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

 
                            Chapter CXXIII.

                      THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER.\1\

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

    1. The rule and its history. Section 5605.
    2. In the absence of a quorum. Sections 5606-5608.\2\
    3. Where the question has been divided. Section 5609.
    4. As to who may make the motion. Sections 5610-5619.\3\
    5. In relation to motions to adjourn and for a recess. 
     Sections 5620-5625.
    6. In relation to the question of consideration. Sections 
     5626, 5627.
    7. In relation to the motion to lay on the table. Sections 
     5628-5640.\4\
    8. In relation to other motions. Sections 5641-5643.
    9. As to vetoed bills and suspension of the rules. Sections 
     5644-5646.
   10. In relation to votes referring a bill. Sections 5647-5651.
   11. Motion precluded by intervening action. Section 5652.
   12. In relation to the previous question. Sections 5653-
     5663.\5\
   13. Votes on Senate amendments not reconsidered after managers 
     are appointed. Section 5664.
   14. As to an order partially executed. Section 5665.\6\
   15. As to bills that have gone from the House. Sections 5666-
     5672.
   16. Entry and consideration of motion. Sections 5673-5684.
   17. Repetition of the motion. Sections 5685-5688.
   18. In relation to the vote ordering the yeas and nays. 
     Sections 5689-5693.\7\
   19. As to debate on the motion. Sections 5694-5702.
   20. Effect of affirmative vote on motion. Sections 5703-5705.

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

  5605. When a motion has been carried or lost, a motion to reconsider 
may be made on the same or succeeding day, and after the said 
succeeding day may not be withdrawn without consent of the House.
  The motion to reconsider may be made ``by any Member of the 
majority.''
  A motion to reconsider takes precedence of all other questions except 
a conference report or a motion to adjourn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ The motion not in order in Committee of the Whole. (Sec. 47165 of 
Vol. IV.)
  The motion in select and standing committees. (See. 4596 of Vol. IV.)
  \2\ During a call of the House. (Sec. 3037 of Vol. IV.)
  \3\ Where the two-thirds vote is required. (Sec. 1656 of Vol. II.)
  \4\ In order to reconsider affirmative vote to lay on the table. 
(Sec. 6288 of this volume.)
  \5\ See also sections 5491-5494 of this volume.
  \6\ See also section 2028 of Volume III.
  \7\ A majority is also required to reconsider a two-thirds vote. 
(Sec. 1656 of Vol. II.)
                                                            Sec. 5605
  After the day succeeding that on which it is made, a motion to 
reconsider may be called up by any Member; but on the last six days of 
a session such motion must be disposed of when made.
  Present form and history of section 1 of Rule XVIII.
  Section I of Rule XVIII provides:

  When a motion has been made and carried or lost, it shall be in order 
for any Member of the majority, on the same or succeeding day, to move 
for the reconsideration thereof, and such motion shall take precedence 
of all other questions except the consideration of a conference report 
or a motion to adjourn, and shall not be withdrawn after the said 
succeeding day without the consent of the House, and thereafter any 
Member may call it up for consideration: Provided, That such motion, if 
made during the last six days of a session, shall be disposed of when 
made.

  This form of the rule dates from the revision of 1880,\1\ and has not 
been changed since, except that the motions to fix the day to which the 
House shall adjourn and for a recess, which were included with the 
motion to adjourn and conference reports as questions not yielding to 
the motion to reconsider, were dropped in 1890,\2\ and, although 
restored in the two succeeding Congresses, were left out in the Fifty-
fourth and succeeding Congresses.
  Although not mentioned in the first rules of the House, adopted April 
7, 1789,\3\ the motion to reconsider was at that time well known in 
parliamentary American practice and was at once used in the House. In 
the Continental Congress it had been of quite frequent use, but was not 
mentioned in the rules of that body.
  On March 13, 1779, a question of order arising, it was determined 
that a vote to reconsider a resolution did not involve its repeal, but 
left it open for consideration and such disposal as the Congress might 
prefer. There was no limit of time for the motion, and the Congress 
reconsidered matters passed on the preceding day or several days or 
months before.\4\ Also the motion was sometimes made to reconsider a 
matter ``in order to take into consideration'' a proposition on a 
kindred subject.\5\
  The first rule of the House on the subject dates from January 7, 
1802,\6\ and was as follows:

  When a motion has been once made, and carried in the affirmative or 
negative, it shall be in order for any Member of the majority to move 
for the reconsideration thereof.

  On December 23, 1811,\7\ the rule of 1802 was modified by limiting 
the time during which the motion might be made to ``the same or 
succeeding day.''
  The making of this rule does not seem to have been wholly 
satisfactory, and on January 13, 1815,\8\ a rule was proposed that 
motions to reconsider should be in order each day after the reports of 
committees, and also that all bills should be retained in the 
possession of the House until the time for motions to reconsider should 
have expired. No action was taken on this proposition. On March 2, 
1820,\9\ the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 206.
  \2\ House Report No. 23, first session Fifty-first Congress.
  \3\ First session First Congress, Journal, p. 9.
  \4\ See Journals of Continental Congress, April 23, 1778; March 13, 
1779, and October 30, 1783.
  \5\ Journal, April 16, 1783.
  \6\ Journal Seventh and Eighth Congresses (Gales & Seaton ed.), p. 
39; Annals, p. 410.
  \7\ First session Twelfth Congress, Report No. 38.
  \8\ Third session Thirteenth Congress, Journal, p. 697; Annals, p. 
1112.
  \9\ First session Sixteenth Congress, Journal, pp. 277, 281; Annals, 
pp. 1587-1590.
Sec. 5606
bill for the admission of Missouri into the Union was before the House 
with Senate amendments, among them the clause inhibiting slavery in the 
territory north of 36 deg. 30' north latitude. The House concurred in 
that amendment. The next day, after the reading of the Journal, Mr. 
John Randolph, of Virginia, arose to move to reconsider the vote 
whereby the House concurred. Mr. Speaker Clay declared the motion out 
of order until the morning business prescribed by the rules, the 
presentation of petitions, should have been concluded. After one more 
unsuccessful trial Mr. Randolph awaited the end of the morning 
business, and then submitted his motion. The Speaker declined to 
entertain it, on the ground that the Clerk had taken the bill to the 
Senate. Mr. Randolph attempted to have the Clerk censured for taking 
the message, but the House declined to consider the resolution, yeas 
61, nays 71.
  Soon after this, on May 5, 1820,\1\ Mr. Charles Pinckney, of South 
Carolina, proposed a rule that a bill, after its passage in the House, 
should not be carried to the Senate until two hours after the reading 
of the Journal on the next day; but the House took no action on the 
proposition.\2\
  On May 2, 1828,\3\ Mr. Speaker Stevenson ruled that the motion to 
reconsider might be made only in the hour devoted to the presentation 
of motions by Members, etc., and if not made before the expiration of 
that hour on the second day was wholly precluded. This ruling seems to 
have had the effect of calling attention anew to the unsatisfactory 
state of the rule, and four days later, on May 6, 1828,\4\ the House 
agreed to a rule proposed by Mr. Philip P. Barbour, of Virginia, 
providing that the motion to reconsider--

shall take precedence of all other questions, except a motion to 
adjourn.

  On May 17, 1834,\5\ Mr. Speaker Stevenson ruled that a Member might 
at any time withdraw a motion to reconsider previously made by him, 
even though such time had elapsed that another Member would be 
prevented by the rule from renewing the motion; and on July 20, 
1842,\6\ Mr. Speaker White made a similar decision.
  In view of the practice established by these decisions, on March 2, 
1848,\7\ Mr. Charles J. Ingersoll, of Pennsylvania, reported from the 
Committee on Rules a rule providing that the motion to reconsider--

shall not be withdrawn after the said succeeding day without the 
consent of the House; and thereafter any Member may call it up for 
consideration.

  The original rule, with these additions, became old Rule 49, from 
which in 1880 the present rule was framed.
  5606. In the absence of a quorum it is not in order to move to 
reconsider a vote on which a quorum is required.--On March 31, 1904,\8\ 
the vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixteenth Congress, Journal, p. 491; Annals, p. 
2202.
  \2\ The principle was later established that a motion to reconsider 
might be made even though the papers had passed out of the possession 
of the House.
  \3\ First session Twentieth Congress, Journal, p. 1041; Debates, p. 
2563.
  \4\ First session Twentieth Congress, Journal, p. 691; Debates, p. 
2578.
  \5\ First session Twenty-third Congress, Debates, p. 4139.
  \6\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 1118.
  \7\ First session Thirtieth Congress, Journal, p. 483; Globe, p. 412.
  \8\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 4077.
                                                            Sec. 5607
was taken by yeas and nays on a motion to recommit the sundry civil 
appropriation bill, and the Speaker announced that the roll call 
disclosed the absence of a quorum.
  Thereupon Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, proposed to enter a 
motion to reconsider the vote whereby the House had changed the 
reference of a bill.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  In the absence of a quorum no business can be transacted except to 
adjourn or a call of the House. The rule compels the Speaker on a roll 
call to ascertain the vote. The Speaker has ascertained the vote, has 
announced the vote, and is compelled under the rule to take notice that 
there is no quorum present, and has so announced.

  5607. On votes incident to a call of the House the motion to 
reconsider may be entertained and laid on the table, although a quorum 
may not be present.--On February 6, 1893,\2\ during a call of the 
House, it was voted that Mr. Charles T. O'Ferrall, of Virginia, be 
excused from attendance. Mr. C. B. Kilgore, of Texas, moved to 
reconsider the vote by which Mr. O'Ferrall was excused.
  Mr. George D. Wise, of Virginia, moved to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The question being put on the latter motion, the Speaker pro tempore 
declared that the motion was carried.
  Mr. Kilgore made the point that no quorum had voted,\3\ and that a 
quorum was necessary to dispose of the motion.
  The Speaker pro tempore \4\ overruled the point of order, holding 
that a quorum was not required to decide a question incidental to a 
call of the House.
  5608. On February 24, 1875,\5\ there was a call of the House incident 
to dilatory proceedings arising over the consideration of reports 
relating to the affairs in the States of Alabama and Arkansas. It was 
voted, on motion of Mr. B. F. Butler, of Massachusetts, to dispense 
with all proceedings under the call--132 yeas to 67 nays.
  Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, moved that this vote be 
reconsidered, and Mr. Omar D. Conger, of Michigan, moved that the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. On a roll call there were 
137 yeas and 3 nays.
  Mr. Randall made the point that less than a quorum had voted.\6\
  The Speaker \7\ said:

  There is no need of a quorum. Less than a quorum can agree to 
dispense with the proceedings under the call; and there can not be any 
sort of doubt that the same vote is sufficient on reconsideration as on 
the direct question.

  5609. A question having been divided for the vote, a separate motion 
to reconsider was held necessary for each vote, and was made first as 
to the first portion of the resolution.--On December 11, 1839,\8\ 
before the organization of the House, and while the Members-elect, with 
Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, as Chairman, were endeavoring 
to settle the complications arising
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 77; Record, p. 
1259.
  \3\ At this time the quorum voting and not the quorum present was 
required.
  \4\ Alexander M. Dockery, of Missouri, Speaker pro tempore.
  \5\ Second session Forty-third Congress, Record, p. 1731; Journal, p. 
548, has no mention of the ruling.
  \6\ At that time the quorum voting and not the quorum present was 
required.
  \7\ James G. Blaine, of Maine, Speaker.
  \8\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 16, 18; Globe, 
pp. 40, 42.
Sec. 5610
out of the contests over five of the New Jersey seats, a resolution was 
presented providing, first, for a call of the roll of all gentlemen 
whose seats were not contested, and, secondly, for passing on the 
contested cases.
  A division of the question was called for, and was put first on the 
first branch of the resolution, which was agreed to. Then the second 
branch was also agreed to.
  Then Mr. John Campbell, of South Carolina, moved that the House do 
reconsider the votes adopting the resolution.
  The previous question was put on this motion and carried.
  The motion to reconsider being about to be put, a question arose as 
whether or not the two votes by which the resolution was agreed to 
could be reconsidered at one vote. After some discussion, the Chairman 
decided that, as the question on the resolution had been divided, the 
question to reconsider would be first put on reconsidering the first 
portion.
  The House having voted to reconsider the vote agreeing to the first 
part, the question was next put on reconsidering the second portion.
  5610. A Member may make the motion to reconsider at any time, without 
thereby abandoning a prior motion made by himself and pending.--On 
November 3, 1893,\1\ Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, moved to 
reconsider the vote whereby the joint resolution (H. Res. 86) relating 
to the pay of session employees was passed, and also moved to lay that 
motion on the table.
  Pending this Mr. Joseph C. Hutcheson, of Texas, moved that the House 
take a recess until 2 o'clock and 45 minutes p. m.
  Pending this latter motion, Mr. Richardson withdrew his motion to lay 
on the table the motion to reconsider, and also withdrew the motion to 
reconsider.
  Mr. Hutcheson thereupon renewed the motion to reconsider.
  Mr. Richardson moved to suspend the rules and lay the motion to 
reconsider on the table.
  The Speaker stated the question to be on the pending motion of Mr. 
Hutcheson for a recess until 2 o'clock and 45 minutes p. m.
  Mr. Richardson made the point of order that Mr. Hutcheson, pending 
his motion for a recess, having made another motion, to wit, the motion 
to reconsider, had thereby abandoned the motion for a recess.
  The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order, holding as follows:

  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hutcheson] made the point that no 
quorum had voted upon the motion for a recess. Tellers were appointed. 
The tellers had taken their places. The House was divided. In that 
state of the case the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Richardson] 
withdrew his motion--not the motion for the recess, but the motion that 
was pending to reconsider and lay upon the table. The gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Hutcheson] then stated that he renewed the motion. Any 
gentleman who voted in the affirmative of course had the right to renew 
the motion to reconsider, and that could be entered, the Chair will 
state, pending any business, because it must be entered, under the 
rules, within a limited time.

