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

 
                             Chapter CXXVI.

            THE HOUSE RULE THAT AMENDMENTS MUST BE GERMANE.

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

   1. The rule. Section 5801.
   2. Amendments under parliamentary law. Section 5802.
   3. General principles. Sections 5803-5810.
   4. Amendment should be germane to the paragraph or section. 
     Sections 5811-5823.
   5. Decisions as to general amendments. Sections 5824, 5825.\1\
   6. A bill for a specific object not to be amended by general 
     provisions. Sections 5826-5837.
   7. A bill for general objects may be amended by specific 
     provision. Sections 5838-5842.
   8. A private bill may not be made general by amendment. 
     Sections 5843-5851.
   9. Decisions related to revenue subjects. Sections 5852-5868.
   10. Decisions related to subject of immigration. Sections 5869-
     5874.
   11. Decisions related to general subjects. Sections 5875-5924.

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

  5801. A rule of the House requires that an amendment must be 
germane.--Section 7 of Rule XVI \2\ provides:

  * * * No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under 
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.

  5802. A decision in the Senate that an amendment need not, under the 
parliamentary law, be germane.\3\--On November 22, 1877 \4\ the Senate 
were considering the following resolution:

  Resolved, That the Committee on Privileges and Elections be 
discharged from the consideration of the credentials of M. C. Butler, 
of South Carolina.

  Mr. George F. Edmunds, of Vermont, moved to strike out ``M. C. 
Butler'' and insert ``William P. Kellogg,'' and to strike out ``South 
Carolina'' and insert ``Louisiana.''
  Mr. William A. Wallace, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane.
  Mr. Edmunds said that the parliamentary law did not require an 
amendment to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ See also section 4375 of Volume IV.
  \2\ For full form and history of this rule, see sections 5753, 5767 
of this volume.
  \3\ See also section 5825 of this chapter.
  \4\ First session Forty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 603.
Sec. 5803
  The Vice-President \1\ overruled the point of order.\2\
  5803. Whether or not an amendment be germane should be judged from 
the provisions of its text rather than from the purposes which 
circumstances may suggest.--On January 15, 1901,\3\ the river and 
harbor bill (H. R. 13189) was under consideration in Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union.
  Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, proposed an amendment appropriating 
a sum of money for the construction of three reservoirs at the 
headwaters of the Missouri River--

  For the purpose of holding back the flood waters of said stream with 
a view of minimizing the formation of bars and shoals and other flood-
formed obstructions to navigation, and to aid in the maintenance of an 
increased depth and uniform flow of water for navigation during the dry 
season.

  Mr. Theodore E. Burton, of Ohio, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill, since the means proposed could 
not affect navigation, but rather related to the improvement of arid 
lands.
  After debate the Chairman \4\ said:

  The Chair holds that as the amendment is framed it is germane to the 
subject-matter of the bill and the subject-matter over which the River 
and Harbor Committee has jurisdiction. Now, whether that correctly 
presents the facts of the case is to be determined on the merits. But 
as the amendment is presented and read by the Clerk it appears to the 
Chair that it is entirely proper and germane to the bill, and therefore 
the Chair will overrule the point of order.

  5804. An amendment which would have changed a resolution of inquiry 
to one of instruction was held to be not germane.--On February 14, 
1882,\5\ Mr. Godlove S. Orth, of Indiana, from the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, reported adversely this resolution:

  Resolved, That the President of the United States, if not 
incompatible with the public service, be requested to communicate to 
this House all correspondence with the British Government on file in 
the State Department with reference to the case of D. H. O'Connor, a 
citizen of the United States, now imprisoned in Ireland.

  Mr. Orth's motion to lay this resolution on the table having been 
decided in the negative, Mr. S. S. Cox, of New York, submitted the 
following amendment in the nature of a substitute:

  That the President be, and he is hereby, requested to obtain for D. 
H. O'Connor and other American citizens now imprisoned under a 
suspension of the habeas corpus by the British Government in Ireland, 
without trial, conviction, or sentence, a speedy and fair trial or a 
prompt release.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ William A. Wheeler, of New York, Vice-President.
  \2\ The Senate formerly had no rule in regard to amendments being 
germane, and a Senator might offer an amendment on any subject. (See 
decision of the Presiding Officer, Feb. 24, 1853, second session 
Thirty-second Congress, Globe, p. 820.) The Senate now has a rule 
requiring amendments to general appropriation bills to be germane. 
Section 3 of Rule XVI:
  ``No amendment which proposes general legislation shall be received 
to any general appropriation bill, nor shall any amendment not germane 
or relevant to the subject-matter contained in the bill be received; 
nor shall any amendment to any item or clause of such bill be received 
which does not directly relate thereto; and all questions of relevancy 
of amendments under this rule, when raised, shall be submitted to the 
Senate and be decided without debate.''
  \3\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1052-1054.
  \4\ Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \5\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 577; Record, p. 
1133.
                                                            Sec. 5805
  Mr. Thaddeus C. Pound, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane.
  After debate the Speaker said:

  The Chair \1\ is of the opinion that the amendment is one covering a 
matter which is hardly competent to be introduced as an original House 
resolution. It is perhaps unnecessary for the Chair to decide whether 
it is within the power of either House of Congress by resolution to 
instruct the President as to his duty. The Chair would be inclined to 
think that would not be within the power of the House.

  Mr. Randall having suggested that this would be for the House to 
determine, not the Chair, the Speaker continued:

  The Chair is not called upon to decide that question, and only refers 
to it incidentally in determining whether this amendment is in order to 
a resolution of inquiry which has certain privileges under the rules of 
the House. The amendment proposed is to change the whole character of 
the pending resolution, which is a simple resolution of inquiry, and 
make it a resolution of instruction to the President of the United 
States. The Chair thinks it is not germane and not in order.

