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

 
                             Chapter CXXII.

        THE MOTION TO REFER AS RELATED TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.

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

   1. The rule. Section 5569.
   2. The motion amendable but not debatable. Sections 5570, 5571.
   3. Applies to resolutions and certain motions. Sections 5572-
     5575.
   4. Time of making the motion. Sections 5576-5581.
   5. May be amended by adding instructions. Sections 5582-5584.
   6. As applied to resolutions on which previous question is 
     ordered. Sections 5582-5584.
   7. Motion should be in simple form. Section 5589.
   8. General decisions. Sections 5590-5604.\1\

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

  5569. The motion to refer provided for in the rule for the previous 
question.--Section 1 of Rule XVII \2\ provides:

  It shall be in order, pending the motion for, or after the previous 
question shall have been ordered on its passage, for the Speaker to 
entertain and submit a motion to commit, with or without instructions, 
to a standing or select committee.

  5570. The motion to commit under section 1 of Rule XVII is not 
debatable, but is amendable unless the previous question is ordered on 
it.--On February 7, 1901,\3\ the previous question had been ordered on 
the Post-Office appropriation bill to the final passage, and under the 
operation thereof the bill had been passed to be engrossed and read a 
third time.
  Pending the question on the passage of the bill, Mr. Claude A. 
Swanson, of Virginia, moved to recommit the bill, and on that motion 
demanded the previous question.
  Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, rising to a parliamentary 
inquiry, asked whether or not, should the previous question be voted 
down, the motion to recommit would be open to debate.
  The Speaker \4\ replied that it would be open to amendment, but not 
to debate.
  5571. On March 31, 1904,\5\ the previous question had been ordered on 
the sundry civil appropriation bill to its final passage, and the bill 
having been engrossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Only one motion in order. (Sec. 5885 of this volume.)
  \2\ For full form and history of this rule see section 5443 of this 
volume.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2100.
  \4\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \5\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 4075, 4076.
Sec. 5572
and read a third time, Mr. William Sulzer, of New York, moved to 
recommit with instructions.
  On this motion Mr. James A. Hemenway, of Indiana, moved the previous 
question.
  Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, having suggested that the 
motion should be withheld to permit debate on the motion to recommit, 
the Speaker \1\ said:

  The previous question is now operating upon the bill to its final 
passage. The gentleman from New York moves to recommit the bill with 
instructions.
  Now, the effect of the previous question under these circumstances is 
to cut off amendments. Debate has already been cut off, and whether the 
previous question upon this motion be ordered now or not, debate would 
not be in order save by unanimous consent.

  5572. The motion to commit after the previous question is ordered 
applies to resolutions, the word ``bill'' in the rule being a generic 
term applying to all legislative propositions.--On May 22, 1884,\2\ the 
House had under consideration the contested-election case of English v. 
Peelle. Mr. Alphonso Hart, of Ohio, had proposed a substitute for the 
resolutions reported by the Committee on Elections, and the House had 
agreed to this substitute, the previous question being ordered on the 
substitute and the original resolutions.
  Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, had moved to reconsider this 
vote, and Mr. Hart had moved to lay Mr. Springer's motion on the table. 
The House refused to lay the motion on the table, and voted to 
reconsider.
  The question recurring on the substitute submitted by Mr. Hart, Mr. 
Thomas M. Browne, of Indiana, submitted a resolution in the nature of a 
motion to recommit the case to the Committee on Elections, with 
instructions to make a recount of the ballots.
  Mr. Springer made the point of order that the motion to recommit was 
not in order for the reason that the rule under which it was permitted 
(Rule XVII) applied solely to bills on their passage.
  The Speaker \3\ overruled the point of order on the ground that the 
term ``bill,'' as used in the rule, was a generic term and included all 
legislative propositions which could properly come before the House. 
The Speaker further held that if the previous question had been ordered 
only on the substitute, the motion to recommit would not be in order, 
but being ordered on the resolutions reported from the Committee on 
Elections and also the substitute therefor submitted by Mr. Hart, the 
motion was in order--the House, by reconsideration, having reached the 
original state of proceedings on the substitute.
  5573. The motion to commit provided for in the rule for the previous 
question applies not only to bills but to resolutions of the House 
alone.
  An opinion of the Speaker that the motion to commit is not in order 
when the previous question has been ordered simply on a pending 
amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 1296.
   \3\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 5574
  On May 22, 1884,\1\ the House had under consideration the contested-
election case of English v. Peelle, from Indiana. A substitute to the 
resolution of the majority of the committee had been offered and under 
the operation of the previous question, which was ordered on both 
substitute and resolution, had been agreed to. Then the vote adopting 
this substitute had been reconsidered.
  When the question recurred again on the adoption of the substitute, 
Mr. Thomas M. Browne, of Indiana, moved to recommit the resolution to 
the Committee on Elections with certain instructions.
  Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, made the point of order that, 
as the Chair had ruled in other cases that the motion to recommit was 
in order only on the final passage of a bill, and not before the 
engrossment, the present motion was not in order, since the final 
passage of a bill was not pending.
  Mr. Springer made the further point of order that if the motion to 
recommit was in order at all, it should have been made immediately 
after the previous question was ordered and before the proceedings 
under the previous question had begun.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  On yesterday, upon the motion of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Geo. L. 
Converse], the House ordered the previous question, not only upon the 
amendment which was proposed by the minority of the Committee on 
Elections, but upon the adoption of the resolutions reported by the 
majority of the committee. Thereupon a vote was taken in the House on 
the adoption of the amendment proposed by the minority of the 
committee, and it was agreed to.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Springer] then moved to reconsider 
the vote by which the amendment was agreed to, and this morning that 
vote has been reconsidered. Therefore the House now stands with 
reference to this matter precisely as it did before any vote had been 
taken after the previous question was ordered. If the previous question 
had been ordered only upon the amendment proposed by the minority of 
the committee, the Chair would have no hesitation in holding that it 
was not now in order, under the rules of the House, to move to 
recommit, either with or without instructions. But the previous 
question, as the Chair has already said, has been ordered not only upon 
the amendment, but upon the adoption of the original resolutions 
reported by the majority of the committee. The House, by reconsidering 
that vote by which yesterday the amendment was adopted, has gone back 
to precisely the same stage of proceedings which existed before any 
vote whatever had been taken upon the amendment.
  The only question, then, is whether it is in order at any time after 
the previous question has been ordered to recommit measures except what 
is technically termed a ``bill.'' The Chair thinks that the term 
``bill'' as used in Rule XVII is a generic term, and includes all 
legislative propositions which can come before the House.\3\
  In accordance with this opinion, the Chair has during this session 
invariably held that it was in order to recommit other propositions 
than bills after the previous question had been ordered. The Chair 
thinks that this motion is in order, and so decides.