  5611. Where the yeas and nays on a vote have not been ordered 
recorded in the Journal, any Member, irrespective of whether he voted 
with the majority or not, may make the motion to reconsider.\3\--On 
Feb-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 172: 173; 
Record, p. 3122.
  \2\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \3\ See also section 5689 of this chapter.
                                                            Sec. 5612
ruary 8, 1894,\1\ Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, moved to reconsider the 
vote by which, on the preceding day, the House had passed an order for 
taking absent Members into custody.
  Mr. Benjamin A. Enloe, of Tennessee, made the point that Mr. Reed, 
not having voted in the affirmative, could not move to reconsider.
  The Speaker \2\ overruled the point, holding that under the practice 
of the House where there was no yea-and-nay vote on a proposition it 
was competent for any Member to move to reconsider.\3\
  5612. On May 15, 1896,\4\ Mr. George D. Perkins, of Iowa, rising to a 
question of order, stated that on May 1 the House had rejected a bill 
(H. R. 3826), and that on the following day, just before adjournment, 
Mr. William S. Knox, of Massachusetts, had moved to reconsider the 
vote. Mr. Perkins raised the point that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, having voted with the minority, might not make the 
motion to reconsider.
  The Speaker \5\ said:

  The question is not now before the House. The Chair will state, 
however, that the uniform decisions are, where there is no record vote, 
that a gentleman entering such motion is assumed to have acted with the 
prevailing side.\6\

  5613. On February 16, 1855,\7\ during the consideration of a 
resolution to close debate in Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union, on the bill (H. R. 595) making an appropriation for mail 
steamers, an amendment was proposed to the resolution, and on a vote by 
tellers was agreed to.
  Mr. James L. Orr, of South Carolina, moved to reconsider the vote 
whereby the amendment had been adopted.
  Mr. Thomas L. Clingman, of North Carolina, made the point of order 
that the gentleman from South Carolina had voted with the minority.
  The Speaker \8\ said:

  If there had been a recorded vote, the point would have been good; 
but in no other case does the question arise as to whether the 
individual who moves to reconsider voted in the majority or not.

  5614. The motion to reconsider a yea-and-nay vote may not be made by 
a Member who not voting was paired in favor of the majority's 
contention.--On May 18, 1906,\9\ the House was considering the bill (H. 
R. 9297) for
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 149; Record, p. 
2034.
  \2\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \3\ So also on December 10, 1879 (second session Forty-sixth 
Congress, Record, p. 58), in the Senate Vice-President William A. 
Wheeler ruled that where there had been no record vote any Senator 
might move to reconsider.
  \4\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 5298.
  \5\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \6\ In the earlier years the Speaker sometimes attempted by inquiry 
to ascertain how a Member had voted in cases where there was no record; 
but there were difficulties in this course. See instance April 4, 1832. 
(First session Twenty-second Congress, Debates, pp. 2374, 2375.)
  \7\ Second session Thirty-third Congress, Globe, p. 774.
  \8\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \9\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 7095.
Sec. 5615
the relief of Henry E. Rhodes, when on a yea-and-nay vote of yeas 128, 
nays 68, the bill was passed.
  Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, moved to reconsider the bill.
  Mr. James M. Miller, of Kansas, having by inquiry ascertained that 
Mr. Williams had not voted with the majority, and therefore was not 
entitled to make the motion to reconsider, Mr. William S. McNary, of 
Massachusetts, proposed to make the motion.
  It appeared on inquiry that Mr. McNary had not voted at all, but he 
declared that he had been paired in favor of the contention of the 
majority.
  The Speaker \1\ held that Mr. McNary might not make the motion.
  5615. The most carefully considered ruling has been that in case of a 
tie vote any Member recorded on the prevailing side may move to 
reconsider.--On December 13, 1839,\2\ before the organization of the 
House, and while Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, was presiding 
over the meeting of the Members-elect who were endeavoring to solve the 
difficulties occasioned by the contests over five seats belonging to 
the State of New Jersey, Mr. Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, moved a 
resolution that the credentials of the New Jersey Members commissioned 
by the governor of that State were sufficient to enable them to take 
their seats.
  On this question there were, ayes 117, noes 117; and so the motion to 
agree to the resolution was disagreed to.
  On December 14 Mr. Charles F. Mercer, of Virginia, who voted in the 
affirmative, moved to reconsider this vote.
  The Chairman decided that as the vote proposed to be reconsidered was 
a tie vote, in consequence of which the proposition was lost, he did 
not consider the motion to reconsider in order. The rule provided 
that--

  When a motion has been once made and carried in the affirmative or 
negative, it shall be in order for any Member of the majority to move 
for the reconsideration thereof.

  There was no majority on either side of the question, and he did not, 
therefore, think the rule applied to the case. No motion to reconsider 
a tie vote would be in order on either side.
  Mr. Mercer appealed from this decision, and the decision of the Chair 
was sustained, yeas 147, nays 64.
  5616. On July 18, 1848,\3\ during the consideration of the bill (H. 
R. 298) making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of 
the Government, a question was taken on an amendment relating to the 
improvement of Savannah Harbor, and the announcement was made that 
there were yeas 86, nays 83, and that the amendment was agreed to.
  On July 19 Mr. Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, arose and stated 
that he had voted in the negative on the preceding day, and asked that 
his vote be changed. This being done, the Speaker announced the vote on 
the amendment to be yeas 85,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 32, 61; Globe, 
p. 53.
  \3\ First session Thirtieth Congress, Journal, pp. 1064, 1066, 1078-
1081; Globe, p. 954.
                                                            Sec. 5617
nays 84. Thereupon he voted in the negative, and there being yeas 85, 
nays 85, the question on the amendment was lost.
  Later in the day Mr. Charles E. Stuart, of Michigan, moved to 
reconsider this vote.
  Mr. Thomas B. King, of Georgia, raised the question of order that the 
gentleman from Michigan could not make the motion to reconsider, since 
he had voted in the affirmative.
  On July 20 the Speaker \1\ gave his decision. He quoted first the 
precedent of December 14, 1839, and said that that decision was made 
under very peculiar circumstances, arising out of the case of the 
contested election from New Jersey, and while there was no regularly 
elected Speaker in the chair. The Chair had no hesitation in saying 
that he differed from the decision in this case. In his own opinion a 
fair construction of the rule was that anyone who voted on the 
prevailing side had the right to move a reconsideration. This, he 
thought, was the spirit of the rule. The Chair therefore decided that 
the motion to reconsider must be made by a gentleman who had voted with 
the prevailing side, the negative. Therefore Mr. Stuart was precluded 
from making the motion.
  5617. Where a two-thirds vote is required, the motion to reconsider 
may be made by anyone who voted on the prevailing side.
  Apparently a majority is required to reconsider a vote taken under 
the requirement that two-thirds shall be necessary to carry the 
question.
  On August 17, 1842,\2\ the House was considering a proposed amendment 
to the Constitution in relation to the veto power of the Executive, and 
there were in favor of the amendment 99, and opposed 90, not the 
required two-thirds.
  Thereupon, Mr. Thomas F. Marshall, of Kentucky, who was one of those 
opposed, and ``who voted on the prevailing side,'' made a motion to 
reconsider, which was entertained.
  On August 18 the motion to reconsider was disagreed to, yeas 12, nays 
140.\3\
  5618. On July 17, 1866,\4\ the House disagreed to a resolution for 
the expulsion of Mr. Lovell H. Rousseau, of Kentucky, by a vote of 73 
yeas, 51 nays, not the required two-thirds vote.
  Then Mr. Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, who had voted with the 
nays, moved to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. William E. Finck, of Ohio, made the point of order that Mr. Banks 
had voted with the minority and was not entitled to make the motion.
  The Speaker \5\ said:

  The Chair overrules the point of order. Some Member must have the 
right to move a reconsideration. In this case he certainly could not 
move a reconsideration if he voted on the side which did not prevail, 
for he is evidently not in the constitutional majority on that 
question. And if the gentleman from Ohio is right in his point of 
order, no one can move a reconsideration, for the side which prevailed 
was in the minority. The usage upon this subject has been uniform, and 
the Chair is surprised that
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Robert C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 1353. John 
White, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \3\ Journal, p. 1355.
  \4\ First session Thirty-ninth Congress, Globe, p. 3892.
  \5\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
Sec. 5619
there are no cases cited in the Digest. But it is plain that any Member 
voting on the prevailing side has the right to move a reconsideration. 
Such has always been the practice in Congress, as well as in all State 
legislative bodies, so far as the Chair is informed.\1\

  5619. A Member who was absent when a vote was taken may not move to 
reconsider. (Speaker overruled.)--On July 8,1846,\2\ Mr. Robert W. 
Roberts, of Mississippi, moved to reconsider the vote whereby on the 
preceding day day a decision of the Speaker had been overruled.
  Mr. Thomas J. Henley, of Indiana, raised the question of order that 
the record of the proceedings of the day before showed that Mr. Roberts 
was absent from the House at the time the vote on the decision was 
taken. Therefore it could not be presumed that he voted in the 
majority, as the rule required, and he could not, therefore, move a 
reconsideration.
  The Speaker \3\ decided that, under the common practice of the House, 
where a vote had been taken without a division, it was presumed that 
every Member voted in the affirmative, and therefore a motion to 
reconsider made by any Member of the House had, in such cases, been 
entertained. He therefore overruled the point of order made by Mr. 
Henley and decided that Mr. Roberts was entitled to make the motion to 
reconsider.
  Mr. George Ashmun, of Massachusetts, having appealed, the House 
overruled the decision of the Speaker, and so Mr. Roberts was precluded 
from making the motion to reconsider.
  5620. A motion to reconsider a vote whereby the House has refused to 
adjourn is not in order.--On December 15, 1877 \4\ during dilatory 
proceedings which had begun on the day before when Mr. Fernando Wood, 
of New York, presented from the Ways and Means Committee a resolution 
authorizing a general investigation of the Executive Departments of the 
Government, the House had decided in the negative, yeas 29, nays 141, a 
motion to adjourn.
  When the result of the vote had been announced, Mr. Omar D. Conger, 
of Michigan, moved to reconsider the vote by which the House refused to 
adjourn.
  The Speaker \5\ decided that a motion to adjourn might not be 
reconsidered.
  5621. On April 4, 1888,\6\ during prolonged dilatory proceedings over 
the subject of refunding the direct tax of 1861, Mr. J. B. Weaver, of 
Iowa, moved that the House do adjourn.
  This motion was decided in the negative, 181 nays to 6 yeas.
  Thereupon, Mr. William C. Oates, of Alabama, moved to reconsider the 
vote just taken.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ The question on the motion to reconsider being taken, the Journal 
thus records the result: ``The motion to reconsider was agreed to.'' 
There was no division, but from the language of the Journal it is 
evident that the Chair considered the ordinary majority vote required. 
Otherwise the requirements should have been expressed. (Journal, pp. 
1036, 1037.)
  \2\ First session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, pp. 1049, 1050 
Globe, p. 1070.
  \3\ John W. Davis, of Indiana, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Forty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 139; Record, p. 
243.
  \5\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
  \6\ First session Fiftieth Congress, Record, p. 2706.
                                                            Sec. 5622
  The Speaker \1\ ruled:

  Under a ruling heretofore made in the House, that motion is not in 
order. The point was made during the second session of the Forty-fifth 
Congress that a motion to reconsider a vote by which the House refused 
to adjourn was not in order, and the point was sustained by the Chair, 
and that has been the ruling ever since. The reason is that the motion 
to adjourn can be repeated again and again after other business has 
intervened.

  5622. On July 14, 1846,\2\ Mr. Truman Smith, of Connecticut, moved 
that the House adjourn, and the question being taken, there were yeas 
6, nays 164. So the House declined to adjourn.
  Then Mr. Robert C. Schenck, of Ohio, moved to reconsider the last-
mentioned vote refusing to adjourn.
  The Speaker \3\ decided that a motion to reconsider a vote on a 
motion to adjourn was not in order.
  Mr. Schenck having appealed, the decision of the Chair was sustained, 
yeas 164, nays 1.
  5623. A motion to reconsider the vote whereby the House refused to 
fix a day to which the House should adjourn, has been the subject of 
conflicting rulings.--On May 24,1882,\4\ the House was considering the 
contested election case of Mackey v. Dibble, and a motion that when the 
House adjourn it be to meet on Friday next, had been decided in the 
negative.
  After the Speaker had announced the vote, Mr. Henry, L. Muldrow, of 
Mississippi, moved to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. George C. Hazleton, of Wisconsin, rising to a parliamentary 
inquiry, stated that a motion to reconsider a vote on a motion to 
adjourn was not in order, and asked if the same ruling would apply to 
the motion to fix the day.
  The Speaker \5\ said:

  The Chair holds that the motion to fix the time to which the House 
shall adjourn presents a different question from that of a mere motion 
to adjourn.