  5805. An amendment simply striking out words already in a bill may 
not be held not germane.
  Where a paragraph which changes existing law has been by general 
consent allowed to remain it may be perfected by any germane amendment.
  On March 31, 1904,\2\ the sundry civil appropriation bill was under 
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
when the Clerk read this paragraph:

  Expenses of judges of the circuit courts of appeals, not to exceed 
$10 per day; of meals and lodgings for jurors in United States cases, 
and of bailiffs in attendance upon the same, when ordered by the court; 
and of compensation for jury commissioners, $5 per day, not exceeding 
three days for any one term of court, $165,000.

  Mr. Charles E. Littlefield, of Maine, moved to strike out the words 
``in United States cases.''
  Mr. James A. Hemenway, of Indiana, made the point of order that the 
amendment would change law and would not be germane. He stated that the 
effect of the amendment would be to pay for meals and lodgings of 
jurors in civil cases.
  It appeared from the debate that there was no general law providing 
for meals and lodgings of jurors in any cases.
  The Chairman \3\ held:

  The Chair would call attention to the fact that on Monday a similar 
question arose here in which the rules and decisions were referred to. 
A precedent seems to have been established in the Committee of the 
Whole that where a paragraph which changes existing law has been by 
general consent allowed to remain it may be perfected by any germane 
amendment.
  If that rule is to be followed, this amendment is in order, and the 
Chair overrules the point of order. The Chair also thinks the rule to 
be that an amendment striking out a portion of a paragraph is not 
subject to a point of order. Form, and not effect, should be 
considered. Germaneness refers to words added rather than to those 
taken away. The Chair would further suggest that this question of 
whether payment should be made for meals and lodgings for jurors in 
cases other than United States cases is rather a question for the 
Committee to decide; a question of policy rather than a question for 
the Chair to decide on a point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 4059, 4060.
  \3\ Theodore E. Burton, of Ohio, Chairman.
Sec. 5806
  Mr. Hemenway thereupon said:

  Mr. Chairman, here is a case where we provide for the payment for 
meals and lodging of jurors in United States cases where the Government 
is a party to the case. Now, then, is it germane to say that we shall 
also pay for meals when the Government is not a party to the case, 
where it is a question purely between individuals?

  The Chairman said:

  The Chair would state that that is merely a question for the 
Committee to consider. It is to be noted that this amendment consists 
not in adding to the language of the paragraph, but in striking out 
certain words which constitute a portion of the paragraph.

  5806. To a bill amendatory of an existing law as to one specific 
particular, an amendment relating to the terms of the law rather than 
to those of the bill was held not to be germane.
  The rule that amendments shall be germane applies to amendments 
reported by committees.
  On April 24, 1900,\1\ Mr. Henry A. Cooper, of Wisconsin, from the 
Committee on Insular Affairs, reported a joint resolution (S. R. 116) 
``to provide for the administration of civil affairs in Porto Rico 
pending the appointment and qualification of civil officers provided 
for in the act approved April 12, 1900, entitled,'' etc., with 
amendments in relation to the granting of franchises proposed by the 
Committee on Insular Affairs.
  Mr. Ebenezer J. Hill, of Connecticut, rising to a point of order, 
said:

  I make the point of order, in the first place, that the amendments 
are not germane to the resolution; in the second place, that the joint 
resolution cannot be so amended; in the third place, that if so amended 
it must be considered in Committee of the Whole, and in the fourth 
place, that the joint resolution is temporary in its character and that 
the amendments are permanent.

  In the debate it was urged that the amendments relating to franchises 
were in order because they were germane to the law which it was 
proposed to amend, if not the particular resolution under 
consideration.
  The Speaker \2\ said that he should overrule all the points of order 
except that relating to germaneness. After citing on this point the 
decision of February 6, 1891,\3\ he said:

  The Chair thinks that much of the difficulty in the minds of Members 
comes from the fact that the joint resolution sent from the Senate and 
the amendments added by the Committee on Insular Affairs all refer to 
the same statute, the Porto Rican bill, that became a law some time 
ago. The question as to whether these sections are germane can not be 
determined by the title alone, as has been suggested, because an act 
amending an act will always describe the title amended, although it may 
only touch one feature or part of the law; but the whole resolution has 
to be considered and the amendments to the resolution. If this was not 
clear, possibly the title would be brought into consideration. But 
there is not a particle of doubt as to the purpose of this resolution 
or as to the purpose of the amendments.
  The resolution is for the sole purpose of extending the time in 
regard to the putting in operation of the new government of Porto Rico. 
The amendments are entirely outside of that question and enter upon 
amendments of the law in respect to matters entirely outside of that 
question. They have no relation in any shape or form to the proposition 
of the joint resolution. It will not be contended, if the Committee on 
Rules brought in a report to amend one rule, that thereby, by an 
amendment, you would open up for consideration of the House all the 
rules. A suggestion has been made by one gentleman as to the authority 
cited, and it is seldom within the power of the Chair to find an 
authority so completely on all
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4615; Journal, pp. 
500-501.
  \2\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \3\ See section 5807 of this chapter.
                                                            Sec. 5807
fours like this. In that case the bill treated on the forefeiture of 
land grants, and the amendment was a regulation as to the forfeiture of 
lands, bearing upon the same subject, and that therefore they are not 
similar.
  The case that the Chair has cited shows clearly that it was an 
amendment on the subject of the time when certain regulations went into 
operation. This joint resolution is for the same purpose. The 
amendments here are for wholly another purpose; and every Member of the 
House must see that no one of these amendments is germane to the 
original resolution. Suppose the original resolution was before the 
House for consideration and a Member should move to recommit with 
instructions to add these amendments. The point of order could be made 
at once that they were not germane and that the motion to recommit 
could not be held to be in order when it was asked to do in the House 
what could not be done in the committee. The case is perfectly parallel 
with the other. The Chair profoundly regrets that he has to sustain the 
point of order that it is not germane.\1\