  5574. The motion to commit provided for in the rule for the previous 
question, may be applied to a motion to amend the Journal.
  A former rule of the House provided that motions might be committed, 
and the principle has been reasserted by the Chair.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 4403.
  \2\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \3\ Mr. Speaker Keifer had held in the preceding Congress that the 
motion to commit under Rule XVII applied only to bills and not to the 
resolution then before the House from the Committee on Rules. (Second 
session Forty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 505; Record, p. 3315.)
Sec. 5575
  On March 23, 1880,\1\ the House was considering a motion submitted by 
Mr. James A. Garfield, of Ohio, to amend the Journal, and on this 
motion the previous question had been demanded.
  Thereupon Mr. Elijah C. Phister, of Kentucky, moved to refer the 
motion to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The point of order being made against this motion by Mr. Garfield, 
the Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair entertains the motion under the latter portion of the first 
clause of Rule XVII, which provides--
  ``That it shall be in order, pending the motion for or after the 
previous question shall have been ordered on its passage, for the 
Speaker to entertain and submit a motion to commit, with or without 
instructions, to a standing or select committee.''

  The suggestion being made that a resolution or bill could be 
committed, but not a motion, the Speaker had read the former rule of 
the House (No. 47): ``Motions and reports may be committed at the 
pleasure of the House.'' \3\
  5575. The previous question having been ordered on a motion to agree 
to a Senate amendment to a House bill, a motion to commit is in 
order.--On November 1, 1893,\4\ the House was considering the Senate 
amendments to the bill (H. R. 1) to repeal a part of the act of July 
14, 1890, relating to the purchase of silver bullion.
  Mr. Leonidas F. Livingtson, of Georgia, submitted the question of 
order whether, after the previous question should have been ordered on 
the motion to concur in a Senate amendment, it would be in order to 
commit the bill and amendment to a committee with instructions.
  The Speaker \5\ expressed the opinion that the motion to commit would 
in such case be in order.
  5576. The motion to refer under Rule XVII may be made pending the 
demand for the previous question, on the passage, whether a bill or 
resolution be under consideration.--On January 4, 1904,\6\ Mr. James 
Hay, of Virginia, presented a resolution relating to an investigation 
of certain alleged misconduct on the part of Members, and after debate 
thereon, moved the previous question.
  Pending this question Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, rising to a 
parliamentary inquiry, asked when it would be in order to make a motion 
to commit the resolution.
  The Speaker \7\ said:

  The Chair is of the opinion that, pending the demand for the previous 
question the motion which the gentleman indicates would not be in 
order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1814, 1815.
  \2\ Samuel J. Randall of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
  \3\ The revision of the rules had recently taken place when this 
ruling was made, and this rule 47 had disappeared in that revision; but 
the Speaker evidently considered the principle involved as surviving.
  \4\ First session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 162; Record, p. 
3060.
  \5\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \6\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 448.
  \7\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 5577
  The question was then taken on the motion for the previous question, 
the yeas and nays being ordered. There appeared, yeas 78, nays 78, 
answering present 9--not a quorum.
  Thereupon the House adjourned.
  On January 5,\1\ when the resolution was again taken up, the Speaker 
said.

  The Chair desires at this time to correct a ruling made by the Chair 
yesterday. After the previous question had been moved upon this 
resolution yesterday the gentleman from New York [Mr. Payne] proposed a 
motion to refer. The Chair had in mind clause 4 of Rule XVI, which is 
as follows:
  ``When a question is under debate no motion shall be received but to 
adjourn, to lay on the table, for the previous question (which motions 
shall be decided without debate), to postpone to a day certain, to 
refer, or to amend, or postpone indefinitely; which several motions 
shall have precedence in the foregoing order.''
  Now, with that rule standing alone, the ruling of the Chair was 
strictly in accordance with the letter of the rule; but the Chair had 
overlooked Rule XVII, which is as follows:
  ``There shall be a motion for the previous question, which, being 
ordered by a majority of Members voting, if a quorum be present, shall 
have the effect to cut off all debate and bring the House to a direct 
vote upon the immediate question or questions on which it has been 
asked and ordered. The previous question may be asked and ordered upon 
a single motion, a series of motions allowable under the rules, or an 
amendment or amendments, or may be made to embrace all authorized 
motions or amendments and include the bill to its passage or rejection. 
It shall be in order, pending the motion for, or after the previous 
question shall have been ordered on its passage, for the Speaker to 
entertain and submit a motion to commit, with or without instructions, 
to a standing or select committee.''
  In the opinion of the Chair, if called upon to rule for the first 
time and harmonize Rule XVI with Rule XVII, the Chair would hold that 
Rule XVI applies to resolutions and that Rule XVII applies to joint 
resolutions and bills.
  Evidently, under Rule XVII, it was the intention of the House, by the 
adoption of the same, to give the House an opportunity after a bill had 
been engrossed and read a third time, if there were accidents, or for 
any reason it was the sense of the House that the bill ought to be 
recommitted, to have that opportunity. In practice that motion is in 
constant use in the ordinary business of the House in cases where the 
previous question is ordered upon the bill to its passage after the 
bill has been engrossed and read a third time. But the Chair does not 
feel at liberty or believe that it would be a correct ruling, in view 
of the practice of the House heretofore, to so harmonize these two 
rules. It has been the practice of the House, certainly from the time 
of Speaker Crisp, to hold that Rule XVII applies to resolutions as well 
as to bills. That was followed by Speaker Reed and also by Speaker 
Henderson.
  Gentlemen are familiar with that fact, for the reason that in cases 
of resolutions reported from election committees in the determination 
of election contests it has been the constant practice after the 
substitute was voted on to move to recommit with or without 
instructions. So the practice of the House having been to substantially 
nullify Rule XVI, and the Chair, not feeling at liberty to depart from 
that practice, so far as the motion to commit is concerned, holds that 
under Rule XVII it is in order, pending a motion for the previous 
question upon a resolution \2\ or after the previous question upon the 
resolution has been ordered, either, at the election of the House, to 
commit the resolution.
  The Chair thought proper to call the attention of the House promptly 
to the error that the Chair fell into yesterday.