  Thereupon, the Speaker entertained the motion to reconsider.
  5624. On January 11, 1889,\6\ Mr. J. B. Weaver, of Iowa, moved that 
when the House adjourn it adjourn until Monday next.
  This motion having been disagreed to, Mr. Weaver moved to reconsider 
the vote.
  Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, made a point of order against 
the motion to reconsider.
  The Speaker \7\ sustained the point of order.
  5625. A motion to reconsider the vote whereby the House refuses to 
take a recess is not in order.--On January 25, 1893,\8\ Mr. Rice A. 
Pierce, of Ten-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 1089; Globe, p. 
1093.
  \3\ John W. Davis, of Indiana, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4218.
  \5\ J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \6\ Second session Fiftieth Congress, Journal, p. 201; Record, p. 
677.
  \7\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \8\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 58; Record, p. 
836.
Sec. 5626
nessee, moved that the House take a recess until 5 p. m. On a vote by 
yeas and nays the House refused to take a recess, yeas 1, nays 211.
  Mr. Pierce moved to reconsider the vote by which the House refused to 
take a recess.
  The Speaker pro tempore \1\ declined to entertain the motion to 
reconsider, holding that it was not in order to move a reconsideration 
of the vote by which the House refuses to take a recess.
  Mr. C. B. Kilgore, of Texas, having appealed, the decision of the 
Chair was sustained, yeas 208, nays 6.
  5626. It is not in order to reconsider the vote whereby the House 
refuses to consider a bill.--On December 14, 1898,\2\ the House 
refused, by a vote of 100 yeas to 103 nays, to consider the bill (S. 
112) to amend the immigration laws of the United States.
  Mr. Richard Bartholdt, of Missouri, rising to a parliamentary 
inquiry, asked:

  Is a motion to reconsider the vote by which the House refused to 
consider the bill in order now?

  The Speaker \3\ replied:

  The Chair thinks not.

  5627. On March 1, 1900,\4\ the contested election case of Aldrich v. 
Robbins, from Alabama, had been called up, and the question of 
consideration had been raised. On a yea-and-nay vote the question of 
consideration was decided in the negative, 137 yeas to 144 nays.
  The result of the vote having been announced, Mr. James R. Mann, of 
Illinois, moved to reconsider the vote whereby consideration was 
refused.
  Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, made the point of order that the 
vote might not be reconsidered.
  The Speaker \5\ sustained the point of order.
  5628. An affirmative vote on the motion to lay on the table may be 
reconsidered.--On December 14, 1904,\6\ the House had agreed to a 
motion laying on the table a resolution (H. Res. 383) relating to an 
alleged combination of certain manufacturing interests, when Mr. John 
J. Jenkins, of Wisconsin, moved to reconsider the vote and lay that 
motion on the table.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, 
asked if a motion to lay on the table might be reconsidered.
  The Speaker \7\ said:

  The Chair is of opinion that a motion to reconsider would apply to a 
motion to lay a resolution on the table, which is primary in its nature 
and is one way of disposing of a bill or resolution. The Chair thinks 
that a motion to reconsider and lay that motion on the table is proper, 
because the substance of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph H. O'Neil, of Massachusetts, Speaker pro tempore.
  \2\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 197.
  \3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2453; Journal, p. 
299.
  \5\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \6\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 278.
  \7\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 5629
the motion to lay on the table is to finally dispose of the 
proposition, and the substance should govern rather than the form of 
the motion.
  The question is on the motion to reconsider and lay that motion on 
the table.\1\

  5629. The motion to reconsider may be applied to a negative vote on 
the motion to lay on the table.--On February 4, 1853,\2\ a motion to 
reconsider the vote by which the House refused to lay on the table a 
Senate bill (No. 13) entitled ``An act granting to the State of 
Wisconsin the right of way and a donation of public land for the 
purpose of locating and constructing certain railroads in that State,'' 
was called up.
  Mr. Gilbert Dean, of New York, made the point of order that it was 
not in order
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Under the general parliamentary law, when a matter is laid on the 
table, a motion to take it from the table may be made, hence there is 
no necessity for a motion to reconsider the vote to lay on the table. 
Hence the rule of general parliamentary law that the motion to 
reconsider may not be applied to the motion to lay on the table when 
decided affirmatively. But in the United States House of 
Representatives the motion to lay on the table has a very different 
use, significance, and effect from what it does in general 
parliamentary law. (See secs. 204, 114, and 115 of Reed's Parliamentary 
Rules.) In the House of Representatives the motion to lay on the table 
is used only for the purpose of making a final unfavorable disposition 
of a matter, and this difference in practice formerly caused some 
uncertainties in the practice of the House. On February 17, 1897 
(Record, second session Fifty-fourth Congress, p. 1947), Mr. Walter 
Evans, of Kentucky, moved to reconsider the vote whereby a certain bill 
was laid on the table. Mr. W. Jasper Talbert, of South Carolina, raised 
a point of order against the motion. Mr. Alexander M. Dockery, of 
Missouri, also made the point that such a motion would be in order only 
by unanimous consent. The Speaker [Mr. Reed] said: ``The Chair will 
entertain the motion subject to the point of order presented by the 
gentleman from South Carolina. When the matter comes before the House, 
the Chair will pass upon the question of order. The Chair has a very 
strong impression that, under general parliamentary law, a motion to 
reconsider the vote laying a bill on the table would not be in order. * 
* * Whether the practice of the House has changed the general rule is 
what the Chair desires to ascertain.'' This particular question did not 
arise again.
  On March 3, 1898 (Record, second session Fifty-fifth Congress, p. 
2448), the House having voted to lay on the table the bill (H. R. 5359) 
to amend the postal laws relating to second-class matter, Mr. James D. 
Richardson, of Tennessee, inquired if it was in order to reconsider the 
vote, meaning if necessary to make such a motion and have it laid on 
the table in order to make the action of the House final. The Speaker 
[Mr. Reed] said: ``The impression the Chair holds is that it is not 
necessary. The Chair will protect the gentleman's rights.''
  Before this, however, it had been a common practice, in order to make 
sure that the question was settled, to make the motion and have it laid 
on the table. Thus, on June 12, 1858, a bill was laid on the table, the 
motion to reconsider was made, and that, in turn, was laid on the 
table. On June 14 the bill was taken from the table by a suspension of 
the rules.
  Also, on February 12, 1869, after a subject had been laid on the 
table, a motion to reconsider was made, and the motion to lay the 
latter motion on the table was made and carried by a yea-and-nay vote. 
(Third session Fortieth Congress, Journal, p. 335; Globe, p. 1148.) And 
earlier than this, on February 6, 1849, the House reconsidered the vote 
whereby it had laid on the table the bill (H. R. 751) relating to 
courts in Virginia. (Second session Thirtieth Congress, Journal, p. 
381.)
  On May 4, 1822, a motion was made to reconsider the vote whereby a 
bill for the relief of Robert Purdy was laid on the table. The motion 
failed, and the bill remained on the table. (First session Seventeenth 
Congress, Journal, p. 563; Annals, p. 1806.)
  On March 23, 1880 (Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 
1807), Mr. Speaker Randall, in a case where the House had just voted to 
lay on the table a motion to amend the Journal, held that a motion to 
reconsider that vote was in order, and the House, in fact, did 
reconsider, although the mover of the motion had intended to have his 
motion to reconsider laid on the table, the Speaker understanding that 
to be the object of the motion.
  See also sections 5632, 5640.
  \2\ Second session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, p. 234; Globe, 
pp. 509-511.
Sec. 5630
to move to reconsider a vote by which the House had refused to lay a 
measure upon the table, the motion to lay on the table, like that to 
adjourn, being one that can be made at any time without that necessity 
for a reconsideration which exists in other cases.
  The Speaker \1\ stated that while he was willing to admit that the 
weight of argument might be on the side of the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Dean], the precedents were the other way, and he was not disposed 
to change the practice.
  An appeal, taken by Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, was laid on 
the table by a vote of 110 yeas to 57 nays.
  5630. After careful consideration it was held in order to reconsider 
the vote laying an appeal on the table.--On May 11, 1854,\2\ during 
prolonged dilatory proceedings over a proposition to close debate in 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union on the bill (H. 
R. 236) to organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, an appeal 
was taken from the decision of the Speaker, and that appeal was laid on 
the table by a vote of the House.
  Mr. Reuben E. Fenton, of New York, moved to reconsider the vote 
laying the appeal on the table.
  The Speaker \1\ stated that in an earlier part of the day he had 
hastily decided a similar motion to be out of order. Subsequent 
reflection \3\ had satisfied him that he was wrong, and he would 
consequently now entertain the motion.
  5631. During proceedings under a call of the House it was held that a 
motion might not be made to reconsider the vote whereby an appeal was 
laid on the table.--On August 14, 1876,\4\ during proceedings under a 
call of the House, Mr. George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts, appealed from 
a decision of the Chair, and this appeal was laid on the table, 82 yeas 
to 19 nays, a quorum not being present.
  Mr. John K. Luttrell, of California, moved to reconsider the vote 
last taken, and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 
table.
  Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, made the point of order that a 
motion to reconsider the vote by which an appeal from a decision of the 
Chair was laid on the table was not in order.
  The Speaker pro tempore \5\ sustained the point of order, holding 
that the only motions in order were the motion to issue the Speaker's 
warrant to compel the attendance of absentees and the motion to 
adjourn.
  5632. The motion to reconsider may not be applied to the vote whereby 
the House has laid another motion to reconsider on the table.
  In the practice of the House the motion to reconsider has been 
applied to an affirmative vote to lay on the table, although some 
doubts have been expressed on the question.\6\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Thirty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 769, 770.
  \3\ Journal, pp. 735, 762.
  \4\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 1492 1493; 
Record, p. 5650.
  \5\ Milton Sayler, of Ohio, Speaker pro tempore.
  \6\ See sections 5628 and footnote.
                                                            Sec. 5633
  On February 8, 1843,\1\ a situation arose over the following facts:
  On February 1 Mr. Caleb Cusbing, of Massachusetts, from the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs, reported a resolution to close debate in Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union \2\ on House bill No. 57, 
to provide for the satisfaction of claims due to certain American 
citizens for spoliations committed on their commerce prior to July 31, 
1800.
  This resolution was laid upon the table on February 3.
  Mr. Isaac D. Jones, of Maryland, moved to reconsider the vote whereby 
the resolution was laid on the table, and this motion was laid on the 
table on February 7.
  On February 8, Mr. Richard W. Thompson, of Indiana, moved to 
reconsider the vote whereby Mr. Jones's motion to reconsider was laid 
on the table.
  The Speaker \3\ decided that inasmuch as this was a motion to 
reconsider a vote which laid upon the table a motion to reconsider \4\ 
a subject already laid upon the table, and which, if entertained, must 
lead to inextricable confusion by piling motion upon motion to 
reconsider, it could not be entertained.\5\
  From this decision Mr. Richard W. Thompson took an appeal to the 
House, which appeal was laid on the table; so the decision of the 
Speaker was sustained.
  5633. On February 10, 1854,\6\ Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, 
moved that the vote by which the House, on the preceding day, laid on 
the table the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill of the 
House No. 49 (deficiency) was rejected be reconsidered.
  The Speaker \7\ decided that the motion was not in order, on the 
ground that it had been the invariable practice of the House, under the 
existing rules, to regard the laying upon the table the motion to 
reconsider as conclusive against a further motion to reconsider.
  The Speaker said:

  If this bill had been decided, either by a vote rejecting or passing 
it, it would be in order to move for a reconsideration of that vote. In 
this case a motion was made to reconsider the vote by which the bill 
was rejected, and that motion was laid upon the table. What did the 
House do by laying that motion upon the table? It determined that it 
would not reconsider the vote by which the bill was rejected. The 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Jones] moves to reconsider the vote by 
which the motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The Chair states 
that the practice of this body has been uniform on this subject, and he 
thinks he may defy the gentleman from Tennessee, or any other Member, 
to point to a single case in the history of this House differing from 
the course which the Chair here deems to be the correct one; which is, 
that a motion to lay upon the table such a vote as that is final until 
it be in order to take that vote or bill from the table.

  From this decision of the Chair Mr. Jones appealed, on the ground 
that the fifty-sixth rule \8\ conferred on any Member voting with the 
majority the right to move a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 310, 328, 
334; Globe, p. 256.
  \2\ This was the old method of taking a bill from Committee of the 
Whole.
  \3\ John White, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \4\ The laying on the table of a motion to reconsider is a common 
method of disposing of that motion. See instances as early as June 23, 
1832. (First session Twenty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 932, 935; 
Debates, pp. 3719, 3720.
  \5\ See also sections 5638, 5639.
  \6\ First session Thirty-third Congress, Journal, p. 357; Globe, p. 
397.
  \7\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \8\ Now section 1 of Rule XVIII.
Sec. 5634
reconsideration upon the same day or that succeeding the one upon which 
the vote was taken.
  The appeal was laid on the table, 134 yeas to 35 nays.
  5634. Origin of the practice of preventing reconsideration by laying 
the motion to reconsider on the table.--On February 16, 1835,\1\ Mr. 
Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, moved to reconsider the vote by which the 
House had ordered to be printed a memorial relating to the abolition of 
slavery in the District of Columbia. After debate a motion was made to 
lay the motion to reconsider on the table. Thereupon a question arose 
as to whether or not the Clerk would be justified in having the 
memorial printed.
  The Speaker \2\ said it was a matter not entirely belonging to him, 
but as the question had been put he should say that the Clerk of the 
House could not order the memorial to be printed, inasmuch as there 
would be, if the motion to lay on the table prevailed, a motion pending 
to reconsider the vote to print the memorial. The motion to lay on the 
table prevailing would not finally dispose of the matter, because the 
House might call it up, on doing which the question would recur on the 
motion to reconsider.\3\
  5635. On February 16, 1842,\4\ a motion was made to reconsider the 
vote whereby, on the preceding day, the House had passed the bill (H. 
R. 112) relating to the charters of certain banks in the District of 
Columbia. On motion of Mr. Lewis Williams, of North Carolina, the 
motion to reconsider was laid on the table. On this proceeding the 
Journal has this entry:

  And so the motion to reconsider was laid on the table, and the bill 
stands passed.