  5807. On February 6, 1891,\2\ the Speaker laid before the House the 
bill of the Senate (S. 4814) to amend an act to forfeit certain lands 
heretofore granted for the purpose of aiding in the construction of 
railroads, and for other purposes. The object of this bill was 
explained by Mr. Lewis E. Payson, chairman of the Committee on the 
Public Lands:

  The general forfeiture bill passed in the last session of Congress 
provided that as to certain characters of lands, which were in 
possession of parties claiming under the settlement law, they should 
have the right to perfect their entry within six months from the date 
of the passage of the act. That act became a law in September last. In 
order to effect the operations of the bill, it became necessary to 
frame a set of instructions in the General Land Office for the guidance 
of the officers of the local land offices the country over. Owing to 
the pressure of business in that Department, it was impossible for the 
Secretary of the Interior to prepare these instructions even down to 
this time. And the six months within which the settlers were to have 
the prior right of asserting their claims have now almost expired; and 
to meet that point, and that point alone, the Senate bill was passed.

  To this bill Mr. Thomas H. Carter, of Montana, moved an amendment 
providing for a method of classification to determine the mineral or 
nonmineral character of lands selected by railroads.
  Mr. Payson made the point of order that the amendment was not germane 
to the bill, and therefore not in order.
  After debate the Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order, making the 
following statement in so doing:

  The Chair can only consider in determining the question whether the 
amendment be germane to the bill before the House and the proposition 
therein contained. The pending bill relates solely to the time when a 
period named in the original act shall begin to run. The amendment 
proposed relates to a reclassification of lands, a subject so remote 
from that of the bill that it can be justified only by a claim that any 
amendment germane to this act proposed to be altered would be germane 
to this bill. But the very claim is its own answer. The test must be 
the bill before the House, for that is the bill which is to be amended.

  5808. On April 23, 1902,\4\ the Senate amendments to the bill (H. R. 
9206) relating to oleomargarine and other imitation dairy products were 
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, when Mr. James R.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ The point of order was overruled, however, on other grounds. On 
January 10, 1884 (first session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 347, 
348), Mr. Speaker Carlisle held that an amendment reported by a 
committee and not germane was not in order. (See also sec. 5906.)
  \2\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 219; Record, pp. 
2254, 2255.
  \3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4597.
Sec. 5809
Mann, of Illinois, proposed a further amendment to a law, of which a 
Senate amendment proposed to amend a certain portion.
  Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, having made a point of order, the 
Chairman \1\ held:

  Senate amendment No. 5 reads thus:
  ``Section 3 of said act is hereby amended by adding thereto the 
following:''
  And then follows a certain proviso. The amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois is to add at the end of that proviso these 
words:
  ``And provided further, That the artificial coloration provided for 
in the preceding paragraph shall not include colored butter.''
  The ``preceding paragraph'' referred to, as the Chair understands, is 
section 3 of a former act of Congress, which is not now before the 
Committee of the Whole.
  On page 323 of the Manual the Chair finds this language:
  ``To a bill amending a general law on a specific point an amendment 
relating to the terms of the law rather than to those of the bill was 
offered and ruled not to be germane.''
  That ruling was made by Speaker Reed. The Chair thinks that it covers 
this case. The amendment of the gentleman from Illinois, while it may 
be germane to the preceding paragraph of section 3 of the earlier act 
of Congress to which it refers, is not germane to the proviso which 
constitutes the Senate amendment, and therefore the Chair sustains the 
point of order.

  5809. It is not in order to amend a pending privileged proposition by 
adding a matter not privileged and not germane to the original 
proposition.--On January 22, 1884,\2\ Mr. Casey Young, of Tennessee, as 
a privileged question, from the Committee on Public Buildings and 
Grounds, under instructions of the House, submitted a report 
accompanied by a resolution requesting the Secretary of War to provide 
some suitable place for the public records in the large room in the 
basement of the Capitol, and that the said room be given to the 
Committee on Rivers and Harbors.
  After debate Mr. Albert S. Willis, of Kentucky, submitted an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, to the effect that the 
enrolling room of the House be set apart for the said committee.
  Pending this Mr. William W. Rice, of Massachusetts, moved to amend 
the amendment by adding thereto the following words:

  And that the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds be instructed 
to inquire if other and additional accommodations can not be procured 
for the Library of Congress, by which the space in the Capitol now used 
for the Library can be used for committee rooms, and report the same.

  Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that 
the amendment was not in order, not being germane to the pending 
amendment.
  The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order on the ground that it 
was not competent when a privileged matter was under consideration to 
amend the pending proposition by adding instructions to a committee in 
relation to a matter not privileged and not germane to the original 
resolution.
  5810. On February 13, 1885,\4\ Mr. Barclay Henley, of California, as 
a privileged matter,\5\ reported, from the Committee on the Public 
Lands, a preamble and resolution reciting that the California and 
Oregon Railroad Company had failed to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 389.
  \3\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 1637; Journal, 
p. 546.
  \5\ Resolutions of inquiry are privileged by the rule.
                                                            Sec. 5811
earn its land grant; that a bill forfeiting that grant had passed the 
House and was in the Senate; that the President, knowing these facts 
and against protests, had appointed commissioners to examine the 
railroad and report, and requesting the President to inform the House 
of his reasons for the appointment of the commission.
  Mr. William C. Oates, of Alabama, offered the following amendment:

  Resolved, That the President of the United States is hereby 
respectfully requested not to confirm any favorable report which may be 
made by the commissioners recently appointed by him to inspect a 
section or sections lately completed of the California and Oregon 
Railroad, nor order patents to issue, until the Senate of the United 
States acts upon H. R. 5897, being a bill to forfeit certain lands 
granted to aid in the construction of said railroad, and which passed 
this House June 6, 1884, or until after the adjournment of the present 
Congress.

