a committee or 
referred separately from the main proposition.

  Mr. Charles A. Culberson, of Texas, said:

  On page 115 of Jefferson's Manual it is said:
  ``1. It would be absurd to postpone the previous question, 
commitment, or amendment, alone, and thus separate the appendage from 
its principal; yet it must be postponed separately from its original, 
if at all; because the eighth rule of Senate says that when a main 
question is before the House--''
  The main question here is the bill to regulate commerce--
``no motion shall be received but to commit, amend, or prequestion the 
original question, which is the parliamentary doctrine also.''

  At the conclusion of the debate the Vice-President \1\ said:

  The Senator from Texas raises a point of order against the motion of 
the Senator from Illinois to the effect that the motion is not in order 
under the rules of the Senate. The Chair finds no sanction for the 
motion in the well-recognized practice and usage of the Senate. The 
Chair will, therefore, leave the question to the determination of the 
Senate itself, as it is entirely within its competency to decide 
whether the motion is in order or not. * * * Those who are of opinion 
that the motion is in order will vote ``yea'' as their names are 
called, and those opposed ``nay.'' The Secretary will call the roll.
  The Secretary called the roll; and the result was, yeas 25, nays 48.

  So the motion to refer was held not to be in order.
  5558. A bill referred to a committee and reported therefrom is 
sometimes recommitted.
  When a bill is recommitted to the committee which reported it the 
whole question is before the committee anew, as if it had not been 
before considered.
  The parliamentary law provides that the House may commit a portion of 
a bill or part to one committee and part to another.
  Section XXVIII of Jefferson's Manual provides:

  After a bill has been committed and reported it ought not, in an 
ordinary course, to be recommitted; but in cases of importance, and for 
special reasons, it is sometimes recommitted, and usually to the same 
committee. (Hakew., 151.) If a report be recommitted before agreed to 
in the House,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Charles W. Fairbanks, of Indiana, Vice-President.
                                                            Sec. 5559
what has passed in committee is of no validity; the whole question is 
again before the committee, and a new resolution must be again moved, 
as if nothing had passed. (3 Hats., 131--note.)
  In Senate, January, 1800, the salvage bill was recommitted three 
times after the commitment.
  A particular clause of a bill may be committed without the whole bill 
\1\ (3 Hats., 131); or so much of a paper to one and so much to another 
committee.
  5559. The House having disposed of a report adversely, it is not in 
order to recommit it.--On July 23, 1842,\2\ the House proceeded to the 
consideration of the report of the Committee on the Judiciary, which 
recommended: ``That it is not expedient to amend the existing bankrupt 
law, so as to include associations and corporate bodies issuing notes 
or bills for circulation as money.''
  The question being put on agreeing to the recommendation of the 
report, it was decided in the negative.
  A motion was then made by Mr. James I. Roosevelt, of New York, that 
the report be recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The Speaker \3\ decided the motion not to be in order.
  Mr. Roosevelt having appealed, the appeal was laid on the table.
  5560. It is not in order to recommit a report until a question of 
order relating to its reception has been settled.--On February 19, 
1857,\4\ the select committee appointed to investigate certain alleged 
corrupt combinations among Members made a report in relation to Mr. W. 
A. Gilbert, of New York.
  Objection was made to the reception of this report on the ground that 
it was not privileged.
  Pending consideration of the question of order involved, Mr. Henry 
Bennett, of New York, moved that the report be recommitted.
  The Speaker \5\ held that the motion to recommit was not in order, as 
the House had not yet received the report.
  Mr. Bennett proposed to appeal, but later withdrew his motion to 
recommit.
  5561. The motion to recommit with instructions may be made before the 
engrossment of a bill, and is debatable; but a demand for the previous 
question on the bill to the passage, if sustained, cuts it off.--On 
January 11, 1899,\6\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 8571) to 
provide a criminal code for the District of Alaska, the question being 
on the engrossment and third reading of the bill, and the previous 
question not having been demanded or ordered.
  Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, moved to recommit the bill with 
certain instructions.
  Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, made the point of order that the 
motion to recommit was not in order as the bill had not been ordered to 
be engrossed and read a third time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ This, of course, can only apply to cases where the House commits 
a bill. Under the present system bills on their introduction are 
referred under the rule, and a bill may not be divided among two or 
more committees.
  \2\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 1149, 1150; 
Globe, p. 782.
  \3\ John White, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \4\ Third session Thirty-fourth Congress, Globe, pp. 762, 764.
  \5\ Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \6\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 595, 597.
Sec. 5562
  The Speaker pro tempore \1\ held:

  The previous question not having been asked for or ordered a motion 
to recommit is in order.

  Debate having begun, Mr. John J. Jenkins, of Wisconsin, made the 
point of order that the motion was not debatable.
  The Speaker pro tempore \1\ said:

  The Chair decides that a motion to recommit with instructions opens 
up the entire subject.

  Debate having proceeded, Mr. Vespasian Warner, of Illinois, demanded 
the previous question on the bill to its passage.
  Mr. Underwood having called attention to the pendency of his motion 
to recommit the Speaker \2\ said that ordering the previous question on 
the bill to its passage would cut off the motion to recommit with 
instructions; \3\ but that the latter motion might be made after the 
bill had passed to be engrossed, provided the previous question on the 
bill to its passage should be ordered.
  5562. The motion to recommit may be made after the engrossment and 
third reading of a bill, even though the previous question may not have 
been ordered.--On February 16, 1899,\4\ the House was considering the 
sundry civil appropriation bill, and had ordered it to be engrossed and 
read a third time. The question then recurred on its passage, and the 
previous question had not been ordered.
  Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, moved to recommit the bill with 
instructions that there be added to it legislation providing for the 
construction of the Nicaragua Canal.
  Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made the point of order that the 
motion was not in order, as the previous question had not been ordered.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair thinks the motion is regular, and the Clerk will present 
it.

  5563. On January 22, 1855,\5\ the House was considering the bill to 
provide for railroad and telegraph communication between the Atlantic 
States and the Pacific Ocean, which had been passed to be engrossed and 
read a third time under the operation of the previous question.
  Mr. Lewis D. Campbell, of Ohio, moved that the vote whereby the main 
question was ordered be reconsidered, in order that a motion might be 
made to recommit the bill to the select committee which had reported 
it.
  A question arising as to the proper procedure, the Speaker \6\ said:

  The Chair will state the exact effect of the motion. If the vote by 
which the main question was ordered to be now put be reconsidered, and 
the House should see proper to reconsider the vote by which the bill 
was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, it may be committed, 
but only after the vote by which it was ordered to be engrossed has 
been reconsidered. Before that vote is taken, however,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Israel F. Fischer, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
  \2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \3\ Of course the previous question might have been demanded on the 
motion to recommit with instructions instead of being offered as a 
motion having priority under section 4 of Rule XVI.
  \4\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 1960.
  \5\ Second-session Thirty-third Congress, Globe, p. 353.
  \6\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 5564
it may be recommitted to the select committee under an express rule, 
but it can not be committed to a new committee.\1\ That is the 
recollection of the Chair in regard to the rule. But the 
reconsideration of the vote by which the bill was ordered to be 
engrossed will place it in a position to be committed or recommitted.