  On February 28 \5\ the House agreed to a resolution of inquiry in 
regard to compensation of the General of the Army, and immediately upon 
the announcement of the vote, a motion was made to reconsider the vote 
on the passage.
  Thereupon a motion was made and agreed to, that the motion to 
reconsider lay upon the table. ``And so the resolution stands passed,'' 
is the entry of the Journal on this proceeding.\6\
  5636. On July 30, 1846,\7\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 
435) to amend the law relating to the rates of postage, etc., when Mr. 
George W. Hopkins, of Virginia, moved to amend the same by striking out 
all after the enacting clause and inserting a new text.
  Mr. Hannibal Hamlin, of Maine, offered an amendment to the amendment 
proposed by Mr. Hopkins.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Twenty-third Congress, Debates, p. 1397.
  \2\ John Bell, of Tennessee, Speaker.
  \3\ As early as June 23, 1832 (first session, Twenty-second Congress, 
Journal, pp. 932, 935; Debates, pp. 3719 3720), occurs an instance of 
laying on the table a motion to reconsider.
  \4\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 406.
  \5\ Journal, p. 452; Globe, p. 267.
  \6\ See Journal January 22, 1851, for an instance where a motion was 
made to reconsider the vote laying a bill on the table. Then that 
motion to reconsider was laid on the table. (Second session Thirty-
first Congress, Journal, p. 171.)
  \7\ First session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, pp. 1183-1185; 
Globe, p. 1169.
                                                            Sec. 5637
  Mr. Hamlin's amendment to the amendment was rejected, and then the 
question recurred on the amendment proposed by Mr. Hopkins, and it was 
rejected.
  The question recurred on ordering the bill to be engrossed, when Mr. 
Robert Dale Owen, of Indiana, moved that the vote by which the 
amendment of Mr. Hopkins had been rejected be reconsidered.
  Mr. George Rathbun, of New York, moved that the motion to reconsider 
be laid on the table, and this motion was decided in the affirmative.
  The Speaker \1\ then stated that the motion to reconsider the vote 
upon a pending amendment having been laid on the table, no further 
proceeding could take place in relation to said bill until the said 
motion to reconsider was taken up and finally disposed of.\2\
  5637. On June 12, 1852,\3\ the practice of moving to reconsider and 
then moving to lay that motion on the table, was spoken of as a 
practice that had grown up in the two preceding Congresses. Mr. Speaker 
Boyd justified this practice of one Member making such a double motion, 
as in accordance with the usage of the House.
  5638. On March 3, 1853,\4\ the House rejected the report of the 
conference committee on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
amendments of the Senate to the civil and diplomatic appropriation 
bill. At the time of the disagreement to the report, a motion was made 
to reconsider the vote, and that motion was laid on the table.
  Later in the day, Mr. Josiah Sutherland, of New York, moved to 
reconsider the motion whereby the motion to reconsider had been laid on 
the table.
  Mr. Fayette McMullen, of Virginia, made the point of order that the 
motion to reconsider was not in order.
  The Speaker \5\ sustained the point of order.
  5639. On July 15, 1868,\6\ the Senate requested the House to return 
the Senate resolution of concurrence in the report of the committee of 
conference on the bill (H. R. 818) making appropriations for the sundry 
civil expenses of the Government, in order that an error might be 
corrected.
  The House directed the Clerk to inform the Senate that the House had 
agreed to the report, and laid on the table the motion to reconsider 
the vote thereon, and that it was out of the power of the House, except 
by unanimous consent, which was refused, to return the Senate's 
resolution of concurrence in the report, as was requested.
  5640. The House having laid on the table a motion to reconsider the 
vote by which a proposition has been laid on the table, the proposition 
may be taken up only by unanimous consent or a suspension of the 
rules.--On June 12, 1858,\7\ the conferees on the Post-Office 
appropriation bill reported an inability to agree. Thereupon a motion 
was made and carried that the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John W. Davis, of Indiana, Speaker.
  \2\ This is not the present practice.
  \3\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, p. 1560.
  \4\ Second session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, pp. 1155, 1156.
  \5\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \6\ Second session Fortieth Congress, Journal, p. 1075; Globe, pp. 
4070, 4075.
  \7\ First session Thirty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 1125, 1126, 
1135; Globe, pp. 3044, 3045.
Sec. 5641
said bill and amendments be laid on the table. Then a motion to 
reconsider the vote last taken having been made, the motion to 
reconsider was laid on the table. Subsequently, on June 14, by a 
suspension of the rules and a two-thirds vote, the bill was taken up 
and a further conference asked. Speaker Orr held that the two-third 
votes was necessary to take the bill from the table.\1\
  5641. A motion to go into Committee of the Whole, when decided in the 
negative, may not be reconsidered.--On February 15, 1906,\2\ the House, 
by a vote of yeas 87, nays 163, disagreed to a motion that the House 
resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 14606) to provide for 
the consolidation and reorganization of customs collection districts, 
and for other purposes.
  Mr. Charles R. Thomas, of North Carolina, proposed a motion to 
reconsider, and a motion to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
  The Speaker \3\ said:

  It occurs to the Chair that that motion is not in order. In the 
opinion of the Chair it is like unto a motion to adjourn. The Chair 
reads from the House precedents:
  ``The Speaker decided that a motion to adjourn might not be 
reconsidered''--

  5642. The vote whereby a second is ordered may be reconsidered.--On 
March 26, 1856,\4\ a question arose as to whether or not the vote 
whereby the previous question had been seconded \5\ might be 
reconsidered. Mr. Howell Cobb, of Georgia (an ex-Speaker), contended 
that this second, which was never taken by the yeas and nays, was not 
properly a vote, and might not be reconsidered. But Mr. Speaker Banks 
held that the vote on the second, like the vote whereby the yeas and 
nays were ordered, might be reconsidered. The House sustained this 
decision.
  5643. It is in order to reconsider a vote postponing a bill to a day 
certain, even on a later day.--On January 19, 1857,\6\ Mr. Thomas J. D. 
Fuller, of Maine, called up the motion \7\ to reconsider the vote 
whereby the bill (H. R. 187) establishing the collection districts of 
the United States, etc., was postponed until the 9th of December last. 
  Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, made the point of order that, 
inasmuch as the day had gone by to which the said bill was postponed, 
it was not now in order to entertain the motion to reconsider the vote 
on its postponement.
  The Speaker \8\ overruled the point of order on the ground that the 
rules conferred the privilege upon a Member voting with the prevailing 
side to move a reconsideration; and the right to consider such motion 
whenever regularly called up must, as a matter of course, follow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Of course this result might also be effected by majority vote on 
a report from the Committee on Rules, a procedure unknown in 1858.
  \2\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 2609, 2610.
  \3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 727, 733; 
Globe, p. 752.
  \5\ This second is no longer required by the rules.
  \6\ Third session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 257, 339.
  \7\ A motion to reconsider must be made on ``the same or succeeding 
day,'' but as in this case its consideration may not take place until a 
much later time.
  \8\ Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 5644
  Mr. Jones having appealed, on February 2 the decision of the Chair 
was sustained.\1\
  5644. The motion to reconsider may not be applied to the vote on 
reconsideration of a bill returned with the objections of the 
President.--On June 12, 1844,\2\ a motion was made by Mr. Orville 
Hungerford, of New York, to reconsider the vote by which the House on 
the previous day refused, on reconsideration, to pass the bill (No. 
203) entitled ``An act making appropriations for the improvement of 
certain harbors and rivers,'' which had been returned with the 
objections of the President.
  The Speaker \3\ decided that inasmuch as the vote now proposed to be 
reconsidered was taken in a manner expressly provided for by the 
Constitution of the United States, and having been thus taken, the 
decision must be considered final, and no motion to reconsider was in 
order.
  From this decision Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, 
appealed.\4\ After debate the Chair was sustained by a vote of 97 to 
85.
  5645. The motion to reconsider may not be applied to the vote on a 
motion to suspend the rules.--On January 13, 1851,\5\ Mr. Williamson R. 
W. Cobb, of Alabama, having called up the motion submitted by him on 
Tuesday previous to reconsider the vote by which the House, on the 
previous day, had refused to suspend the rules, so as to enable the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. George W. Julian] to present the memorial 
of the meeting of Anti-slavery Friends, held at Newport, Ind., on the 
subject of slavery and the repeal of the ``Fugitive-slave law.''
  The Speaker \6\ stated that, when he permitted this motion to be 
entered upon the Journal, he expressed doubts as to the propriety of 
entertaining it. Subsequent examination of the subject had confirmed 
him in the opinion that a motion to reconsider a vote upon a motion to 
suspend the rules was not in order. He therefore ruled the motion out 
of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ For statement of the practice in regard to the motion to 
reconsider, see Globe, p. 510, February 4, 1853. (Second session 
Thirty-second Congress.)
  \2\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 1093, 1097; 
Globe, pp. 665-675.
  \3\ John W. Jones, of Virginia, Speaker.
  \4\ On June 13 Mr. Adams gave his reasons for the appeal. He said the 
Constitution provided that the bill should be reconsidered with the 
President's objections. Reconsideration implied deliberation. But the 
vote had been taken under the operation of the previous question, which 
allowed no deliberation. Therefore the provision of the Constitution 
had been violated.
  The Speaker, replying, asked how it was that a motion to reconsider 
was ever entertained? lt was only in virtue of the rules of the House. 
The bill was passed some days ago, and it was no sooner passed than a 
motion was made to reconsider it. That motion was rejected; all power 
under the rule was exhausted. Had it ever been heard of that a motion 
to reconsider, being once rejected, could be renewed? There was, 
however, a power higher than the rules which provided that whenever a 
bill was returned by the President of the United States with objections 
it was the duty of the House to proceed to reconsider it. Without that 
provision of the Constitution the House could never again have touched 
the bill; and the requirement of the Constitution having been complied 
with, there was no power in the House to touch the subject again.
  Messrs. Thomas H. Bayly and George C. Dromgoole, of Virginia, replied 
to the point made by Mr. Adams, Mr. Dromgoole contending that Mr. Adams 
had confounded discussion with consideration.
  \5\ Second session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 134; Globe, pp. 
182, 225.
  \6\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
Sec. 5646
  In this decision of the Chair the House acquiesced.\1\
  5646. On December 20, 1858,\2\ a vote was taken on a motion to 
suspend the rules for the purpose of taking up a concurrent resolution 
from the Senate providing for adjournment over the holidays. There 
appeared on this vote 122 yeas and 75 nays.
  Two-thirds not voting therefor, the rules were not suspended.
  Mr. James Hughes, of Indiana, moved to reconsider the vote just 
taken.
  The Speaker \3\ said:

  The Chair can not entertain the motion to reconsider. The motion to 
suspend the rules is one which can be repeated an indefinite number of 
times; and a motion to reconsider would not therefore be in order. * * 
*

  5647. No bill, petition, memorial, or resolution referred to a 
committee may be brought back into the House on a motion to reconsider.
  All bills, petitions, memorials, or resolutions reported from a 
committee shall be accompanied by reports in writing, which shall be 
printed.
  The rules contemplate that a committee may report a matter to the 
House for printing and recommitment.
  Present form and history of section 2 of Rule XVIII.
  Section 2 of Rule XVIII provides:

  No bill, petition, memorial, or resolution referred to a committee, 
or reported therefrom for printing and recommitment,\4\ shall be 
brought back into the House on a motion to reconsider; and all bills, 
petitions, memorials, or resolutions reported from a committee shall be 
accompanied by reports in writing, which shall be printed.

  This rule was reported and adopted as a new rule in the revision of 
1880,\5\ the Committee on Rules in their report explaining its purpose 
as follows:

  Clause 2 of Rule XVIII is added for the purpose of preventing a 
Member from bringing back into the House, on a motion to reconsider, 
any matter which he has obtained unanimous consent to introduce or 
submit for reference or to report from a committee for printing and 
recommitment. Such proceeding being a matter of favor and courtesy 
outside of the regular order of business, it is certainly not proper 
that undue advantage should be taken of that consent by bringing up out 
of order any matter so introduced, submitted, or reported.