  Mr. J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not in order, for the reason that it was not a resolution 
of inquiry or germane to such a resolution nor within the terms of 
Clause I of Rule XXIV.\1\
  The Speaker pro tempore \2\ sustained the point of order on the 
ground that a privileged question on motion could not be amended by 
adding thereto matter not privileged or germane to the original 
resolution.
  The Speaker pro tempore said:

  The Chair does not think that it is competent by way of amendment to 
submit to the House for its action that which is not privileged in its 
character in lieu of that which has the right of privilege, and which 
besides is not germane to the matter which is submitted as a privileged 
report. The Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from 
Ohio and holds that it is not competent to bring in, in the nature of 
an amendment to the resolution of inquiry, which is privileged under 
the rule, a resolution such as that suggested by the gentleman from 
Alabama. * * * This is not a resolution of inquiry as submitted by the 
gentleman from Alabama and would not have been in order as a privileged 
matter unless it had been a resolution of inquiry reported back, as the 
resolution comes from the gentleman from California.

  5811. Under the later decisions the principle has been established 
that an amendment should be germane to the particular paragraph or 
section to which it is offered.--On June 5, 1878,\3\ the House was 
considering the bill (H. R. 4414) to amend the laws relating to 
internal revenue, and had reached the paragraph which defined a 
manufacturer of tobacco and established the requirement that he should 
pay a special tax.
  To this paragraph Mr. James W. Covert, of New York, proposed an 
amendment, placing a certain internal-revenue tax on snuff, cigars, and 
smoking and chewing tobacco.
  Mr. Omar D. Conger, of Michigan, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not in order, not being germane to the pending paragraph.
  The Speaker pro tempore \4\ overruled the point of order on the 
ground that it was not necessary that it should be germane to the 
pending paragraph, but to the general provisions of the bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ This was the old numbering of the rule relating to resolutions of 
inquiry. It is now section 5 of Rule XXII.
  \2\ Joseph C. S. Blackburn, of Kentucky, Speaker pro tempore.
  \3\ Second session Forty-fifth Congress, Journal, p. 1230; Record, 
pp. 4161, 4162.
  \4\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky. Speaker pro tempore.
Sec. 5812
  The record of debate shows that Mr. Conger, who made the point of 
order, said:

  I make the point of order because, if there be a place in this bill 
where the amendment would be germane, it would be better to have the 
amendment come in its proper place, and not mix up one branch of the 
subject with another which is evidently not germane to it. My point of 
order is, that under the rules of the House this amendment can not come 
in at this place. If there be a place where the Chair shall hold that 
it would be germane, then it can be offered at that place.

  The Speaker pro tempore said:

  The Chair believes it has always been held that in determining 
whether or not an amendment is germane the Presiding Officer must look 
to the general subject to which the bill relates, and not merely to the 
particular provisions of the bill. Now the general subject to which 
this bill relates is the internal revenue system of the country. It 
contains a provision which is intended to increase the tax on 
spirituous liquors in one respect, by imposing that tax upon the 
fractional gallon. It also contains another provision, if the Chair 
remembers correctly, which is intended to diminish the tax on 
spirituous liquors in one respect, by exempting from a certain part of 
the tax distilleries which distill not exceeding a certain quantity in 
a certain time. It relates generally in all its provisions to the 
internal-revenue system; and the Chair is therefore of opinion that any 
amendment relating alone to that system is in order, while an amendment 
relating to that system and also to something else would not be in 
order.

  5812. On March 26, 1897,\1\ the tariff bill was under consideration 
in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and the 
Clerk had read the first paragraph, as follows:

  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That on and after the 
1st day of May, 1897, unless otherwise specially provided for in this 
act, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon all articles 
imported from foreign countries or withdrawn for consumption, and 
mentioned in the schedules herein contained, the rates of duty which 
are by the schedules and paragraphs respectively prescribed, namely:

  To this Mr. Alexander M. Dockery, of Missouri, proposed this 
amendment:

  Provided, That when it is shown to the satisfaction of the Secretary 
of the Treasury that such articles are manufactured, controlled, or 
produced in the United States by a trust or trusts, the importation of 
such articles from foreign countries shall be free of duty until such 
manufacture, control, or production shall have ceased, in the opinion 
of the Secretary of the Treasury.

  Mr. Nelson Dingley, of Maine, made a point of order against the 
amendment, saying:

  An amendment placing on the free list, under certain conditions, 
articles that are now on the dutiable list is not germane to that 
portion of the bill which provides for the imposition of duties. Now, 
Mr. Chairman, it has been suggested that there has been a ruling in a 
former House, and attention has been called to it, to the effect that 
it does not necessarily follow--and please bear in mind the effect of 
that language that it does not necessarily follow--that an amendment 
proposed must be germane to the particular paragraph provided that it 
is germane to another part of the bill. But under what conditions was 
that ruling made? It was on an internal-revenue bill, a bill which 
provided for the imposition of duties on tobacco and certain other 
products of the country. It was entirely devoted to that particular 
subject. It was an internal tax, every section of which dealt with that 
particular subject and that only, and the one subject running through 
it all--that of the imposition of the tax. It did not necessarily 
follow that the amendment, therefore, should apply to any particular 
paragraph more than to another. It was applicable to any portion of the 
bill. But we have a different condition presented now. When a bill is 
before the House containing two or three very distinct subjects, one 
imposing a duty, the other placing certain articles upon the free list, 
and another imposing certain conditions, then, for the orderly pro
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p, 353.
                                                            Sec. 5813
cedure of the business of the House and the orderly transaction of its 
business, it is incumbent upon the Chair to hold that each amendment 
shall be germane to that particular part of the bill to which it is 
proposed to apply it.