  5577. Where separate motions for the previous question are made, 
respectively, on the third reading and on the passage of a bill, the 
motion to commit should be made only pending the demand for or after 
the previous question is ordered on the passage.
  Under the rule for the previous question but one motion to commit is 
in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Record, pp. 474, 475.
  \2\ See, however, section 5585.
Sec. 5578
  On January 17, 1884,\1\ the House had under consideration a bill for 
immediate improvement of the Mississippi River, the previous question 
having been moved on the third reading only, and not on the bill to its 
final passage. A motion was made to commit the bill with certain 
instructions. This motion was defeated. The question recurring on 
ordering the bill to be read a third time, Mr. John D. White, of 
Kentucky, inquired whether it would be in order to move to commit the 
bill with instructions; or, if not now, whether it would be in order 
after the previous question should have been ordered.
  The Speaker \2\ stated that under the rule of the House it was in 
order to move to commit with or without instructions pending the demand 
for the previous question or after the previous question had been 
ordered on the passage of the bill.
  Mr. Albert S. Willis, of Kentucky, made the point of order that one 
such motion had been made and that the privilege was exhausted. But the 
Speaker replied that the motion had been made while the question was on 
ordering the bill to a third reading. Only one such motion was in order 
after the ordering of the previous question on the passage of a bill or 
pending the demand for the previous question on the passage.
  It was then recalled to the Speaker's attention that the previous 
question had been demanded on the third reading before the motion to 
commit was made. The Speaker said that probably it was a mistake to 
entertain the motion to commit under the circumstances. But the 
previous question having been ordered on the passage, the motion to 
commit was in order.
  5578. Where the motion for the previous question covers all stages of 
the bill to the final passage, the motion to commit is made after the 
third reading, and is not in order before engrossment or third reading 
or pending the motion for the previous question.--On May 26, 1896,\3\ 
the House had under consideration the bill (H. R. 3282) relating to the 
use of alcohol in the arts, and the previous question, on motion of Mr. 
Walter Evans, of Kentucky, had been ordered on the bill and amendments 
to the passage, when Mr. William E. Barrett, of Massachusetts, proposed 
a motion to recommit with instructions.
  The Speaker \4\ held that the motion would not be in order until the 
bill had passed to be engrossed and had been read a third time, saying:

  The Chair supposes that the practical principle involved is this: 
After the House has proceeded to amendment of the bill, and the bill 
has reached its final position, ready to be engrossed, or ordered to be 
engrossed, then, if the House is dissatisfied with it, it may move to 
commit, or recommit, as the phraseology ordinarily is. That is to 
enable the House to correct its action in case the bill when finished 
is not satisfactory.

  Again, on January 12, 1897,\5\ the House having under consideration 
the bill (H. R. 9601) relating to the unlawful use of the franking 
privilege, and Mr. Eugene F. Loud, of California, having demanded the 
previous question on the engrossment
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 466; Journal, pp. 
338, 339.
  \2\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 5753.
  \4\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \5\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 739, 740.
                                                            Sec. 5579
and to the passage of the bill, Mr. William E. Barrett, of 
Massachusetts, moved to recommit the bill, with certain instructions.
  The Speaker held that this motion would not be in order until after 
the bill had passed to be engrossed and been read a third time, saying:

  The proposition is that it is the motion for the previous question 
upon the final passage that is spoken of as pending, and during the 
pendency or after the passage of which a motion to commit may be 
submitted. Now, the rule of the House permits a double motion, which is 
to move the previous question on the engrossment to the passage, so 
that when under the operation of that double motion, or a motion double 
in its effect, a motion to recommit is presented, it must wait until 
the bill has passed to be engrossed before it can become pending. Such 
has always been the ruling in the House, and such, as it seems to the 
Chair, is the plain meaning of the rule. * * * It is simply a question 
as to when the motion to recommit becomes effective in the proceedings. 
* * *
  The bill could be passed in this way: First, by a motion for the 
previous question upon the engrossment of the bill, and then the 
previous question would exhaust itself, and the question might become a 
subject of discussion if the previous question were not renewed on the 
passage; and it is at that time that the motion to recommit is 
admissible under our rules, upon the theory that the House, having 
amended the bill, and having ordered it to be engrossed, and having 
presumably examined the engrossed copy, is not satisfied with the 
amendments which have been made in the bill, and therefore wants to 
recommit it, and then the House has a last chance to send it to a 
committee. According to our system the bill is up. The House has the 
right to send it to a committee or a right to amend it. It chooses to 
amend it. Having amended it, and having had it engrossed, and having 
examined it, the House comes to the conclusion that it is not satisfied 
with the bill, and therefore by its rules gives itself the right to 
send it again to a committee, to enable them to make such changes as 
may make it more acceptable to the House.
  Now, where the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Barrett] is misled 
is in the joining together, by the rule of the House, of the two 
motions for the previous question--the one on the motion that the bill 
be engrossed, and the other on the motion for the passage. Now, that 
seems to the Chair to be clear.

  5579. On March 19, 1898,\1\ the Post-Office appropriation bill was 
reported from the Committee of the Whole, and Mr. Eugene F. Loud, of 
California, demanded the previous question on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill to its passage.
  Mr. Leonidas F. Livingston, of Georgia, moved to recommit the bill.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  This is not the proper time to make that motion. The motion to 
recommit should be made after the bill is engrossed. The question is on 
ordering the previous question.

  5580. On May 5, 1898,\3\ the previous question had been ordered on 
the engrossment and third reading and to the passage of the bill (H. R. 
4372) concerning carriers engaged in interstate commerce and their 
employees.
  Mr. Samuel Maxwell, of Nebraska, moved that the bill be recommitted.
  The Speaker \2\ decided that the motion was not in order at that 
time, as the question was on the engrossment and third reading.
  The bill having been ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, 
Mr. James Hamilton Lewis moved to recommit the bill with certain 
instructions.
  This motion having been decided in the negative, the question 
recurred on the passage of the bill, when Mr. Maxwell proposed a motion 
to recommit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 3015.
  \2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4649.
Sec. 5581
  The Speaker said:

  A motion to recommit will not be in order. Only one motion to 
recommit is in order. The gentleman could have amended by moving to 
strike out the instructions, but not now.

  5581. On May 23, 1900,\1\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 
11719) amending section 5270 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
States, and Mr. George W. Ray, of New York, moved the previous question 
on the bill and amendment to the final passage.
  Mr. D. A. De Armond, of Missouri, made a motion to recommit, claiming 
that such motion was in order pending the motion for the previous 
question, under section 1 of Rule XVII.
  The Speaker pro tempore \2\ read to the House section 1015 of the 
``Parliamentary Precedents,'' and held that in accordance with the 
precedents of the House the motion was not at that time in order.
  5582. After the previous question is ordered the motion to commit may 
be amended, as by adding instructions, unless such amendment be 
precluded by moving the previous question on the motion to commit.
  The motion to commit, made after the previous question is ordered, is 
not debatable.
  Under the rule for the previous question, but one motion to commit is 
in order.
  To a bill proposing one mode of arranging the Presidential 
succession, an amendment proposing a joint resolution for submitting a 
constitutional amendment on a plan differing as to details was held 
germane.
  On January 15, 1886,\3\ the House was considering a bill relating to 
the Presidential succession, and the previous question had been 
demanded on its passage, when Mr. Andrew J. Perkins, of Tennessee, 
proposed to recommit the bill; and at the same time, as a parliamentary 
inquiry, asked if a motion to recommit with instructions would be in 
order in case the motion to recommit should be voted down.
  The Speaker \4\ replied:

  The Chair thinks not. Under the rule but one motion to recommit is in 
order,\5\ whether with or without instructions. The Chair, however, has 
ruled heretofore that a motion to recommit without instruction is 
subject to an amendment, so as to instruct the committee.