  This was not a new rule in 1880, however, as the prohibition in 
regard to bringing back bills introduced during the Monday morning call 
\6\ had been adopted in the revision of 1860; \7\ and on January 11, 
1872, the prohibition was extended to bills
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ On June 5, 1840, a motion to reconsider the vote whereby the 
rules had been suspended was admitted without question by Mr. Speaker 
Hunter. (First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 1081; Globe, 
p. 447.)
  On September 2, 1850, also, an instance occurs of reconsidering and 
laying on the table a motion to reconsider a vote which had been agreed 
to by a two-thirds vote under suspension of the rules. (First session 
Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 1358.)
  \2\ Second session Thirty-fifth Congress, Globe, p. 152.
  \3\ James L. Orr, of South Carolina, Speaker.
  \4\ In the present practice bills are rarely reported for printing 
and recommitment. It is quite common for the committees to order them 
printed under the provisions of the printing law without having 
recourse to the House.
  \5\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 203.
  \6\ This was the earlier method of introducing bills.
  \7\ Record, first session Thirty-sixth Congress, March 15, 1860.
                                                            Sec. 5648
introduced and referred by unanimous consent.\1\ On March 21, 1871,\2\ 
Mr. Speaker Blaine referred to the inconvenience and vexatiousness of 
the practice of getting bills before the House by the motion to 
reconsider.\3\
  5648. There is a question as to whether or not the rule forbidding a 
bill to be brought back from a committee on a motion to reconsider 
applies to a case wherein the House, after considering a bill, commits 
it.--On December 10, 1894,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union rose, and the Chairman reported that the Committee 
having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 6642) had directed him 
to report the same with the recommendation that the bill and amendments 
be committed to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds.
  The report of the Committee was then agreed to, and the said bill was 
accordingly committed to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds.
  Mr. Alexander M. Dockery, of Missouri, moved to reconsider the vote 
last taken.
  The Speaker \5\ held that the motion should not be entertained, 
inasmuch as the bill having been committed to a committee could not be 
brought back into the House on a motion to reconsider, and that such 
motion would therefore be without effect.
  5649. On May 13, 1896,\6\ the House had voted that the contested 
election case of Rinaker v. Downing, from Illinois, which had been 
under consideration, should be recommitted to the Committee on 
Elections No. 1, with certain instructions.
  Mr. William H. Moody, of Massachusetts, having made the usual 
motions, to reconsider and that that motion lie on the table, objection 
was made to a pro forma agreement to these motions.
  Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, raised the point that when a 
matter had once been before the House and been recommitted, it was not 
in order to bring that matter again before the House by a motion to 
reconsider.
  The Speaker \7\ said:

  Without undertaking to decide, if the gentleman desires to cite any 
authority, the idea of the Chair is that this rule was intended to 
apply to cases of formal reference; for instance, reference after a 
first reading. Those matters are not to be brought back upon a motion 
to reconsider. The Chair thinks the rule was intended to cover a first 
reference, the policy of the rules of the House of Representatives 
having
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ See report of Mr. S. S. Cox from Committee on Rules, second 
session Forty-second Congress, Globe, p. 359.
  \2\ First session Forty-second Congress, Globe, pp. 212, 213.
  \3\ An instance of the disarrangement of business resulting from this 
practice is afforded by the older practice. On December 23, 1835, Mr. 
John M. Patton, of Virginia, moved to reconsider the vote by which the 
House had referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia a 
petition presented by Mr. George N. Briggs, of Massachusetts, from 
sundry citizens of Massachusetts, who prayed for the abolition of 
slavery in the District of Columbia. The motion to reconsider was the 
subject of a long debate, which involved the merits of the slavery 
question. The motion was finally agreed to, yeas 148, nays 61. The 
motion of reference being again before the House a motion was made to 
lay that motion and the petition on the table as the most effective 
method of ending agitation on the subject. (First session Twenty-fourth 
Congress, Journal, p. 84; Debates, pp. 2042-2077.)
  \4\ Third session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 22.
  \5\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \6\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 5208.
  \7\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
Sec. 5650
always been to cause everything to be referred to a committee before 
action by the House. The opinion of the Chair is that the rule was 
intended to cover such cases as that, and not cases where a report has 
been made by a committee and the matter is sent back with instructions.

  5650. On January 21, 1901,\1\ the House recommitted to the Committee 
on the District of Columbia the bill (H. R. 13660) ``relating to the 
Washington Gas Light Company, and for other purposes,'' with certain 
instructions.
  On the same day Mr. Joseph W. Babcock, of Wisconsin, proposed to 
enter a motion to reconsider the vote.
  The Speaker,\2\ after referring to section 2 of Rule XVIII,\3\ 
admitted the motion, subject to a point of order in case one should be 
made and sustained.
  On January 28,\4\ the motion to reconsider was called up and acted on 
without question as to the procedure.
  5651. After a committee has reported a matter it is too late to 
reconsider the vote by which it was referred.--On May 18, 1876,\5\ Mr. 
Otho R. Singleton, of Mississippi, from the Committee on Printing, to 
which was recommitted a resolution heretofore reported by that 
committee, instructing the Committee on Appropriations to insert 
certain sections in the sundry civil appropriation bill relative to the 
management of the Government Printing Office, with instructions to 
modify the same, reported the same back with an amendment, as 
instructed by the House. Mr. Singleton moved to reconsider the vote by 
which the report was recommitted to the Committee on Printing.
  Mr. Eugene Hale, of Maine, made the point of order that the Committee 
on Printing having reported back a resolution recommitted to the 
committee a motion to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was 
recommitted was not in order.
  The Speaker pro tempore \6\ sustained the point of order, holding 
that the report having been made it had passed the stage where a motion 
to reconsider the vote of recommitment could be made.\7\
  5652. When the House has passed a bill and disposed of a motion to 
reconsider the vote on its passage, it is too late to move to 
reconsider the vote sustaining the decision of the Chair which brought 
the bill before the House.--On April 29, 1850,\8\ Mr. George W. Jones, 
of Tennessee, moved to reconsider the vote by which the House had, on 
Friday last, sustained the decision of the Chair bringing before the 
House the joint resolution (No. 16) authorizing the President of the 
United States to accept and attach to the Navy two vessels offered by 
Henry Grinnell, esq., of New York, to be sent to the Arctic seas in 
search of Sir John Franklin and his companions, which had previously 
passed from under its consideration by a process other than the one by 
which the reconsideration had been proposed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1262, 1266.
  \2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \3\ See section 5647 of this chapter.
  \4\ Record, pp. 1577-1581.
  \5\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 973.
  \6\ Samuel S. Cox, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
  \7\ It is now a rule of the House that no bill may be brought back 
from a committee on a motion to reconsider. See section 5647 of this 
chapter.
  \8\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 860, 861, 
Globe; p. 843.
                                                            Sec. 5653
  The Speaker \1\ held:

  The motion now made to reconsider is ruled out of order, because it 
is not in order to move a reconsideration of any measure after 
subsequent action has been had by the House, which renders it 
impossible for the House to reverse that action. In the present case, 
subsequent action has been had, for the joint resolution which was 
brought before the House by the operation of the decision referred to, 
was engrossed and passed, and a motion to reconsider made and disposed 
of. So that, if now the decision of the Chair should be reconsidered, 
no effect could result. In the opinion of the Chair, therefore, the 
motion to reconsider the vote on the appeal is out of order, and can 
not be entertained.

  From this decision of the Chair Mr. Jones appealed, and on the next 
day the appeal was laid on the table, the decision being thereby 
sustained.
  5653. The motion to reconsider may not be applied to a vote for the 
previous question which has been partially executed. (Speaker 
overruled.)--On July 8, 1850,\2\ the House was considering resolutions 
relating to the relations of Hon. George W. Crawford to a certain claim 
(the Galphin claim). Several amendments to the resolutions had been 
voted on, when Mr. W. S. Featherston, of Mississippi, moved to 
reconsider the vote by which the main question had been ordered to be 
put.
  Mr. Robert C. Baker, of Massachusetts, raised the question of order 
that the motion was not in order, on the ground that the previous 
question had been partly executed.
  The Speaker \1\ decided that the motion to reconsider having been 
made within the time prescribed by the rules, the House has the right 
to reconsider the vote ordering the main question, notwithstanding the 
previous question had been partly executed by voting upon most of the 
pending questions. He referred to the fact that during the present 
session (on the 12th of February) the right of a Member to make a 
similar motion under like circumstances with those now existing was 
admitted by the Speaker and acquiesced in by the House. He therefore 
overruled the point of order and would entertain the motion.
  From this decision of the Chair Mr. Robert C. Winthrop, of 
Massachusetts, appealed, and the question being put, ``Shall the 
decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?'' it was 
decided in the negative, yeas 94, nays 102.
  5654. On September 5, 1850,\3\ the House was considering, under a 
special order, the bill of the Senate (No. 307) entitled ``An act 
proposing to the State of Texas the establishment of her northern and 
western boundaries, the relinquishment by the said State of all 
territory claimed by her exterior to said boundaries, and of all her 
claims upon the United States.''
  On the previous day an amendment offered by Mr. Linn Boyd, of 
Kentucky, in the nature of a substitute had been voted on under the 
operation of the previous question and had been defeated. The question 
on the third reading of the bill was decided in the negative, and Mr. 
Boyd moved to reconsider the vote whereby the third reading of the bill 
was refused.
  This motion to reconsider was the pending question when the bill came 
up September 5.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 1074, 1101, 
1398.
  \3\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Globe, p. 1352.
Sec. 5655
  After a motion to lay the motion to reconsider on the table had been 
negatived the previous question was ordered, and under its operation 
the House voted to reconsider, yeas 131, nays 75.
  The question then recurred on ordering the bill to a third reading, 
pending which Mr. Joseph Grinnell, of Massachusetts, moved that the 
vote be reconsidered by which the House on the previous day disagreed 
to the amendment submitted by Mr. Boyd, and on his motion demanded the 
previous question, which was ordered.
  Then the vote whereby Mr. Boyd's amendment was disagreed to was 
reconsidered, and the question recurred on agreeing to the amendment of 
Mr. Boyd.
  Mr. Robert Toombs, of Georgia, submitted an amendment to the 
amendment of Mr. Boyd, pending which Mr. John Wentworth, of Illinois, 
moved that the bill and pending amendments be committed with 
instructions.
  This was disagreed to. Then Mr. David T. Disney, of Ohio, moved that 
the vote by which the main question had been ordered to be put be 
reconsidered.
  The Speaker \1\ stated that, in conformity with a decision of the 
House against a decision of his own (made a short time since), he 
should rule the motion not in order, on the ground that the previous 
question had been partly executed.
  From this decision of the Chair Mr. Disney appealed, and the appeal 
being laid on the table, the Chair was sustained.
  5655. The vote whereby the previous question is ordered may be 
reconsidered once only.--On January 22, 1855,\2\ during the 
consideration of the bill to provide for railroad and telegraph 
communication between the Atlantic States and Pacific Ocean, a question 
arose as to reconsideration of the previous question, and the Speaker 
\3\ said:

  The Chair has already stated this morning that a vote of the House 
ordering the main question to be put can not be reconsidered more than 
once. The main question was ordered upon the passage of the bill on 
Saturday, reconsidered again, and ordered to-day by the House. The 
Chair thinks that, under the rules, it can not be reconsidered a second 
time.

  5666. A motion to reconsider may be made after a motion for the 
previous question has been made.
  A motion to reconsider the vote on the third reading of a bill may be 
made and acted on after a motion for the previous question on the 
passage has been made, but the motion to reconsider may not be debated.
  On May 20, 1856,\4\ the House had ordered to be engrossed and read a 
third time the bill (H. R. 326) granting public lands to the State of 
Wisconsin, and the question recurred on its passage.
  Mr. Henry Bennet, of New York, moved the previous question.
  Pending this motion Mr. John Letcher, of Virginia, moved a 
reconsideration of the vote by which the bill was ordered to be 
engrossed and read a third time, and was proceeding to debate his 
motion, when Mr. Israel Washburn, jr., of Maine,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Thirty-third Congress, Globe, p. 355.
  \3\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal (of first and 
second session), p. 1009; Globe, pp. 1259, 1260.
                                                            Sec. 5657
made the point of order that debate was not in order after the demand 
of the previous question.
  Mr. Letcher declared that if that were so one Member by moving the 
previous question could thereby cut off debate on the motion to 
reconsider. Mr. Howell Cobb, of Georgia, also took this view.
  The Speaker \1\ said that the motion to reconsider was in order and 
preceded the motion for the previous question. It was a privileged 
question; but under the rules of the House it must be decided without 
debate. The call for the previous question cut off all debate; but the 
privileged question would be received and passed upon by the House. The 
Chair was of the opinion that it was the logical conclusion from the 
rules of the House that this question should be decided without debate. 
The difficulty suggested by the gentleman from Virginia was the same on 
one side as the other. If a Member moved to reconsider, the previous 
question having been called, then, if he be allowed to debate it, one 
Member would cut off from the House the right to close debate. If, as 
the gentleman from Georgia said, a Member had the right, but could not 
debate it, it put it in the power of the Member calling the previous 
question to cut off debate. But that was under the rules of the House. 
The difficulty was the same in the one case as in the other.
  Mr. Letcher having appealed, the decision of the Chair was sustained 
by a vote of 92 yeas to 38 nays.\2\
  5657. The motion to reconsider and the motion to lay that motion on 
the table are admitted while the previous question is operating.--On 
January 31, 1889,\3\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 10614) 
to organize the Territory of Oklahoma under a special order which 
provided that the previous question at a certain time--

shall then be considered as ordered upon all such amendments and upon 
ordering said bill to be read a third time and upon the passage of the 
same, and the votes thereon shall then be taken in the House.