  The Chairman\1\ ruled as follows:

  The pending bill is a bill to provide revenue for the Government and 
to encourage the industries of the United States.
  Section 2 of the bill, on page 123, provides that after the 1st day 
of May the articles thereafter enumerated, when imported, shall be 
exempt from duty.
  To the first paragraph the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Dockery] 
offers an amendment providing that under certain conditions all 
articles upon the dutiable list shall be transferred to the free list. 
To that amendment the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Dingley] raises the 
point of order that it is not in order at that point in the bill. The 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bailey] cites a decision of the then Speaker 
in the Forty-fifth Congress, referred to upon page 271 of the Digest. 
That was a decision rendered by the distinguished gentleman from 
Kentucky, Mr. Carlisle, acting as Speaker pro tempore. The decision, as 
shown by the Congressional Record, does not carry out the statement 
upon page 271 of the Digest. That decision held that any amendment must 
be germane to the general provision of a bill. It did not hold that 
being germane to the provisions of a bill it was permissible at any 
point. It did hold that the amendment then presented to the bill at the 
point was admissible.
  The question before the Chair here and now is not whether the 
committee is liable to reach page 123 of the bill. The Chair can not 
take into consideration that probability, as suggested by the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Dockery], but must rule upon the question as it is 
now presented, to wit, Is the amendment presented germane to this 
provision? The Chair holds that the amendment is not germane, and 
therefore sustains the point of order.

  Mr. Dockery having appealed from the decision, the committee 
sustained the Chair by a vote of 158 ayes to 104 noes.
  5813. On March 30, 1897 \2\ while the tariff bill was under 
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, offered to the appropriate 
paragraph an amendment relating to aniline and certain derivatives used 
in the making of coal-tar colors.
  To this amendment Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, offered an 
amendment, as follows:

  It shall be lawful to import into this country free of all duty 
foreign commodities that may be purchased or paid for by the avails of 
agricultural products of the United States exported and sold in foreign 
countries.
  That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and required 
to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry this 
provision into effect.

  Mr. Payne made the point of order that the amendment was not germane.
  The Chair \1\ sustained the point of order.
  5814. On March 31, 1897,\1\ the tariff bill being under consideration 
in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, Mr. Charles 
H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, presented an amendment providing that in certain 
cases the duties named in the bill should be retroactive.
  To this amendment Mr. Alexander M. Dockery, of Missouri, offered as 
an amendment a provision that articles manufactured, produced, or 
controlled by trusts should be admitted free of duty.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 474.
  \3\ First session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 529.
 Sec. 5815
  Mr. Dingley made the point of order that the amendment to the 
amendment was not germane.
  The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order.
  5815. On April 1, 1898,\2\ the naval appropriation bill was under 
consideration by paragraphs in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union, and the Clerk had read the paragraph:

  For the installation of electric plants in gunboats numbered 10, 11, 
12, and 13, $40,000.

  To this Mr. Levin I. Handy, of Delaware, offered this amendment:

  No money appropriated in this act shall, after the next vacancy 
occurs on the active list in his grade, be paid any officer on the 
retired list under the regular retiring age and not having the legal 
forty years' service, whom the Navy Department may deem able 
physically, mentally, and morally to resume on the active list the 
duties of his existing commission, and may order back to duty in the 
said active-list vacancy.

  Mr. Charles A. Boutelle, of Maine, made a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order on the ground that the 
amendment was not germane to the section.
  5816. On April 29, 1898,\3\ the House was in Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union considering the bill (H. R. 10100) to 
provide ways and means to meet war expenditures.
  The Clerk read section 27 of the bill, which gave authority to the 
Secretary of the Treasury to borrow $500,000,000, issuing therefor 
certain described bonds, under certain conditions.
  To this section Mr. James Hamilton Lewis, of Washington, proposed an 
amendment levying a tax upon the franchises of all corporations.
  Mr. Nelson Dingley, of Maine, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the section.
  The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order.
  5817. On December 5, 1900 \4\ the bill (S. 4300) ``An act increasing 
the efficiency of the military establishment of the United States'' was 
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, and the Clerk had read the paragraph fixing the size and form of 
organization of the Army.
  Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, proposed an amendment providing for 
filling vacancies in certain departments by appointments from civil 
life.
  Mr. John A. T. Hull, of Iowa, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to this paragraph, but would be in order in 
another portion of the bill.
  The Chairman \5\ sustained the point of order.
  5818. On March 10, 1902,\6\ while the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 11728) relating 
to the rural free-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 3483.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4449.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 82, 83.
  \5\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Chairman
  \6\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2580.
                                                            Sec. 5819
delivery service in the Post-Office Department, Mr. George W. Smith, of 
Illinois, offered an amendment to a certain paragraph of the bill.
  Mr. Claude A. Swanson, of Virginia, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to this portion of the bill, but would be 
germane to the fourth paragraph.
  The Chairman \1\ said:

  The Chair is clearly of the opinion that inasmuch as the bill is now 
being considered by paragraphs, and inasmuch as the amendment offered 
by the gentleman is expressly covered by paragraph 4, toward the close 
of the bill, this amendment is germane to that paragraph and not to the 
paragraph now under consideration. * * * It seems to the Chair that the 
admission which the gentleman has made would indicate quite clearly 
that this amendment is in order, not to the pending paragraph, but to 
paragraph 4, because the gentleman says that paragraph would have to be 
stricken out if this were adopted. The Chair rules that it is not now 
in order, but that it would be in order when paragraph 4 is reached.