  Thereupon Mr. Thomas Ryan, of Kansas, made this motion:

  Recommit the bill with instructions to report as a substitute a 
resolution submitting an amendment to the Constitution providing one or 
more additional Vice-Presidents, upon whom, in their order, the office 
of President shall devolve in case of the removal, death, resignation, 
or inability both of President and Vice-President.

  Mr. Roger Q. Mills, of Texas, made the point of order that these 
instructions were not germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 5921.
  \2\ Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, Speaker pro tempore.
  \3\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 694, 695; 
Journal, pp. 378, 379.
  \4\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \5\ See also sections 5577, 5580, 5604.
                                                            Sec. 5583
  The Speaker ruled:

  The Chair thinks on examination that the matter of the resolution 
which it is proposed to instruct the committee to report is germane to 
the subject-matter of this bill. It is upon the succession to the 
Presidential office; and though it may come back to the House in the 
form of a joint resolution instead of a bill, technically speaking, yet 
it requires the same proceeding in the House, and is a similar 
legislative proposition.

  The inquiry having been made as to whether or not these instructions 
might be amended, the Speaker replied that the motion to recommit was 
amendable, but not debatable.\1\
  An amendment having been proposed to the instructions, Mr. William M. 
Springer, of Illinois, made the point of order that the motion to 
commit was not amendable.
  The Speaker said:

  That point was made during the Forty-eighth Congress, and the Chair 
then decided that under the rule of the House one motion to recommit 
with or without instruction, and one motion only, was in order, but 
that from the very nature of the case Members upon the floor ought to 
have the right to offer an amendment to the motion, and for the very 
obvious reason that an advocate of the pending measure, and therefore 
an opponent of recommitment, might offer a motion to recommit with such 
instructions as it was evident the House would not agree to, thereby 
preventing anybody who desired in good faith to recommit the measure 
from submitting such a motion. The Chair thought it was a matter of 
simple justice to those on the floor who desired to recommit with 
substantial instructions that they should have an opportunity to 
propose amendments. The motion to recommit is an independent 
proposition, upon which the previous question may be ordered, and until 
such order is made by the House the Chair thinks amendments may be 
proposed as in other cases.\2\

  5583. On June 12, 1884,\3\ the House having under consideration a 
bill relating to certain public works on rivers and harbors, Mr. John 
D. White, of Kentucky, moved that the bill be committed to a select 
committee, with certain instructions.
  Pending this, Mr. James D. Belford, of Colorado, moved to amend the 
motion of Mr. White by adding the following: ``And shall be paid in the 
standard silver coin of the United States or in silver certificates.''
  Mr. William H. Calkins, of Indiana, made the point of order that the 
motion of Mr. White to commit with instructions was not amendable.
  The Speaker \4\ held the motion to be amendable, for the reason that, 
there being a special rule permitting a motion to commit with or 
without instructions pending the demand for or after the previous 
question was ordered, the motion to commit was subject to amendment as 
provided by the rules of the House, and amendments could only be 
precluded by ordering the previous question on the motion to commit.
  5584. On December 11, 1894,\5\ the House was considering the bill (H. 
R. 7273) to amend an act entitled ``An act to regulate commerce,'' 
approved Feb-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ For similar ruling that motion to commit under these 
circumstances is not debatable see Record, first session Fifty-fourth 
Congress, p. 4477.
  \2\ On March 15, 1888 (first session Fiftieth Congress, Journal, pp. 
1182, 1183; Record, p. 2111), Mr. Speaker Carlisle reaffirmed this 
position, saying that if the motion to recommit was not amendable it 
would be in the power of the opponents of recommittal to make the 
motion in such form that the House would vote it down, and thus deprive 
the other side of the power to submit a proposition that might be 
acceptable to the House.
  \3\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 1430.
  \4\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \5\ Third session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 28, 29; Record, 
p. 230.
Sec. 5585
ruary 4, 1889, and the question was on the passage, the previous 
question being ordered.
  Mr. Charles M. Cooper, of Florida, moved to recommit the bill to the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
  Mr. W. C. P. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, moved to amend the motion of 
Mr. Cooper by substituting the following:

  That the bill be recommitted to the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce with instruction to report the bill with an amendment 
that no agreement contemplated, authorized, or permitted shall become 
valid until the same has been submitted to the Interstate Commerce 
Commissioners and by said Commissioners approved and promulgated.

  On motion of Mr. Josiah Patterson, of Tennessee, the previous 
question was ordered on the amendment and on the motion of Mr. Cooper, 
of Florida, to recommit.
  The amendment proposed by Mr. Breckinridge having been disagreed to, 
the question recurred on the motion of Mr. Cooper, of Florida, to 
recommit.
  Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, made the point of order that 
the motion of Mr. Breckinridge was an independent motion to recommit 
with instructions and that the same having been rejected no other 
motion to recommit was in order, inasmuch as the rule permitted but one 
motion to recommit at this stage of the bill.
  The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order, holding that the 
proposition of Mr. Breckinridge, whatever might be its form, was 
offered as an amendment, and was in effect an amendment to the motion 
of Mr. Cooper, of Florida, to recommit. The Speaker further said:

  It is not an open question at all. This matter was very thoroughly 
discussed in the Forty-eighth Congress and decided at that time by the 
then Speaker of the House. It was held by the Speaker in a decision 
covering the whole ground, that this motion to commit with or without 
instructions was merely an enlargement of the right of amendment. It 
gave an additional opportunity to amend the bill and carried with it 
all the incidents of an original amendment, unless, of course, the 
offering of the amendment was precluded by the previous question. The 
Journal of the Forty-eighth Congress, page 1430, contains this 
decision:
  ``A motion to commit under clause I of Rule XVII, with or without 
instructions, is subject to amendment under Rule XIX, unless precluded 
by ordering the previous question on the motion to commit.''
  And ever since that time such has been the practice of the House 
invariably.

  5585. When the previous question has been ordered on a simple 
resolution (as distinguished from a joint resolution) and a pending 
amendment, the motion to commit should be made after the vote on the 
amendment.--On April 22, 1892,\2\ the House was considering the 
contested-election case of Noyes v. Rockwell, from New York, and the 
previous question was offered on the resolutions reported by the 
committee and on a substitute offered by the minority.
  Mr. William J. Bryan, of Nebraska, submitted the question of order 
whether it would be in order at this stage to move to recommit the 
report to the Committee on Elections.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 154, 155; 
Record, p. 3538.
                                                            Sec. 5586
  The Speaker \1\ held as follows:

  The Chair thinks that motion is not in order at this time. The rule 
provides that a motion to recommit may be made either before or after 
the previous question is ordered upon the passage of a bill. It has 
been frequently held by presiding officers that the word ``bill'' in 
this case is used as a generic term, applying to and including all 
legislative propositions which can properly come before the House. So 
that in this case the House must first dispose of the substitute, which 
is but an amendment; and after the disposition of that, when the 
question shall be upon the original resolutions as amended or without 
amendment, the motion to recommit will be in order. The motion to 
recommit may be made whether the substitute be voted down or not.