  Under the operation of the previous question as provided in the order 
a portion of the amendment had been agreed to, when Mr. S. S. Yoder, of 
Ohio, moved to reconsider the vote whereby one of these amendments had 
been agreed to.
  Mr. Charles E. Hooker, of Mississippi, made the point of order that 
under the previous question which had been ordered the motion to 
reconsider was not in order.
  The Speaker \4\ said:

  Under the rules of the House the motion to reconsider is one of very 
high privilege, and it is a motion which relates directly to the 
proposition pending and on which a vote of the House has been taken. In 
other words, the vote of the House upon a proposition is not final and 
conclusive upon the House itself until there has been an opportunity to 
reconsider it, and therefore the motion to reconsider and lay on the 
table is, in fact, a vote upon the amendment itself. The Chair thinks 
the point of order is not well taken.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \2\ On June 5, 1840, the House reversed--yeas 78, nays 85--a decision 
of Mr. Speaker Hunter that a motion to reconsider might be interjected 
between the demand for the previous question and the putting of the 
previous question. (First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 
1081; Globe, p. 447.)
  \3\ Second session Fiftieth Congress, Journal, p. 381; Record, p. 
1380.
  \4\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
Sec. 5658
  Mr. Lewis E. Payson, of Illinois, moved to lay the motion to 
reconsider on the table, and that motion also was put and voted on 
without any point of order being raised.
  5658. On March 12, 1900,\1\ the House was considering the contested 
election case of Wise v. Young, and the previous question was ordered 
on the resolutions of the majority and the substitute proposed by the 
minority. The substitute was disagreed to, yeas 128, nays 132. The vote 
having been announced, Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, moved to 
reconsider.
  Mr. Edgar Weeks, of Michigan, moved to lay the motion to reconsider 
on the table, and the motion was agreed to, yeas 132, nays 129.
  The question then recurred on the resolutions of the majority.
  5659. On March 1, 1877,\2\ the House was considering the following 
resolution submitted by Mr. Fernando Wood, of New York, on the 
preceding day:

  Resolved, That the vote of Henry N. Solace, claiming to be an elector 
from the State of Vermont, be not counted.

  Mr. James H. Hopkins, of Pennsylvania, having submitted an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, the previous question was ordered, on 
motion of Mr. Wood.
  The vote being taken on Mr. Hopkins's amendment, it was rejected, 
yeas 115, nays 147.
  Mr. Lafayette Lane, of Oregon, moved to reconsider the vote last 
taken.
  Mr. Fernando Wood made the point of order that, the previous question 
being in operation, the motion to reconsider was not in order.
  Mr. Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, made the further point of 
order that the previous question must be exhausted before the motion to 
reconsider could be entertained; and, further, that it was not in order 
to move the reconsideration of a vote on ordering the main question 
when it was partly executed.
  The Speaker \3\ overruled the point of order and held the motion to 
be in order on the ground that in the event of an affirmative vote on a 
question of reconsideration, it was immediately divested of the 
previous question, and therefore by analogy admitted the motion to 
reconsider.
  5660. On July 20, 1876,\4\ the Speaker pro tempore announced as the 
regular order of business the consideration of the joint resolution of 
the House (H. J. Res. 96) to provide for the protection of the Texas 
frontier on the lower Rio Grande, the pending question being the 
amendment reported by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union as a substitute for the second section of the said joint 
resolution; on which amendment the yeas and nays had been ordered at 
the time of the adjournment on the preceding day.
  It appears from the context of the Journal that the previous question 
was on the preceding day ordered on all the amendments, and on the 
joint resolution to its engrossment.
  The question being taken on the pending amendment, there were 89 yeas 
and 96 nays, the yeas and nays having been ordered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2795.
  \2\ Second session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 587, 592-594; 
Record, p. 2049.
  \3\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 1299-1301; 
Record, pp. 4753, 4754.
                                                            Sec. 5661
  Mr. John Randolph Tucker moved to reconsider the vote by which the 
yeas and nays were ordered on agreeing to the aforesaid amendment.
  Mr. George G. Hoskins, of New York, made the point of order that, the 
previous question being partly executed, it was not now in order to 
move a reconsideration of the main question.
  The Speaker pro tempore \1\ sustained the point of order.
  5661. On July 8, 1850,\2\ the House was considering the resolutions 
of the committee appointed to investigate the connection of the Hon. 
George W. Crawford with the Galphin claim. Mr. Robert C. Schenck, of 
Ohio, had offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and Mr. 
Jacob Thompson, of Mississippi, had offered an amendment to Mr. 
Schenck's substitute.
  On July 6 the previous question had been ordered on the resolution 
and amendments, and on July 8, under the operation thereof, the 
amendment of Mr. Thompson was agreed to, and then the substitute as 
amended was disagreed to.
  Mr. Graham N. Fitch, of Indiana, moved to reconsider this vote 
whereby the substitute as amended had been disagreed to.
  Mr. Nathan Evans, of Ohio, moved that the motion to reconsider be 
laid on the table.
  Mr. John R. Thurman, of New York, made the point of order that it was 
not in order to move a reconsideration pending the operation of the 
previous question.
  The Speaker,\3\ ``under the uniform practice of the House,'' 
overruled the point of order.
  Mr. Thurman having appealed, the appeal was laid on the table, and 
the decision was thereby sustained.
  5662. On February 16, 1855,\4\ the House was considering a resolution 
to close debate in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union on the bill (H. R. 595) making an appropriation for mail 
steamers. An amendment had been offered to the resolution, the previous 
question ordered on the resolution and amendment, and under the 
operation thereof the amendment agreed to.
  Thereupon Mr. James L. Orr, of South Carolina, moved to reconsider 
the vote whereby the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, made the point of order that, as 
the previous question had been ordered on the resolution, the motion to 
reconsider was not in order.
  The Speaker \5\ said:

  The Chair overrules the question of order and decides that the motion 
to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was adopted is in order. 
Such has been the practice of the House every week, nay, almost every 
day, since the occupant of the Chair has had a seat in this body, and 
the Chair is not disposed to change the practice.

  Thereupon the motion to reconsider was admitted, and then a motion to 
lay the motion to reconsider on the table was made and carried on a 
vote by yeas and nays.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Milton Sayler, of Ohio, Speaker pro tempore.
  \2\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 1087, 1101; 
Globe, p. 1353.
  \3\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Thirty-third Congress, Globe, p. 774.
  \5\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
Sec. 5663
  Then the question recurred on the passage of the resolution.
  5663. A motion to reconsider the vote on the engrossment of a bill 
may be admitted after the previous question has been moved on a motion 
to postpone.--On July 27, 1842,\1\ the House had under consideration a 
bill (H. R. 548) to reduce the compensation of the Members of the 
Senate, Members of the House of Representatives, and the Delegates of 
the Territories, and repealing all other laws on the subject.
  The bill having been ordered to be engrossed, the question recurred 
on the passage.
  Mr. Almon H. Read, of Pennsylvania, moved to postpone the 
consideration of the bill until the next day, and that it be printed.
  Mr. Edward Stanly, of North Carolina, moved the previous question, 
and thereupon Mr. Benjamin G. Shields, of Alabama, moved to reconsider 
the vote ordering the bill to be engrossed.
  Thereupon Mr. Millard Fillmore, of New York, submitted the following 
question of order:

  The previous question having been moved upon the motion made by Mr. 
Read to postpone \2\ the consideration of the said bill, it is not in 
order at this time to move a reconsideration of the vote ordering the 
bill to be engrossed.

  The Speaker \3\ decided that, as the question on seconding \4\ the 
previous question had not been taken, the motion to reconsider was in 
order.
  The decision was sustained, 143 yeas to 34 nays, Mr. Fillmore having 
appealed.
  5664. After a conference has been agreed to and the managers for the 
House appointed it is too late to move to reconsider the vote whereby 
the House acted on the amendments in disagreement.--On June 9, 1896,\5\ 
the House had insisted on its disagreement to certain Senate amendments 
to the sundry civil appropriation bill, had agreed to a conference, and 
the Speaker had appointed the conferees, when Mr. Charles S. Hartman, 
of Montana, moved to reconsider the vote whereby the House refused to 
agree to certain of the Senate amendments.
  The Speaker \6\ said:

  The Chair thinks, the conferees having been appointed, it is now too 
late to make that motion.

  5665. The motion to reconsider the vote whereby an order of the House 
had been agreed to was admitted, although the execution of that order 
had began.--On February 8, 1894,\7\ Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, moved 
to reconsider the vote by which, on the preceding day, the House had 
passed an order for taking absent Members into custody.
  Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, made the point that the order 
being in process of execution and partly executed it was not in order 
to move to reconsider the vote by which it was passed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 1175; Globe, 
p. 799.
  \2\ For relations of motion to postpone to the previous question, see 
sections 5443, 5444 of this volume.
  \3\ John White, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \4\ The demand for the previous question no longer requires to be 
seconded. (See sections 5443-5445 of this volume.)
  \5\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 6360.
  \6\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \7\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 149; Record, p. 
2035.
                                                            Sec. 5666
  The Speaker \1\ entertained the motion to reconsider.
  5666. A motion to reconsider may be entertained, although the bill or 
resolution to which it applies may have gone to the other House or the 
President.--On May 27, 1840,\2\ a motion was made by Mr. Julius C. 
Alford, of Georgia, that the House reconsider the vote of the previous 
day on the passage of the bill from the Senate (No. 12) entitled ``An 
act supplemental to the act entitled `An act to grant preemption rights 
to settlers on the public lands,' approved June 22, 1838.''
  Mr. John Jameson, of Missouri, stated that he understood that the 
bill had been taken by the Clerk to the Senate, in which House it 
originated, and was consequently now beyond the control of the House, 
and therefore the motion to reconsider could not be entertained.
  The Speaker \3\ decided that the motion to reconsider was in order 
under the fiftieth rule,\4\ which provided that ``when a motion had 
been once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, it shall be 
in order for any Member of the majority to move for the reconsideration 
thereof on the same or the succeeding day.''
  From this decision Mr. David Petrikin, of Pennsylvania, took an 
appeal to the House. The decision of the Chair was sustained.\5\
  5667. On June 14, 1844,\6\ a motion was made by Mr. Perley B. 
Johnson, of Ohio, to reconsider the vote by which the House passed the 
bill from the Senate (No. 20) entitled ``An act to provide for the 
adjustment of land claims within the States of Mississippi and Alabama, 
south of the thirty-first degree of north latitude, and between the 
Mississippi and Perdido rivers.''
  Mr. Benjamin White, of Maine, inquired of the Speaker whether the 
bill had been returned to the Senate. The Speaker replied that it had.
  Mr. White then raised the question of order, whether it was in order 
to entertain a motion to reconsider, after the papers upon which the 
vote of reconsideration was founded had gone out of the possession of 
the House.
  Pending a decision, the House adjourned. On the next day, June 15, 
the Speaker \7\ decided against the point of order made by Mr. White.
  From this decision Mr. White appealed, and the decision of the Chair 
was sustained. So it was decided by the House that it is in order to 
entertain a motion to reconsider a vote, after the papers upon which it 
is founded have gone out of the possession of the House.
  5668. On April 10, 1846,\8\ a motion was made by Mr. James Dixon, of 
Connecticut, to reconsider the vote by which the House on the preceding 
day agreed to the resolutions offered by Mr. Charles J. Ingersoll, of 
Pennsylvania, calling upon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 1033; Globe, p. 
124.
  \3\ Robert M. T. Hunter, of Virginia, Speaker.
  \4\ Now section 1 of Rule XVIII.
  \5\ Where a bill thus reconsidered has been sent to the Senate or to 
the President it is customary to send a request for its return. In 
1820, in a famous case, Mr. Speaker Clay had declined to entertain the 
motion to reconsider after the papers had gone to the Senate. (See 
section 5605 of this volume.)
  \6\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 1125, 1131; 
Globe, p. 686.
  \7\ John W. Jones, of Virginia, Speaker.
  \8\ First session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 657.
Sec. 5669
the President of the United States for an account of all payments made 
on President's certificates from the fund appropriated by law, through 
the agency of the State Department, for the contingent expenses of 
foreign intercourse, etc.
  Mr. Robert McClelland, of Michigan, submitted as a question of order 
that the resolution having been delivered to the President of the 
United States, a motion to reconsider was not now in order.
  The Speaker \1\ stated that it being expressly provided by the fifty-
fifth rule \2\ of the House, that ``When a motion has been once made, 
and carried in the affirmative or negative, it shall be in order for 
any Member of the majority to move for a reconsideration thereof on the 
same or the succeeding day;'' this motion was in order and he so 
decided.\3\
  Upon appeal, this decision of the Chair was sustained.
  5669. A motion being made to reconsider the vote on a bill which has 
gone to the Senate, a motion to ask the recall of the bill is 
privileged.--On June 14, 1844,\4\ a motion had been made to reconsider 
the vote whereby the House had passed the bill of the Senate (No. 20) 
to provide for the adjustment of land claims within certain States, 
when Mr. George C. Dromgoole, of Virginia, moved the following order:

  Ordered, That a message be forthwith sent to the Senate, informing 
that body of the pendency of a motion in this House to reconsider the 
vote by which Senate bill No. 20, etc., was passed, and respectfully 
requesting that the said bill may be returned.