  5819. On May 26, 1902,\2\ the House was considering the bill (S. 493) 
to amend an act entitled ``An act to establish a code of law for the 
District of Columbia,'' when the following paragraph was read:

  Amend section 3 by adding at the end of said section the words: ``No 
justice of the peace during his term of office shall engage in the 
practice of the law, subject to the penalty of removal from his 
office.''

  Thereupon Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, proposed an amendment to 
another portion of the section of the code so as to change the number 
of the justices.
  The Speaker \3\ said:

  If the Chair can have the attention of the gentleman from Illinois a 
moment, the Chair sees what the gentleman from Illinois is seeking to 
accomplish. There have been a number of decisions bearing upon this 
question, some by the Chair in the last Congress, and others before 
that. It seems to the Chair that the gentleman can reach the matter 
that he seeks to reach by an amendment to this bill in section 3, where 
the justices of the peace are treated of, by a proviso that there shall 
not be more than eight, or whatever number he wishes, so long as the 
amendment is aimed at the pending bill. Of course, the House can revise 
the code if it wants to; but it has here simply the amendments of the 
Senate. Those amendments are the subject-matter now before the House.

  5820. On March 25,1904, \4\ the Post-Office appropriation bill was 
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, when Mr. Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, proposed an 
amendment relating to the duties of carriers in the rural free-delivery 
service.
  Mr. Jesse Overstreet made the point of order that the amendment was 
not germane.
  The Chairman \5\ held:

  The Chair thinks that on the question of germaneness the question of 
comparison as arising in the arrangement of a bill comes in; that if an 
amendment is more appropriate to one paragraph than to another it is 
not to be considered germane to t1re paragraph to which it is less 
appropriate. Section 3 relates to securing revenue from the rural 
delivery service. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Olmsted] refers to soliciting which may be done by 
the carrier. The Chair feels quite clear that this amendment would more 
properly come in as an amendment to the paragraph relating to the 
privileges of free-delivery carriers. Therefore the point of order is 
sustained.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 5938, 5939.
  \3\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 3710, 3711.
  \5\ H. S. Boutell, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 5821
  5821. A bill being considered under exceptional circumstances, an 
amendment germane to the bill, but not strictly germane to the section, 
was admitted.
  Forms of special orders.
  On June 25, 1906,\1\ Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, from the 
Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution, which was agreed 
to by the House, ayes 151, noes 59.

  Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this order the House 
shall resolve-itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union for consideration of the bill (S. 4403) ``To amend an act 
entitled `An act to regulate the immigration of aliens into the United 
States,' approved March 3, 1903,'' and in the Committee of the Whole 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute reported by the Committee 
on Immigration and Naturalization shall be read through, after which 
section I of the said amendment shall be considered for not longer than 
one hour under the five minute rule for amendments; and at the end of 
the consideration of section I section 38 shall in the same way be 
considered for not longer than two hours, with the provision that 
amendments pending at the end of the two hours shall be voted on by the 
committee; and immediately after the vote on the said specified 
amendments to section 38 the Committee of the Whole shall rise and the 
Chairman shall report the bill and substitute amendment, whereupon a 
vote shall be taken on the substitute and bill to the final passage, 
without intervening motion or repeal. General leave is given to print, 
to be confined to a discussion of the bill, within five legislative 
days from to-day.

  During the consideration of the said section 38, which provided for 
an educational test in the admission of immigrants, Mr. Charles H. 
Grosvenor, of Ohio, proposed an amendment to strike out the section and 
insert a new section providing that there be created a commission to 
study the whole subject of immigration.
  Mr. Augustus P. Gardner, of Massachusetts, made the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane to the section.
  The Chairman \2\ held:

  The Chair will state that, in the opinion of the present occupant of 
the chair, the amendment is in order. There is not a uniformity of 
decisions on this question. In times past it has been held that an 
amendment of this character must be germane to the section and at other 
times it has been held that it is in order if it be germane to any 
portion of the bill. Under the circumstances which exist, because of 
the adoption of the rule by the House under which this bill is being 
considered in the Committee of the Whole and by reason of the fact that 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Littauer] was 
not strictly in order, for, at least, it was a question whether or not 
it was in order, and the committee did not see fit to make a point of 
order, and itself fixed the rule in this instance, the Chair believes 
that the amendment is in order, and therefore overrules the point of 
order made by the gentleman from Massachusetts. The Chair will further 
state that this being in the nature of a substitute, it is not in order 
until the section shall have been perfected by amendment, and not in 
order for voting, and therefore will not rise until the expiration of 
the two hours given for the consideration of this section.

  5822. An amendment inserting an additional section should be germane 
to the portion of the bill where it is offered.--On August 11, 1852,\3\ 
during consideration of the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill in 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, Mr. Edward 
Stanly offered as an additional section a provision for the completion 
of the hospital at Cleveland, Ohio.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 9152-9166.
  \2\ James E. Watson, of Indiana, Chairman.
  \3\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Globe, p. 2191.
                                                            Sec. 5823
  Mr. George S. Houston, of Alabama, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not in order at this portion of the bill.
  The Chairman \1\ said:

  The Chair decides that we have passed the point in the bill at which 
it might have been offered. We shall never finish the bill unless some 
rule of this kind be observed. There is a provision in the bill for the 
completion of marine hospitals, and after that clause of the bill was 
passed, the Chair ruled that amendments properly applicable to that 
clause of the bill at the time it was under consideration could not be 
received or entertained by the committee afterwards. The Chair so ruled 
upon an amendment which was offered, proposing to amend the first 
clause of this bill, in relation to appropriations for the pay of the 
legislative department of the Government, but that amendment was 
received by universal consent.