  5564. The simple motion to refer or commit is debatable, but the 
merits of the proposition which it is proposed to refer may not be 
brought into the debate.
  A former rule of the House provided that a motion to refer should not 
be debatable. (Footnote.)
  On February 21, 1893,\2\ the House was considering the Senate 
amendments to the bill (H. R. 9350) to promote the safety of employees 
and travelers, etc., and Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, 
submitted a motion that the bill and amendments be committed to the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. He was proceeding to 
debate this motion to commit, when Mr. John Lind, of Minnesota, made 
the point of order that the motion of Mr. Richardson was not debatable.
  The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order on the ground that the 
amendments not having been considered by or reported form a committee 
of the House, under clause 2 of Rule XIII \4\ the question on the 
motion to commit was not debatable.
  5565. On December 19, 1825,\5\ Mr. Edward Livingston, of Louisiana, 
was recognized in debate, the pending question being on a motion to 
refer to the Committee on Ways and Means a resolution calling on the 
Secretary of the Treasury for a detailed account of unclaimed dividends 
on United States stock.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ The rule referred to, No. 120 at this time, was as follows: 
``After commitment and report thereof to the House, or at any time 
before its passage, a bill may be recommitted.'' This rule dated from 
1789, but has not existed for many years.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 101; Record, p. 
1956.
  \3\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \4\ This rule is no longer a part of the rules. It provided: ``The 
question of reference of any proposition, other than that reported from 
a committee, shall be decided without debate, in the following order, 
viz, a standing committee, a select committee; but the reference of a 
proposition reported by a committee, when demanded, shall be decided 
according to its character, without debate, in the following order, 
viz, House Calendar, Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, Committee of the Whole House, a standing committee, a select 
committee.'' This rule had its inception on March 13, 1822 (first 
session Seventeenth Congress, Journal, p. 350), and was evidently 
intended to remedy troubles such as occurred January 29, 1822 (first 
session Seventeenth Congress, Annals, p. 827), when there was much 
debate and contention over the reference of papers relating to the 
difficulties of General Jackson and Judge Fromentin. In the first form 
the motion to refer was left debatable, and long debates over reference 
frequently occurred, as in the case of the President's message relating 
to the Creek treaties, on February 9, 1827 (second session Nineteenth 
Congress, Debates, pp. 1029-1033).
  Section 4 of Rule XVI (see sec. 5301 of this volume) seems to imply 
that the motion to commit may be debatable, under certain circumstances 
at least, and the relations of these two rules, which existed together 
in the Fifty-second Congress, were discussed at this time. (Record, p. 
1955.)
  The general parliamentary law (see sec. 120 of Reed's Parliamentary 
Rules) provides:
  ``The motion to commit is debatable, but the merits of the main 
question are not open to discussion on this motion, since that 
discussion will be in order when the committee reports. If, however, 
the proposition be to commit with instructions as to the main question, 
then debate can be had on the merits.''
  \5\ First session Nineteenth Congress, Debates, p. 828.
Sec. 5566
  Mr. Livingston was proceeding to discuss the condition and situation 
of these balances when the Chair \1\ reminded him that it was not in 
order to discuss the merits on a motion to refer to a committee.
  5566. On February 4, 1834,\2\ a message was received from the 
President on the subject of the refusal of the Bank of the United 
States to transfer the money and books of the pension fund to the 
Girard bank.
  The message having been read, Mr. Henry Hubbard, of New Hampshire, 
moved that the message, with the accompanying documents, be referred to 
the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Debate arising the Speaker \3\ twice admonished Members that it was 
not in order to enter on the merits of the question referred to by the 
message.
  Again on February 25 \4\ the Speaker ruled in the same way on a 
motion to recommit the fortifications appropriation bill to the 
Committee of the Whole.
  5567. On December 2, 1902,\5\ the message of the President had been 
read when Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, moved that it be referred 
to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  Mr. Galusha A. Grow, of Pennsylvania, rising to a parliamentary 
inquiry, asked if the message itself might be debated on the motion to 
refer.
  The Speaker \6\ said:

  The Chair thinks that is not the practice.

  5568. On December 10, 1903,\7\ Mr. John F. Lacey, of Iowa, moved to 
refer to the Committee on the Judiciary a resolution proposing 
proceedings in relation to the impeachment of Judge Charles Swayne.
  Mr. Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, made the point of order that the 
motion was not debatable.
  The Speaker \8\ said:

  The Chair thinks the motion of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lacey] is 
debatable, as to the propriety of the proposed reference, and has 
recognized the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Williams], who will 
confine himself within the limits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John W. Taylor, of New York, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Twenty-third Congress, Debates, p. 2616.
  \3\ Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, Speaker.
  \4\ Debates, pp. 2784, 2785.
  \5\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 20.
  \6\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \7\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 97.
  \8\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.