  Mr. John White, of Kentucky, raised the question of order that the 
motion of Mr. Dromgoole was not in order.
  The Speaker \5\ decided that the order was one relating to the 
proceedings now before the House, and appurtenant thereto, and 
therefore in order.
  Mr. White having appealed, the decision of the Chair was sustained.
  Thereupon the motion of Mr. Dromgoole was agreed to.
  5670. On April 1, 1864,\6\ the House had disagreed to the Senate 
amendments to the bill (H. R. 15) to provide a temporary government for 
the Territory of Montana, and had asked a conference of the Senate, 
transmitting the papers to that House.
  Mr. George H. Pendleton, of Ohio, moved to reconsider the above 
votes. And pending that motion, he moved that the Clerk request the 
return of the said bill from the Senate.
  The Speaker \7\ said:

  The pendency of a motion to reconsider compels the House to send to 
the Senate for the return of the bill, unless a motion be made to lay 
on the table the motion to reconsider.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John W. Davis, of Indiana, Speaker.
  \2\ See section 5605 of this volume.
  \3\ The record of the debate shows (Globe, p. 649) that the Speaker 
declared that in the present case a copy of the resolution, and not the 
original resolution, had gone to the President, so that it was still 
within the reach of the House. The Speaker also had read the precedent 
of May 27, 1840, on the public-lands bill, on which the motion to 
reconsider had been pending after the bill was engrossed.
  \4\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal p. 1131; Globe, p. 
742.
  \5\ John W. Jones, of Virginia, Speaker.
  \6\ First session Thirty-eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 455-457; 
Globe, p. 1389.
  \7\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 5671
  Such motion not being made, the motion to send for the bill was 
agreed to, and soon after the bill was returned from the Senate. The 
motion to reconsider was called up the succeeding day.
  5671. On January 16, 1877,\1\ the Senate, while revising its rules, 
agreed to a rule providing that when a motion to reconsider a bill that 
had been sent to the House should be made, it should be accompanied by 
a motion requesting the House to return the bill to the Senate. This 
was intended to obviate the difficulty experienced by the fact that the 
Senate usage did not permit a motion to reconsider after the bill had 
passed from out the possession of the body.
  5672. The fact that the House had informed the Senate that it had 
agreed to a Senate amendment to a House bill was held not to prevent a 
motion to reconsider the vote on agreeing.--On February 7, 1854,\2\ Mr. 
Thomas B. Florence, of Pennsylvania, moved that the vote by which the 
House, on the preceding day, agreed to the amendment of the Senate to 
the bill of the House (H. R. 50) entitled ``An act making 
appropriations for the payment of invalid and other pensions of the 
United States, for the year ending June 30, 1855,'' be reconsidered.
  Mr. James L. Orr, of South Carolina, made the point of order that the 
vote could not be reconsidered, the Senate having been notified of the 
agreement by the House to their amendment, and the bill having thereby 
passed beyond the control of the House.\3\
  The Speaker pro tempore \4\ overruled the point of order, on the 
ground that the fifty-sixth rule of the House conferred upon any Member 
of the majority the right to move a reconsideration on the same day or 
the day succeeding that upon which the vote was given.
  From this decision of the Chair Mr. Orr appealed, and on July 25, 
1854, when the motion to reconsider was again called up, the decision 
of the Chair was sustained.
  5673. While the motion to reconsider may be entered at any time 
during the two days prescribed by the rule, even after the previous 
question is ordered or when a question of the highest privilege is 
pending, it may not be considered while another question is before the 
House.--On July 1, 1856,\5\ there was before the House a motion to 
reconsider the vote by which the bill of the House (No. 181) providing 
for the admission of the State of Kansas into the Union had been lost 
on the preceding day. There had been considerable debate, when Mr. 
William A. Howard, of Michigan, rising to what he claimed was a 
question of higher privilege, proposed to submit a report of the 
special Kansas investigating committee, which involved the right of a 
Delegate to his seat.
  Mr. George S. Houston, of Alabama, made the point that the motion to 
reconsider could not thus be displaced, quoting the fifty-sixth rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Forty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 660.
  \2\ First session Thirty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 336, 1199; 
Globe, pp. 375, 1913.
  \3\ The Globe for February 7 (p. 375) shows that the bill was in 
possession of the House awaiting enrollment at the time the motion to 
reconsider was made.
  \4\ George W. Jones, of Tennessee, Speaker pro tempore.
  \5\ First session Thirty-fourth Congress, Globe, p. 1525.
Sec. 5674
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The Chair is of the opinion that the report is a privileged one, and 
that it may be received at this stage of the proceedings. The motion to 
reconsider is a privileged motion, and takes precedence of every other 
motion relating to the ordinary business of the House, except a motion 
to adjourn; but that class of business which belongs to the right of a 
Member to a seat in this House is of higher privilege. Therefore the 
report from the special committee takes precedence of the motion to 
reconsider.

  Mr. James L. Orr, of South Carolina, having appealed, Mr. Alexander 
H. Stephens, of Georgia, called attention to the fact that a report 
relating to the right of a Member to his seat raised a question of 
privilege, and according to the parliamentary law a question of 
privilege had precedence of a privileged question. The question of 
reconsideration was a privileged question, while the other was a 
question of privilege.
  Mr. Orr held, first, that the report did not relate to the seat of a 
Member in such a way as to make it a matter of privilege, and, 
secondly, that the rule in regard to reconsideration was so explicit 
that no authority could override it.
  Mr. Thomas S. Bocock, of Virginia, contended that the distinction 
between privileged questions and questions of privilege was made by 
Jefferson's Manual and not by the rules, and that the manual applied 
only where the rules were silent. The rule giving priority to questions 
of personal privilege was from the manual, but the rules of the House 
had come in and altered that so far as the motion to reconsider was 
concerned. In 1820, during the pendency of the subject of the admission 
of Missouri, Mr. Randolph, who opposed the Missouri Compromise, 
determined the next day after the passage of the measure to move to 
reconsider. He submitted the motion and was informed by the Speaker of 
the House, Mr. Clay, of Kentucky, that there was a question before the 
House which stood in the way of submitting a motion to reconsider. When 
that matter was disposed of, the bill had gone out of the possession of 
the House and he was informed that his motion was too late. Then came 
the rule to secure to every Member the right to move to reconsider 
before the bill is carried out of the House.
  The Speaker said that the point made by Mr. Bocock presented no 
difficulties, since if another subject was before the House the motion 
to reconsider must be received and entered on the Journal, but could 
not be considered until the business before the House had been disposed 
of. That was the constant practice and rule of the House. * * * The 
high privilege given the motion to reconsider by the rule gave the 
motion precedence over any motion relative to the subject to which the 
motion to reconsider refers--except a motion to adjourn; but when 
received, it must relate to some business legitimately before the 
House, or its consideration be postponed until it can be taken up in 
order. When it was in order, it would supersede every motion except the 
motion to adjourn.
  Mr. Orr withdrew his appeal.
  5674. On April 12, 1894,\2\ during proceedings under a call of the 
House, a motion that Mr. John A. T. Hull, of Iowa, be excused was 
decided in the negative.
  Upon the announcement of the result of the vote, Mr. Thomas C. 
Catchings, of Mississippi, moved the adoption of the resolution which 
he then sent to the Clerk's desk.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 327, 328; 
Record, pp. 3704-3708.
                                                            Sec. 5674
  Before the resolution submitted by Mr. Catchings was read Mr. John F. 
Lacey, of Iowa, moved to reconsider the vote just taken.
  Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, made the point that the question must 
be first taken on the motion to reconsider.
  The resolution submitted by Mr. Catchings was then read as follows:

  Resolved, That all leaves of absence, except for sickness, be, and 
the same are hereby, revoked, and the Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to 
notify all Members absent, except on account of sickness, that their 
attendance upon the sessions of the House is required; and that further 
proceedings under this call be dispensed with.

  Mr. Reed made the further point that the resolution proposed by Mr. 
Catchings was not in order in the absence of a quorum.
  After debate,
  The Speaker pro tempore \1\ overruled both points of order submitted 
by Mr. Reed, holding as follows:

  The Chair confesses that he has experienced some difficulty in 
arriving at a conclusion in this case. The motion to reconsider is a 
privileged motion, and the motion of the gentleman from Mississippi, if 
held to be in order, would also be privileged. The question for the 
Chair is, Which of these motions should be first submitted to the 
House? If the motion of the gentleman from Mississippi is in order and 
should prevail, it disposes of the motion to reconsider the vote on 
excusing the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Hull], and it would also obviate 
any necessity for making a motion to excuse other gentlemen who failed 
to answer on a call of the House.
  The language of the rule which has been cited is that--
  ``When a motion has been made and carried or lost, it shall be in 
order for any Member of the majority, on the same or succeeding day, to 
move for the reconsideration thereof, and such motion shall take 
precedence of all other questions except the consideration of a 
conference report, a motion to fix the day to which the House shall 
adjourn, to adjourn, or to take a recess,'' etc.
  The motion to reconsider, as will be seen, takes precedence over all 
other questions except those mentioned in the rule, and it may be made 
at any time during the clay on which the vote sought to be reconsidered 
is taken or on the succeeding day. As the rule provides, a roll call 
may be interrupted in order that this motion to reconsider may be 
entered. But it does not follow that it is then to be disposed of. The 
Chair finds a decision--which must be the law--made in 1856, when the 
then Speaker decided (a question similar to this being pending) that 
under the rule it was in order at any time upon the same or the 
subsequent day to submit and have entered a motion to reconsider, but 
that it could not be considered while another question was before the 
House.
  Without attempting to shut off the gentleman from Iowa, who made this 
motion to reconsider, the Chair recognized the gentleman from 
Mississippi, who was first on his feet and who first addressed the 
Chair; and he submitted a motion which he sent up. Now, when that 
motion is submitted, if it be in order, it is entitled, under this 
decision, to consideration; and the motion to reconsider, which may 
then be entered and which the House permits to interrupt the matter 
pending in order that it may be entered, is not to be considered, under 
the language of this decision of 1856, while the other question is 
before the House.
  Now, this other question being before the House, the Chair thinks it 
must be first considered; and if the motion made by the gentleman from 
Mississippi be carried, it dispenses with the motion to excuse the 
gentleman from Iowa, because all gentlemen are excused under this 
motion, so that there would really be no necessity for voting upon a 
motion to reconsider, because the necessity for the original motion 
would be dispensed with by agreeing to the motion of the gentleman from 
Mississippi.

  Mr. Lacy appealed from the decision just rendered, and the appeal was 
laid on the table on motion of Mr. Catchings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, Speaker pro tempore.
Sec. 5675
  5675. On August 15, 1856,\1\ the bill (H. R. 316) making 
appropriations for the transportation of the United States mails by 
ocean steamers and otherwise, was reported from the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union with an amendment.
  On motion of Mr. Lewis D. Campbell, of Ohio, the previous question 
was ordered, and the Speaker announced that the question was on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  Thereupon Mr. James Thorington, of Iowa, moved that the votes whereby 
certain bills had on the preceding day been committed to the Committee 
of the Whole, and the vote whereby the bill of the House (H. R. 317) 
granting land to the State of Iowa and the Territory of Minnesota, in 
alternate sections, to aid in the construction of railroads therein 
named, was laid on the table, be severally reconsidered.
  Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, made the point of order, that 
inasmuch as the main question had been ordered upon a different subject 
it was not now in order to submit the motion to reconsider.
  The Speaker \2\ pro tempore decided that, under the rule, it was in 
order at any time upon the same or subsequent day to submit and have 
entered the motion to reconsider, but that it could not be considered 
while another question was before the House.
  From this decision of the Chair Mr. George W. Jones appealed. On the 
succeeding day the appeal was laid on the table, the decision of the 
Chair being thereby sustained.
  5676. On July 29, 1852,\3\ the House laid on the table the bill (H. 
R. 290) granting a right of way and land to the State of Michigan for 
the construction of the Oakland and Ottawa Railroad.
  Mr. Charles E. Stuart, of Michigan, moved that the vote last taken be 
reconsidered.
  Pending this motion, the morning hour having expired,\4\ Mr. Stuart 
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union.
  This motion having been decided in the negative, the House resumed 
consideration of the bill (H. R. 299) to provide for executing the 
public printing, etc. The further consideration of this bill was 
postponed until the next day.
  Mr. Stuart then moved that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  Mr. Isham G. Harris, of Tennessee, called up the motion submitted by 
Mr. Stuart to reconsider the vote whereby the bill (H. R. 290) was laid 
on the table.
  The Speaker \5\ decided that it was not now in order to call up the 
said motion, especially as the privileged motion to go into Committee 
of the Whole had been
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 1476, 1477; 
Globe, p. 2166.
  \2\ John S. Phelps, of Missouri, Speaker pro tempore.
  \3\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 968, 969; 
Globe, p. 1985.
  \4\ The rule for the morning hour has varied at different times. (See 
section 3118 of Vol. IV, of this work.)
  \5\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 5677
first submitted. He asked gentlemen under what rule the bill could be 
considered at this time, even if the motion to reconsider should be 
carried in the affirmative.
  Mr. Harris having appealed, the appeal was laid on the table by a 
vote of yeas 112, nays, 39.
  5677. When a motion to reconsider relates to a bill belonging to a 
particular class of business, the consideration of the motion is in 
order only when that class of business is in order.--On December 7, 
1892,\1\ the Speaker \2\ proceeded to call the committees pursuant to 
clause 4 of Rule XXIV. The Committee on Naval Affairs being called, Mr. 
Hilary A. Herbert, of Alabama, in behalf of that committee, presented 
for consideration the bill (S. 139) terminating the number in the 
reduction of the Engineer Corps of the Navy. On motion of Mr. Herbert, 
the previous question was ordered; and being put, ``Shall the bill 
pass?'' it was decided in the affirmative.
  Mr. William S. Holman, of Indiana, moved to reconsider the vote by 
which the bill was passed.
  Mr. Herbert moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
  The hour for consideration of bills having expired,\3\ the Speaker 
\2\ announced that the consideration of the motion of Mr. Herbert would 
go over and be in order when the committees should be again called for 
the consideration of bills.
  5678. On Friday, May 15, 1896,\4\ Mr. Joseph A. Scranton, of 
Pennsylvania, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, said that on the 
previous day he gave notice that on this day he would call up the 
motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill (H. R. 3826) to provide 
for the election of a Delegate from Alaska was defeated on its third 
reading. It had since been suggested to him that, this being private-
bill day, the consideration of such a motion would not be in order. He 
therefore asked the opinion of the Chair on that point.
  The Speaker \5\ said:

  The Chair thinks it would not be in order to-day, as it is not 
private business.