  5823. An amendment germane to a bill as a whole but hardly germane to 
any one section may be offered at an appropriate place with notice of 
motions to strike out following sections which it would supersede.--On 
January 26, 1901,\2\ the bill (H. R. 13423) for the codification of the 
postal laws, was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union, when the Clerk read the section authorizing 
positions and salaries for a Superintendent of the railway mail 
service, a chief clerk, and certain division superintendents and 
assistant division superintendents in the same service.
  To this Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, offered an amendment, 
striking out the section as read and inserting a comprehensive scheme 
of classification for the railway mail service, dealing not only with 
the superintendent and his assistants, but with all the personnel of 
the service.
  Mr. Eugene F. Loud, of California, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the section under consideration, although 
he admitted that it was germane to the bill.
  The Chairman \3\ said:

  This is one of the embarrassments in the consideration of a 
codification bill. It covers very much territory. If it is germane to 
the bill and in some degree germane to the section also, as well as to 
other sections of the bill, the gentleman offering the amendment, the 
Chair thinks, would have the privilege of attaching it to any one of 
the particular sections to which it is in part germane and would then 
have an opportunity, or should have an opportunity, of moving to strike 
out the other sections which the amendment supplants. * * * The Chair 
overrules the point of order.

  5824. To a bill amending a general law in several particulars an 
amendment providing for the repeal of the whole law was held to be 
germane.--On June 17, 1902,\4\ the House was considering the bill (H. 
R. 13679) to amend an act entitled ``An act to establish a uniform 
system of bankruptcy throughout the United States,'' approved July 1, 
1898, when Mr. David A. De Armond, of Missouri, offered the following 
amendment:

  Amend by striking out all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following in lieu thereof:
  ``That the act approved July 1, 1898, entitled `An act to establish a 
uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States,' be, and the 
same is hereby, repealed: Provided, That nothing herein shall in any 
way affect proceedings under said act begun prior to the taking effect 
of this act, and this act shall take effect ninety days after the 
approval thereof.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John S. Phelps, of Missouri, Chairman.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1532, 1533.
  \3\ John F. Lacey, of Iowa, Chairman.
  \4\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 818, 819; 
Record, pp. 6948-6952.
Sec. 5824
  Mr. George W. Ray, of New York, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane.
  After debate the Speaker pro tempore \1\ ruled:

  The bill before the House is a bill ``to amend an act entitled `An 
act to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United 
States,' approved July 1, 1898.'' To that bill the gentleman from 
Missouri offers an amendment * * *. To this proposed amendment the 
point is made that it is not germane.
  It is apparent from even a casual examination of the bill that it is 
a general amendatory bill. Section 1 relates to clause 15 of section 1 
of the existing bankruptcy law; section 2 relates to clause 5 of 
section 2 of the existing bankruptcy law; section 3 relates to clause 4 
of subdivision A of section 3 of the bankruptcy law; section 6 relates 
to section 17, and section 10 relates to section 40, and so on, 
skipping from section to section throughout the entire law, without 
regard to the particular relation of these sections to each other. In 
other words, 16 sections in all of the 70 sections of the bankruptcy 
law are here sought to be amended, or more than one-fourth of the 
entire law.
  While the Chair has been unable to find any precedents on this 
question, it has deduced some general principles from former decisions 
that throw some light upon it. In the Fifty-first Congress it was held 
that to a bill amending a general law on a specific point an amendment 
relating to the terms of the law rather than to those of the bill was 
not germane.\2\ The bill in question was an amendment to a general 
land-forfeiture bill fixing the time when the original act should take 
effect, and the amendment offered was an amendment providing for the 
method of classification of the lands described in the original act, so 
as to determine the character of the land selected by the railroad. The 
decision, which was made by Speaker Reed, was upon the ground that the 
bill related only to one certain specific point and did not involve the 
general features of the bill sought to be amended.
  Substantially the same principle was recognized by Speaker Henderson 
in a case \3\ where amendments were offered of a general character to 
the Senate joint resolution providing for the administration of civil 
affairs in Porto Rico pending the appointment and qualification of the 
civil officers provided for in the act approved April 24, 1900. The 
same distinction was there drawn between the germaneness of an 
amendment which was offered to a bill having a single purpose and an 
amendment to a bill covering several purposes or one general subject. 
On the other hand, but illustrating the same general principle, 
recently in the discussion on the omnibus statehood bill it was held by 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hemenway], the chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole, that an amendment offered to include the Indian 
Territory was germane, because the pending bill related not to one 
particular Territory but was a general statehood bill, including 
Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona.\4\
  Had the bill been to admit a State the amendment would not have been 
in order, but it being a bill to admit States the subject of admission 
generally made the amendment competent. In the light of the principles 
thus announced, the Chair is inclined to think that any amendment that 
would be germane to the law sought to be amended would be germane to 
the pending bill.
  It needs no argument to show that it would be competent to amend the 
pending bill, disposing of it section by section. For example, section 
1 may be amended by striking out the words ``amended so as to read as 
follows'' and by substituting the word ``repealed;'' so that the 
section would read: ``That clause 15 of section 1 of an act entitled 
`An act to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the 
United States,' approved July 1, 1898, be, and the same is hereby, 
repealed.''
  The same method may be followed in the case of each and all of the 
sections of the bill in their order. And this process, in the opinion 
of the Chair, may be made to reach to other paragraphs of the 
bankruptcy law than those specifically referred to in the pending 
amendatory bill, because all the sections of the bankruptcy law are 
germane to each other.
  For example, it would be in order to amend the bill by adding 
additional sections amendatory of sections of the bankruptcy law not 
referred to in the bill.
  If this be so, then it would be equally in order to amend the bill by 
adding additional sections repealing sections of the bankruptcy law not 
referred to in this bill. If this process of reasoning be correct,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Speaker pro tempore.
  \2\ See section 5807 of this chapter.
  \3\ See section 5806 of this chapter.
  \4\ See section 5838 of this chapter.
                                                            Sec. 5825
then it is clear that by resort to the methods suggested the entire 
bankruptcy law may be repealed by indirection. As it is, one of the 
purposes of parliamentary rules is to provide for the most direct 
method of disposing of legislation, and as by the process described the 
effect intended by this amendment can be reached, the Chair is of the 
opinion that the amendment must be germane, and therefore overrules the 
point of order.