  5586. On September 5, 1890,\2\ the House was considering the election 
case which involved the title of Mr. Clifton R. Breckinridge, of 
Arkansas, to his seat. The previous question was ordered on the 
resolutions proposed by the majority of the committee, and also at the 
same time on a substitute therefore proposed by the minority.
  Mr. Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, then offered a resolution which 
was, in effect, a motion to recommit with instructions.
  The Speaker pro tempore \3\ ruled that the resolution was not in 
order for present consideration, as the pending question was on 
agreeing to the substitute, while the resolution had reference to the 
recommitment of the resolutions reported by the Committee on Elections.
  5587. On April 21, 1896,\4\ the House had considered the contested-
election case of Goodwyn v. Cobb, from Alabama, and the previous 
question had been demanded on the original resolutions and a substitute 
therefore proposed by the minority.
  Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, asked if a motion to recommit 
would be entertained after the previous question had been ordered.
  The Speaker \5\ said:

  The Chair thinks that after the question on the substitute has been 
decided a motion to recommit may be in order.

  Again, on April 26, 1898 \6\ in the case of Wise v. Young, from 
Virginia, the previous question was ordered on the resolutions and 
substitute; and then, before the substitute was voted on, the motion to 
recommit with instructions was entertained.
  After this vote had been taken the Speaker \5\ said:

  The Chair thinks that properly the motion to recommit should have 
come in after the resolution had been perfected, after the substitute 
had been disposed of. The question now is on agreeing to the 
substitute.

  5588. On April 22, 1892,\7\ the previous question was ordered on the 
resolutions reported by the Committee on Elections in the New York case 
of Noyes v. Rockwell, and on a substitute offered by the minority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 1014; Record, p. 
9749.
  \3\ Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, Speaker pro tempore.
  \4\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 4242.
  \5\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \6\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4286.
  \7\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 156; Record, pp. 
3538-3540.
Sec. 5589
  The substitute having been agreed to, and the question being on 
agreeing to the resolutions as amended, Mr. William J. Bryan, of 
Nebraska, moved to recommit the resolutions with certain instructions.
  Mr. Asher G. Caruth, of Kentucky, submitted the question of order 
whether it would not be inconsistent, the House having voted that the 
contestee was entitled to his seat, to now recommit the case to the 
committee.
  The Speaker \1\ held that, by analogy to the practice in the 
consideration of a bill, it was in order to recommit at any time before 
the report as amended was finally agreed to.
  5589. The previous question having been ordered, and a motion to 
recommit having been made in the form of a resolution with a preamble, 
the preamble was ruled out of order.--On June 3, 1882,\2\ the House was 
considering the contested-election case of Lowe v. Wheeler, from the 
Eighth district of Alabama, when, the previous question having been 
demanded, Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, proposed a motion to 
recommit, under section 1 of Rule XVII.
  This motion to recommit was in form of a preamble of seventeen 
paragraphs reciting statements relating to the case, followed by a 
resolution of recommittal with instructions.
  Mr. John A. Kasson, of Iowa, made the point of order that the 
preamble was not in order, being in the nature of argument or debate, 
which was not in order pending the motion for the previous question, 
and asked for an inspection of the paper by the Chair before being read 
to the House.
  After debate the Speaker \3\ said:

  The Chair desires to state that it does not feel called on to define 
the form of any motion of this character. Nor will the Chair, in 
determining whether a motion of this character is in order, look to see 
whether the matters referred to in it are true or false, or in any 
sense look to the motive of the mover.
  The difficulty with this resolution (if it turns out to be on 
inspection in proper form) lies, in the opinion of the Chair, not so 
much in the fact that it is long, because it might be the desire of the 
mover and of the House to commit a bill on a proposition of any kind 
with instructions of very considerable length, but in reading the 
preamble over many things are found in it which could not possibly 
relate to a motion to commit with instructions. * * * As, for instance, 
such as these:
  ``Whereas the essential points in the report of the majority are 
based entirely upon the papers above mentioned.''
  That could not in any sense be connected with the motion to recommit. 
Again--
  ``Whereas the House of Representatives of the United States should 
not deprive a Member of his prima facie right to his seat except in 
pursuance of law.''
  What has that to do with the motion to recommit? And so it goes on in 
other portions of the preamble.
  Cushing, in his Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, defines a 
preamble to be in the nature of a reason, or debate; and though it is 
sometimes connected with a bill, or adopted with a bill, it is never 
regarded as good legislation. Now, the Chair thinks that the gentleman 
from Illinois has the right, as he undoubtedly has under the rule, to 
move to recommit with or without instructions, and to do that without 
reducing the motion to writing. But would it be held to be in order for 
him to rise in his place and state ``whereas,'' etc., going on, as 
preliminary to the motion, to arraign the committee at great length, or 
for a limited time, and then conclude by making the motion to recommit? 
The
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 1395, 1396; 
Record, pp. 4501-4504.
  \3\ J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 5590
Chair think that would not be in order, for if that could be done, he 
might do it whether he desired to recommit with instructions or not, 
and for other reasons.
  The Chair holds that it would be a very bad precedent to allow the 
motion to recommit to contain any matter, whether in the form of a 
preamble or otherwise, that was in its nature debate. If this preamble, 
as submitted by the gentleman from Illinois, contained nothing but a 
statement in the form of a preamble even of the particular thing that 
the committee would be required, under the instructions, to 
investigate, the Chair would not stop with the form of it, but would 
treat it as if it were a motion to recommit with instructions; and in 
that case the Chair would hold that the motion would be to recommit for 
the purpose of investigating the foregoing matter. Possibly the motion 
might come in and be allowed to go that far. There are other objections 
to it, but, taking this as a whole, the Chair thinks it is not properly 
a motion to recommit.