  5679. On February 11, 1834,\6\ a motion was made by Mr. John Quincy 
Adams, of Massachusetts, that the House reconsider the vote of 
yesterday (Monday, February 10) referring to the Committee on Ways and 
Means the memorial of merchants of the city of New York in favor of the 
warehousing system, etc.\7\
  The Speaker \8\ decided that this motion would not come up for 
consideration until Monday next, the day fixed by the rule for the 
presentation of memorials and petitions.\9\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 13 and 14; 
Record, p. 34.
  \2\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \3\ The morning hour in the Fifty-second Congress was an hour of 
sixty minutes only. (See section 3118 of Vol. IV of this work.)
  \4\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 5298.
  \5\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \6\ First session Twenty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 316, 317.
  \7\ A motion for this purpose is no longer in order.
  \8\ Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, Speaker.
  \9\ Rule 16 at this time provided that after the first thirty days of 
the session the presentation of petitions should be in order only on 
the first day of each week. (Journal, p. 1115.)
Sec. 5680
  5680. On Friday, July 28, 1876,\1\ Mr. Ezekiel S. Sampson, of Iowa, 
called up the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill of the 
House (H. R. 3370) to amend the statutes in relation to damages for 
infringement of patents, and for other purposes, was ordered to be 
engrossed.
  Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, made the point of order that 
this being private-bill day it was not in order to call up a motion to 
reconsider a vote upon a public bill.
  The Speaker pro tempore \2\ sustained the point of order.
  5681. On Friday, June 9, 1876,\3\ Mr. Eppa Hunton, of Virginia, 
called up the motion to reconsider the vote by which the House had 
agreed to a resolution relating to public business submitted by him on 
a previous day.
  Mr. John A. Kasson, of Iowa, made the point of order that it was not 
in order to call up and consider a motion to reconsider a vote upon 
general business upon a private-bill day.
  The Speaker \4\ pro tempore overruled the point of order.
  5682. The motion to reconsider may be called up at any time when the 
class of business to which it relates is in order; but until it is 
called up the motion is not the regular order.--On January 13, 1893,\5\ 
the Committee of the Whole House having risen, Mr. Louis E. Atkinson, 
of Pennsylvania, submitted the question of order, whether the business 
next in order was not the consideration of the bill (H. R. 1466) for 
the relief of the personal representatives of Henry H. and Charles H. 
Sibley, heretofore reported from the Committee of the Whole House.
  The Speaker \6\ stated that the bill having been acted on by the 
House, a motion to reconsider that action was made and was still 
pending, and that it was in order to call up the motion to reconsider 
at any time.\7\ but until so called up its consideration would not be 
the regular order.
  5683. The House having, by unanimous consent, entertained a matter 
during time set apart for other business it was held that the question 
of reconsideration might also be admitted.--On Friday, March 6, 
1840,\8\ in the time allotted by the rules for the consideration of 
private business, Mr. Millard Fillmore, of New York, moved to 
reconsider a vote whereby a certain paper relating to the New Jersey 
contested election cases had been referred.
  Mr. David Petrikin, of Pennsylvania, thereupon submitted the 
following question of order:

  That a motion to reconsider can not be debated and considered after 
the Speaker has announced the orders of the day, on any day allotted 
for the consideration of private bills, except such motion of 
reconsideration pertains to a question within the rules setting aside 
Friday and Saturday for private bills.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 1347; Record, p. 
4941.
  \2\ Milton Sayler, of Ohio, Speaker pro tempore.
  \3\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 1077; Record, p. 
3728.
  \4\ Samuel S. Cox, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
  \5\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Journal., pp. 41-43; 
Record, p. 549.
  \6\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \7\ As to modifications of this principle caused by the rules giving 
certain times to certain classes of business, see sections 5673-5681.
  \8\ First session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 528, 531; 
Globe, p. 246.
                                                            Sec. 5684
  The Speaker \1\ decided that the House, by general consent having 
received and referred the papers, the motion to reconsider that 
reference was in order, and superseded the orders of the day, until it 
should be disposed of.\2\
  Mr. Petrikin having appealed, two questions of order were raised and 
entertained as to the right of moving to lay this appeal on the table, 
and after these questions had been decided on appeal, the original 
appeal was put, and the decision of the Chair was, on the succeeding 
day, affirmed by the House, yeas 88, nays 86.
  5684. A motion to reconsider, when once entered, may remain pending 
indefinitely, even until a succeeding session of the same Congress.--On 
January 27, 1875,\3\ a proposition was made to call up for 
consideration a motion made on January 7, 1874, at the preceding 
session of the same Congress, to reconsider the vote whereby the House 
had recommitted the bill (H. R. 796) ``to protect all persons in their 
civil and political rights.''
  The Speaker \4\ held that it was in order to call the motion up for 
consideration.
  5685. The motion to reconsider the vote on a proposition having been 
once agreed to, and the said vote having again been taken, a second 
motion to reconsider may not be made \5\ unless the nature of the 
proposition has been changed by amendments.--On June 25, 1842,\6\ the 
House reconsidered the vote whereby it had passed a bill for the relief 
of Hugh Stewart.
  Then the question recurring on the passage of the bill, it was passed 
under operation of the previous question.
  A motion was thereupon made by Mr. John C. Clark, of New York, that 
the House do reconsider the vote on the question, ``Shall the bill 
pass?''
  The Speaker \7\ decided that it was not in order to move a second 
time that the House do reconsider the vote on the question that the 
bill do pass, that motion having been already made upon the bill, and 
decided.
  5686. On March 20, 1844,\8\ the House proceeded to reconsider the 
vote upon the passage of the bill from the Senate (No. 37) entitled 
``An act to repeal the act entitled `An act to amend the act of March 
10, 1838, entitled, ``An act to change the time of holding the circuit 
and district courts in the district of Ohio.'' ' ''
  The votes on the passage and third reading were reconsidered, the 
bill was amended, and then again read a third time and passed.
  After intervening business, a motion was made by Mr. Samuel Simons, 
of Connecticut, to again reconsider the vote upon the passage of the 
bill.
  The Speaker \9\ decided that the motion to reconsider was not in 
order, the motion having been once made and acted upon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Robert M. T. Hunter, of Virginia, Speaker.
  \2\ A rule now provides that the vote referring a bill to a committee 
may not be reconsidered. (See sec. 5647 of this chapter.)
  \3\ Second session Forty-third Congress, Record, p. 785.
  \4\ James G. Blaine, of Maine, Speaker.
  \5\ See also section 6037 of this volume.
  \6\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 1022; Globe, 
p. 688.
  \7\ John White, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \8\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 618; Globe, p. 
414.
  \9\ John W. Jones, of Virginia, Speaker.
Sec. 5687
  From this decision Mr. Alexander Duncan, of Ohio, appealed, and the 
Chair was sustained by a vote of 74 to 73, the Speaker breaking the tie 
by voting in the affirmative.\1\
  5687. (Speaker overruled.) On September 6, 1850,\2\ the House was 
considering, under a special order, the bill of the Senate (No. 307) 
entitled ``An act proposing to the State of Texas the establishment of 
her northern and western boundaries, the relinquishment by the said 
State of all territory claimed by her exterior to said boundaries, and 
of all her claims upon the United States.''
  On September 4 the House had refused to order the bill to a third 
reading, but had reconsidered this vote, and on September 5 had adopted 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute, proposed by Mr. Linn Boyd, 
of Kentucky, and providing for the organization of a territorial 
government of New Mexico for the exclusion of the Wilmot proviso, and 
for allowing the people to decide the question of sanctioning or 
prohibiting slavery.
  The question being on the third reading of the bill as thus amended, 
the House decided the question in the negative.
  Mr. Volney E. Howard, of Texas, moved that this vote be reconsidered. 
This motion being ruled out of order, Mr. Howard appealed. The House 
then adjourned.
  On September 6 the House resumed consideration of the bill. The 
Speaker \3\ said:

  Since the adjournment the Speaker has examined the precedents 
relating to the subject, so far as he could find them. This question 
has never been decided, so far as the Chair is informed, directly as it 
is presented in the present case. A motion to reconsider the vote on a 
bill after it has been once reconsidered has been held for several 
years past, as the Chair knows, to be out of order. The only difference 
between these cases and the bill now before the House is found in the 
fact that since the bill was first rejected it has been amended. The 
question then is, whether this is or is not the same bill upon which 
the vote has once been reconsidered.
  The Chair decided yesterday that it was the same bill, and, 
therefore, that the motion to reconsider was not in order. In the 
Twenty-second Congress \4\ a decision was made to the effect that this 
rule would admit a motion to reconsider the same proposition, without 
reference to any amendment that might be made. A motion was made by Mr. 
Churchill C. Cambreleng, of New York, that the House do again 
reconsider the vote, on the motion made by Mr. Mark Alexander, of 
Virginia, to strike out the tenth section of the bill. This motion was 
objected to as not being in order, the forty-first rule of the House 
declaring that ``when a motion has been once made, and carried in the 
affirmative or negative, it shall be in order for any member of the 
majority to move for the reconsideration thereof on the same or 
succeeding day,'' etc. The Speaker decided that the motion was clearly 
in order. From this decision Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, 
took an appeal. The House sustained the decision of the Speaker, thus 
authorizing the reconsideration of the same proposition without 
reference to any amendment whatsoever.
  In the Twenty-seventh Congress the question was made, whether a bill 
which had been passed, reconsidered, and passed again, could again be 
reconsidered. Mr. J. C. Clark, of New York, moved that the House 
reconsider the vote on the passage of the bill. The Speaker decided 
that it was not in order to move a second time that the House do 
reconsider the vote on the question that the bill do pass, that motion 
having been already made upon this bill and decided. From this decision 
there was no appeal, the House having acquiesced in it. And at the 
second session of the same Congress a decision was made to the same 
effect. There may be other decisions, but the Chair has not been able 
to find them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ This vote by the Speaker was not necessary, as the decision 
stands unless a positive vote be given against it. (See sec. 5239 of 
this volume; also see sec. 185 of Reed's Parliamentary Rules.)
  \2\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 1402, 1404-
1407; Globe, p. 1762.
  \3\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \4\ On June 27, 1822. (First session Twenty-second Congress, Journal, 
p. 992 Debates, p. 3803.)
                                                            Sec. 5688
The decisions to which the Chair has referred are conflicting upon the 
point whether a motion to reconsider can be entertained where there is 
no amendment. The last precedents quoted--denying the right to 
reconsider--are in conformity with the practice of the House of late 
years, as before stated by the Chair.
  The question whether the motion can be entertained where the bill has 
been amended subsequent to the first reconsideration has not been 
decided by the House, so far as the Chair is informed, but he holds 
that this difference in the case does not place it beyond the general 
rule, which precludes a second reconsideration. The Speaker therefore 
adheres to his decision of yesterday, and rules, inasmuch as there is 
no precedent to the contrary applicable to the case, that the motion to 
reconsider the vote by which the House had refused to order the bill to 
a third reading is not in order.

  Mr. Volney E. Howard, of Texas, who took the appeal, maintained that 
the rule applied to things of substance, and not of name; that, 
therefore, the bill as rejected yesterday not being identical with the 
bill which was rejected on Wednesday, and which subsequently was 
reconsidered, was not involved within the rule which precluded the 
reconsideration a second time of the same proposition.
  On a yea-and-nay vote the decision of the Chair was reversed by a 
vote of 124 to 82.
  5688. On March 24, 1892,\1\ the House, pursuant to the special order, 
resumed consideration of the bill (H. R. 4426) for the free coinage of 
silver, for the issue of coin notes, and for other purposes.
  The motion of Mr. Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, to lay the bill on 
the table being negatived, Mr. Tom L. Johnson, of Ohio, moved to 
reconsider the vote by which the House refused to lay the bill on the 
table.
  This latter motion to reconsider was agreed to, and the question 
recurred on the motion of Mr. Burrows to lay the bill on the table.
  On this motion being put, the House refused to lay the bill on the 
table.
  Mr. Johnson, of Ohio, moved to reconsider the vote by which the House 
refused to lay the bill on the table.
  Mr. James B. Reilly, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that 
the motion was not in order.
  The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order on the ground that the 
House had already reconsidered a vote refusing to lay the bill on the 
table, and having again refused to lay the bill on the table it was not 
in order to repeat the motion to re