  Mr. John E. Kenna, of West Virginia, having appealed from the 
decision of the Chair, the Speaker directed the preamble and resolution 
to be read before submitting the appeal to the House.
  The appeal being submitted, it was laid on the table on motion of Mr. 
Thomas B. Reed, of Maine.
  5590. The vote whereby a bill was passed having been reconsidered, 
amendments having been made and the third reading ordered again under 
operation of the previous question, a motion to recommit was held to be 
in order, although such a motion had previously been rejected.--On 
August 12, 1890,\1\ the Speaker laid before the House a bill recalled 
from the Senate, being a bill (S. 3917) to adopt regulations for 
preventing collisions at sea. The vote whereby the bill had been passed 
having been reconsidered, and an amendment having been adopted, Mr. 
Nelson Dingley, jr., of Maine, demanded the previous question on the 
amendment and on the third reading and passage of the bill, which was 
ordered, and under the operation thereof the amendment was agreed to.
  The bill as amended was then read the third time, and the question 
being on its passage as amended, Mr. John H. Rogers, of Arkansas, moved 
that the bill, as amended, be committed to the Committee on Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries.
  Mr. Dingley made the point of order that the motion was not in order 
for the reason that the same had been previously made and rejected by 
the House.
  The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order on the ground that the 
vote by which the bill was passed had been reconsidered and the bill 
amended, thus presenting a new question for the judgment of the House.
  5591. A bill recommitted under section 1 of Rule XVII (rule of the 
previous question) and reported back to the House must again be put on 
its passage to be engrossed for a third reading.
  A bill recommitted under the rule relating to the previous question, 
and on which, when it is again reported and considered, the previous 
question is again ordered, may again be subjected to the motion to 
commit.
  A bill which, after consideration in Committee of the Whole, is 
recommitted with instructions to strike out a portion, does not, when 
again reported, require consideration in Committee of the Whole.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 946; Record, pp. 
8473-8476.
  \2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
Sec. 5591
  Interpretation of the rule which forbids the repetition of the 
motions to postpone or refer at the same stage of the question.
  On July 10, 1886,\1\ pending the demand for the previous question on 
the passage of the general deficiency appropriation bill, the House 
recommitted the bill to the Committee on Appropriations with 
instructions to strike out that portion of the bill which provided for 
one month's extra compensation to certain employees of the House.
  Mr. James N. Burnes, of Missouri, having reported the bill back with 
an amendment striking out the portion referred to in the instructions, 
Mr. Thomas M. Browne, of Indiana, made the point of order that the bill 
stood now as it did when originally reported from the committee, and 
that it must be considered in Committee of the Whole.
  The Speaker,\2\ in response to suggestions from various Members, said 
that it was undoubtedly true, should the bill go to the Committee of 
the Whole, that that committee could not strike out anything that had 
been inserted by the House; that the bill as now reported contained no 
provision which had not already received full consideration in 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and that the 
amendment which had now been reported by the Appropriations Committee 
was to strike out a subject which was considered and adopted in 
Committee of the Whole. Therefore the Chair would decide that the bill 
should not be considered in Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. Thomas M. Browne, of Indiana, then moved to recommit the bill to 
the Committee on Appropriations, with instructions to strike out the 
paragraph appropriating for rental of a wharf at Galveston, Tex.
  The previous question was ordered.
  Mr. Browne's motion having been disagreed to, the amendment reported 
by the Appropriations Committee, to strike out the provision relating 
to a month's extra pay for employees, was agreed to.
  The Speaker then announced that the question was on the engrossment 
and third reading of the bill.
  Mr. Charles S. Baker, of New York, moved to recommit the bill, with 
instructions to strike out a provision of the bill relating to United 
States commissioners.
  The Speaker ruled:

  That motion is not in order now. After the previous question has been 
demanded and ordered on the passage of a bill under a special rule of 
the House, a motion to recommit may be made. * * * Under the old rule 
of the House, which corresponds with the old parliamentary law, no 
motion was allowed to be made to recommit when the previous question 
had been ordered on its passage; but under a special rule of the House, 
after a bill has been ordered to be engrossed and read a third time and 
the question is on the passage of the bill, even though the previous 
question has been demanded and ordered, one motion to recommit is in 
order.

  The bill having been ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, 
and the question being on the passage, Mr. Baker moved that the bill be 
recommitted with certain instructions relating to United States 
commissioners.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 6757, 6758; 
Journal, pp. 2168-2170.
  \2\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
Sec. 5592
  Mr. Thomas M. Bayne, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order under 
section 4 of Rule XVI, which provided:

  * * * No motion to postpone to a day certain, to refer, or to 
postpone indefinitely, being decided shall be again allowed on the same 
day at the same stage of the question.

  The Speaker ruled:

  This is not the same proposition at all. At the time the House 
recommitted the bill to the Committee on Appropriations with 
instructions to report it back after striking out a certain clause, 
there was in the bill a provision to pay certain employees of the 
Government a month's extra compensation. The bill being then on its 
passage, it was recommitted to the Committee on Appropriations under 
these instructions. It now comes back under a rule of the House, and is 
on its third reading and open to further amendment. The bill does not 
now contain that clause. It is an entirely different report from the 
Committee on Appropriations from that upon which the House was acting 
an hour or so ago. * * * Under the rule there can be but one motion to 
recommit the bill when the question is on its passage, and no other 
motion can be made. But this is a different bill, a different report 
from the committee, and the motion is in order.

  5592. The Committee of the Whole having decided between two 
propositions and the House having agreed to the amendment embodying 
that decision, it was held to be in order in the House to move to 
recommit with instructions that in effect brought the two propositions 
to the decision of the House.--On February 23, 1899,\1\ the House under 
operation of the previous question had passed to be engrossed and read 
a third time the naval appropriation bill, when Mr. Charles A. 
Boutelle, of Maine, moved that the bill be recommitted with 
instructions to report it back with an amendment fixing the price of 
armor plate at $545 instead of $445 per ton.
  Messrs. Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, and James D. Richardson, of 
Tennessee, made the point of order that this would be adopting by a 
motion to recommit a proposition which the Committee of the Whole had 
voted down, since the Committee of the Whole had by an amendment to an 
amendment stricken out $545 and inserted $445.\2\
  The Speaker \3\ said:

  The Chair thinks the motion to recommit is under the circumstances in 
order.

  5593. Although the decisions conflict, those last made do not admit 
the motion to commit after the previous question has been ordered on a 
report from the Committee on Rules.--On January 8,1894,\4\ the previous 
question had been ordered on a resolution reported from the Committee 
on Rules, providing for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 4864) to 
reduce taxation, provide revenue, etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2257.
  \2\ The proposition fixing the price of armor plate at $545 had been 
offered February 22 as an amendment and on February 23 this amendment 
was adopted after being amended by striking out $545 and inserting 
$445. (Record, p. 2255.) The House, when it voted on the amendment as 
reported from the Committee of the Whole, had either to agree to it or 
reject it, as the previous question had been ordered. So the only 
opportunity to test the opinion of the House on the question of the two 
prices was by the motion to recommit with instructions.
  \3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 71, 72; Record, 
p. 534.
Sec. 5594
  Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, moved to recommit the resolution to the 
Committee on Rules, with instructions to report an order for the 
consideration of the bill (H. R. 4864), which would allow more time for 
general debate.
  Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, made the point of order that it 
was not in order to recommit a report from the Committee on Rules.
  The Speaker \1\ held that the motion to recommit was in order.
  5594. On March 28, 1894,\2\ the previous question had been ordered on 
a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, fixing times for the 
consideration of the contested election cases of O'Neill v. Joy, from 
Missouri, and English v. Hilborn, from California.
  Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, moved to recommit the pending 
resolution to the Committee on Rules with instruction to so modify the 
resolution that an additional vote might be had in the Joy case on the 
question of ordering a new election, if the House should determine that 
the facts required one, and with instruction to allow a suitable time 
for discussion.
  Mr. Joseph H. Outhwaite, of Ohio, made the point of order that a 
motion to recommit a report of the Committee on Rules was not now in 
order.
  The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order, holding as follows:

  In the first place ordinarily under all parliamentary rules with 
which the Chair has any acquaintance, except the system under which we 
are now operating, a motion to recommit is not in order after the 
previous question is demanded or ordered. A motion to recommit is 
simply another method of permitting the House to amend, and under 
ordinary rules the the right of amendment is cut off by the previous 
question. The House has, however, a provision in its rules that even 
pending the demand for the previous question or after it is ordered a 
motion to recommit may be in order.
  Rule XI provides that ``It shall always be in order to call up for 
consideration a report from the Committee on Rules, and pending the 
consideration thereof the Speaker may entertain one motion that the 
House adjourn; but after the result is announced he shall not entertain 
any other dilatory motion until the said report shall have been fully 
disposed of.''
  Now, the purpose of the rule, as disclosed by the language which has 
been read, was that on reports from the Committee on Rules the House 
should have the right, without delay and without motions tending to 
delay, to dispose of such report. The language is similar to that used 
in reference to motions to suspend the rules; and the Chair is aware 
that there may be some embarrassment at times because of the 
distinction between a report from the Committee on Rules and a motion 
to suspend the rules. But take the case now before the House. The Chair 
has no doubt that it is within the power of the House to amend a report 
from the Committee on Rules. The Chair has never entertained any doubt 
about that. If the House should vote down the demand for the previous 
question, then this report could be amended.
  The idea that the Chair has always had in enforcing this new rule was 
so to construe it as to permit the House to vote without delay upon the 
final proposition, either as reported by the committee or as agreed 
upon by the House if the House should choose to amend it.
  Now, the House has ordered the previous question. What does the 
previous question mean? It means that the House shall proceed to vote 
upon the proposition on which it is ordered. If a motion to recommit is 
in order, perhaps a motion to lay on the table might be in order; and 
the effect of both these motions, whatever the motive of the mover 
might be, would be to delay the House in reaching a final vote on the 
proposition before it, and on which the House has expressed a desire 
for a final vote by ordering the previous question. The Chair has 
always held, in construing the rule, that any motion which would tend 
to prevent the House from a speedy vote upon the final proposition is 
not in order.
  The Chair holds that on a report from the Committee on Rules, when 
the previous question has been ordered, it is not in order to move to 
recommit to the committee. The Chair thus holds the more
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 279, 280; 
Record, p. 3284.
                                                            Sec. 5595
willingly because the matter is entirely in the power of the House. If 
the House desires to amend or alter in any respect a report of this 
character, it need only vote down a demand for the previous question, 
and then the whole field of amendment is open; the report can be 
altered in any way to suit the wishes of the House.
  In other words, the Chair accepts the ordering of the previous 
question as an expression of the desire of the majority of the House to 
vote upon the resolution as it stood when the previous question was 
called upon it. Therefore the Chair holds that the motion to recommit 
is not in order.\1\

  5595. On May 18, 1896,\2\ Mr. David B. Henderson, of Iowa, presented 
from the Committee on Rules a report fixing a time for the 
consideration of bills reported from the Committee on Immigration and 
Naturalization.
  The previous question having been ordered, Mr. Grove L. Johnson, of 
California, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, asked if it would be in 
order to move to recommit the resolution to the Committee on Rules with 
instructions.
  The Speaker \3\ replied that it would be in order.
  5596. On May 20, 1896,\4\ the previous question had been ordered on a 
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules providing certain days. 
for business reported from the Committee on Labor.
  Mr. Thaddeus M. Mahon, of Pennsylvania, moved to recommit the 
resolutions with certain instructions.
  Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, raised a question as to whether or 
not such a motion was in order.
  The Speaker \3\ held that it was in order.
  5597. On April 11, 1900,\5\ the House was considering a resolution 
reported from the Committee on Rules providing time and conditions for 
consideration of the bill (H. R. 8245) entitled ``An act temporarily to 
provide revenues for the relief of the island of Porto Rico, and for 
other purposes,'' with Senate amendments.
  The previous question having been ordered on the resolution, Mr. 
James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, moved to recommit with instructions.
  Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order against 
the motion.
  The Speaker \6\ said:

  The Chair will state that on the proposition of the gentleman from 
Tennessee there has been a conflict of rulings. Some Speakers have held 
that the motion was in order, and others have held that the motion is 
not in order. Speaker Crisp has held that the motion was not in order. 
Speaker Reed has admitted it. The present Chair is clearly of the 
opinion that a rule reported by the Committee on Rules, upon which the 
previous question is ordered, is not subject to a motion to recommit, 
and therefore overrules the motion.

  5598. On May 31, 1900,\7\ the previous question had been ordered on a 
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules relating to the 
consideration of House
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ A similar decision was also made on January 30, 1895. (See 
Journal, pp. 94, 95, third session Fifty-third Congress.) Also on 
February 26, 1883 (second session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 
3315), Mr. Speaker Keifer held that the motion to recommit after the 
previous question was ordered applied only to bills, which had several 
stages, and not to the pending resolution from the Committee on Rules.
  \2\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 5382.
  \3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 5469.
  \5\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4032; Journal, p. 
457.
  \6\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \7\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 6303; Journal, p. 
647.
Sec. 5599
resolution 138, proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to 
trusts, and the bill (H. R. 10539) to amend the law relating to 
unlawful restraints and monopolies.
  The question being on agreeing to the resolution, Mr. James D. 
Richardson, of Tennessee, proposed a motion to recommit the resolution 
with instructions.
  Mr. John Dalzell made the point of order against the motion.
  The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order. saying:

  The Chair has ruled in this session on this question, following the 
ruling of Speaker Crisp, who made the ruling distinctly. * * * The 
Chair will say that he has thoroughly examined all of these 
authorities, that he did so before making the ruling he made in the 
early part of the session, and therefore the Chair follows the ruling 
that he then made. The Chair will hear arguments when the Chair has not 
made up his mind and is in doubt; but when his mind is clear, of course 
there is no use in making arguments and unnecessarily taking up the 
time of the House.

  5599. On February 17, 1902,\2\ Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, 
from the Committee on Rules, presented the following:

  Resolved, That immediately on the adoption of this rule, and 
immediately after the reading of the Journal on each day thereafter 
until the bill hereinafter mentioned shall have been disposed of, the 
House shall resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of 
the Union for consideration of the bill (H. R. 10530) to repeal wax-
revenue taxation, and for other purposes; that on February 18, at 4 
o'clock p. m., general debate shall be closed in Committee of the 
Whole, when the committee shall rise and report the bill with such 
amendments as have been recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means; 
and immediately the House shall vote without debate or intervening 
motions on the several amendments reported from the Committee of the 
whole on the engrossment and third reading, and (if the bill shall have 
passed to be engrossed and read a third time) on the final passage. 
General leave to print is granted for ten days from February 18 on the 
bill H. R. 10530.

  The previous question having been ordered, Mr. James D. Richardson, 
of Tennessee, moved to recommit the resolution with certain 
instructions.
  The Speaker \1\ declined to entertain the motion to recommit, 
announcing that in respect to this question he would be governed by the 
ruling of Mr. Speaker Crisp.
  Mr. Richardson having appealed, the appeal was laid on the table, 
yeas 166, nays 123.
  5600. On March 25, 1904,\3\ Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, from 
the Committee on Rules, presented a resolution to permit consideration 
in the post-office appropriation of a paragraph relating to the rural 
free-delivery service which had been ruled out on a point of order.
  After debate Mr. Dalzell moved the previous question.
  Thereupon Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, proposed a resolution to 
recommit with certain instructions.
  Mr. Dalzell made the point of order that the motion was not in order.
  The Speaker \4\ held:

  The Chair sustains the point of order. After the previous question is 
ordered on a report from the Committee on Rules the motion to recommit 
is not admitted under the more recent practice of the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 1834, 1835.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 3708, 3709.
  \4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 5601
  That ruling was made twice by Speaker Crisp, was followed by Speaker 
Henderson, and has been followed by the present occupant of the chair.

  5601. On February 2, 1904,\1\ Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, from 
the Committee on Rules, submitted a resolution relating to the status 
of the Resident Commissioner from Porto Rico, and demanded thereon the 
previous question.
  Pending this motion for the previous question, Mr. John S. Williams, 
of Mississippi, proposed a motion to recommit the resolution to the 
Committee on Rules with certain instructions.
  Mr. Dalzell made the point of order that the motion was not in order.
  After debate and a citation of precedents, the Speaker \2\ said:

  The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Williams] moves to recommit the 
bill with instructions, pending a motion for the previous question. 
Rule XVII provides:
  ``It shall be in order, pending the motion for or after the previous 
question shall have been ordered on its passage, for the Speaker to 
entertain and submit the motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions, to a standing or select committee.''
  Section 4 of Rule XIV, as to resolutions, conflicts with this rule. 
The Chair has been called upon already at this session of Congress to 
rule upon a motion to recommit a resolution, and held, somewhat 
reluctantly, that it was in order to make the motion as to a resolution 
the same as to a bill, and the Chair stated at the time that the rules 
might well have been construed together and one applied to a resolution 
and another to a bill.
  But owing to the precedents, which were quite numerous and which the 
Chair carefully examined, the Chair held that Rule XVII applied to 
resolutions as well as to bills, and that it was in order to move to 
recommit a resolution pending the motion for the previous question. 
Now, the gentleman moves to recommit pending a motion for the previous 
question. Ordinarily this motion would be in order, but as to reports 
from the Committee on Rules it is well settled by a ruling made by Mr. 
Speaker Crisp and by three rulings following that of Mr. Speaker Crisp, 
made by Mr. Speaker Henderson (the last one being appealed from and the 
House by a decided majority sustaining the ruling), that reports from 
the Committee on Rules are exceptional and that the same rule does not 
apply to those reports as applies to reports from other committees.
  Some gentlemen may say that this ruling is not logical. Examining it, 
however, in the light of Rule XI, which has been read, the Chair is 
inclined to hold that it is logical. But let that be as it may, the 
rules are what the House construes them to be; and this rule of 
construction having been given first by Mr. Speaker Crisp in a matter 
of very considerable importance, and followed in three different 
rulings of Mr. Speaker Henderson, and affirmed by the House on a yea-
and-nay vote by a decided majority, the Chair feels that it his duty to 
follow the precedents, and therefore holds that the motion of the 
gentleman from Mississippi is not in order.

  5602. The House having determined in the negative the question on the 
engrossment and third reading of a bill, a motion to commit is not in 
order under the rule for the previous question.--On February 4, 
1895,\3\ the House had refused to order to be engrossed the bill (H. R. 
8705) to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to issue bonds to 
maintain a sufficient gold reserve, etc., the vote having been ordered 
under the terms of a special order.
  Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, having moved to reconsider, 
that motion was laid on the table on motion of Mr. William H. Hatch, of 
Missouri.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 233; Record, 
pp. 1523-1525.
  \2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \3\ Third session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 114.
Sec. 5603
  Mr. W. C. P. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, submitted the question 
whether it was in order to now move that the bill be recommitted to the 
Committee on Banking and Currency.
  The Speaker \1\ held that the House having refused to order the bill 
to a third reading it was not in order to move to recommit it.
  5603. On January 11, 1897,\2\ the Pacific Railroad funding bill was 
considered under the terms of a special order which provided that the 
``previous question be ordered on this bill to its final passage'' 
immediately after the reading of the Journal on this day.
  The question being taken on the engrossment and third reading of the 
bill, it was decided in the negative, and the motion to reconsider this 
vote was laid on the table.
  Mr. H. Henry Powers, of Vermont, moved, then, after intervening 
business, to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Pacific 
Railroads.
  Mr. Joel D. Hubbard, of Missouri, made a point of order against the 
motion.
  After debate and on the succeeding day, the Speaker \3\ decided:

  On the question of the Pacific Railroad funding bill, the Chair 
thinks that the motion made yesterday by the gentleman from Vermont 
[Mr. Powers] to recommit the bill was not in order. The Chair thinks 
that such a motion could have been made if the House had passed the 
bill to a third reading, or if other business had not intervened.\4\

  5604. Before the adoption of rules, while the House was acting under 
general parliamentary law, it was held that the motion to commit was in 
order pending the motion for the previous question or after it had been 
ordered on a resolution.
  Reference to the rules and practices of the House as persuasive 
authority on general parliamentary law.
  On August 8, 1893,\5\ before the adoption of rules, Mr. Charles T. 
O'Ferrall, of Virginia, called up a resolution providing that George F. 
Richardson ``be now sworn in as a Representative in this Congress from 
the Fifth district of the State of Michigan.''
  To this Mr. Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, had submitted an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  Upon the resolution and substitute Mr. O'Ferrall demanded the 
previous question, the question being on ordering the previous question 
on the resolution submitted by Mr. O'Ferrall, including the amendment 
thereto proposed by Mr. Burrows.
  Mr. Nelson Dingley, jr., of Maine, moved to commit the resolution to 
a special committee of five, with instructions to report thereon within 
ten days.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 690, 725.
  \3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \4\ Evidently by this language Mr. Speaker Reed must have meant that 
either the failure to pass the bill to be engrossed or the intervention 
of other business was sufficient to prevent the motion to recommit.
  \5\ First session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 8, 9.
                                                            Sec. 5604
  Mr. O'Ferrall thereupon submitted the point of order that the motion 
of Mr. Dingley was not in order, inasmuch as the previous question had 
been demanded upon the resolution submitted by him, including the 
amendment thereto submitted by Mr. Burrows.
  The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order on the ground that under 
parliamentary law as indicated by the rules and practice prevailing in 
the House of the Congresses preceding the present the motion to commit 
was in order pending the demand for the previous question or after the 
previous question is ordered on agreeing to the resolution.\2\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ See also sections 5582, 5577, 5580.