  5825. To a bill making deficiency appropriations for the Government 
Printing Office, among which was none relating to the salary of the 
Public Printer, an amendment legislating in relation to the selection 
of that official was held not to be germane.
  While a committee may report a bill embracing different subjects, it 
is not in order during consideration in the House to introduce a new 
subject by way of amendment.
  Review of the history of the rule requiring amendments to be germane.
  Under the common parliamentary law amendments need not be germane.\1\
  On March 17, 1880,\2\ the House was considering ``a bill making 
appropriations to supply certain deficiencies in the appropriations for 
the service of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, 
and for other purposes,'' when Mr. Otho R. Singleton, of Mississippi, 
offered an amendment for the purpose of repealing the law making the 
Public Printer an officer appointed by the President; making the Public 
Printer an elective officer of the House of Representatives, etc.
  Mr. John A. McMahon, of Ohio, made a point of order against the 
amendment.
  After debate the Chairman \3\ ruled.

  The amendment submitted by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
Singleton], under instructions from the Committee on Printing, is 
objected to upon two grounds: First, that it is not germane to the 
subject-matter of the bill under consideration; and, secondly, that it 
is in substance the same as a bill heretofore reported by the Committee 
on Printing and now pending before the House.
  Notice of this amendment was given several days since, and during the 
general debate in the Committee of the Whole the Chair was advised that 
a point of order would be raised against it; so that a reasonable 
opportunity has been afforded to examine the subject, and the Chair 
will now state the conclusions at which he has arrived.
  In the absence of an express rule, the amendment would not be liable 
to a point of order upon the ground that it was inconsistent with or 
not germane to the subject under consideration, for, according to the 
common parliamentary law of this country and of England, a legislative 
assembly might by an amendment, in the ordinary form or in the form of 
a substitute, change the entire character of any bill or other 
proposition pending. It might entirely displace the original subject 
under consideration, and in its stead adopt one wholly foreign to it, 
both in form and in substance.
  But ever since the 4th of March, 1789, this House has had a rule 
which changed the common parliamentary law in this respect, at least as 
to substitutes, and ever since 1822 as to amendments in any form. The 
Congress of the Confederation, in 1781, adopted a rule in the following 
words:
  ``No new motion or proposition shall be admitted under color of 
amendment as a substitute for a question or proposition under debate 
until it is postponed or disagreed to.''
  The House of Representatives of the First Congress, on the 4th of 
March, 1789, adopted the following rule upon this subject:
  ``No new motion or proposition shall be admitted under color of 
amendment as a substitute for the motion or proposition under debate.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ See also section 5802 of this chapter.
  \2\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1651.
  \3\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Chairman.
Sec. 5825
  It will be observed that each of these rules admitted amendments 
introducing new motions or propositions, if they were not offered as 
substitutes for the motion or proposition under debate. But in March, 
1822, the House changed the rule of 1789 so as to make it read as 
follows:
  ``No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under 
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
  And in this form the rule has stood ever since, and now constitutes a 
part of the seventh clause of Rule XVI in the recent revision. The rule 
does not prohibit a committee reporting a bill from embracing in it as 
many different subjects as it may choose; but after the bill has been 
reported to the House no different subject can be introduced into it by 
amendment, whether as a substitute or otherwise.
  When, therefore, it is objected that a proposed amendment is not in 
order because it is not germane, the meaning of the objection is simply 
that it (the proposed amendment) is a motion or proposition on a 
subject different from that under consideration. This is the test of 
admissibility prescribed by the express language of the rule; and if 
the Chair, upon an examination of the bill under consideration and the 
proposed amendment, shall be of the opinion that they do not relate to 
the same subject, he is bound to sustain the objection and exclude the 
amendment, subject, of course, to the revisory power of the Committee 
of the Whole on appeal.
  It is not always easy to determine whether or not a proposed 
amendment relates to a subject different from that under consideration, 
within the meaning of the rule; and it is especially difficult to do so 
when, as in the present instance, the amendment may, by reason of the 
terms it employs, appear to have a remote relation to, the original 
subject.
  The subject to which the bill now under consideration relates is very 
clearly set forth in its title. It is ``a bill making appropriations to 
supply certain deficiencies in the appropriations for the service of 
the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, and for other 
purposes.'' The appropriations ``for other purposes'' contained in the 
bill do not relate at all to any of the subjects embraced in the 
amendment, and therefore need not be noticed. The words ``for other 
purposes'' are used here, as they usually are, to embrace subjects 
outside of the main subjects to which the bill relates, and which are 
reported by the committee itself.
  The bill relates to no other subjects than appropriations of money 
for the purpose stated, ``to supply deficiencies in the appropriations 
for the service of the Government.'' One of the deficiencies which the 
bill provides for is the Government Printing Office. But the bill 
carefully enumerates the items for which the appropriation is to be 
made, and the salary of the Public Printer is not among them.
  The proposed amendment has no relation to the appropriation of money 
for any purpose. It neither increases nor diminishes the amount 
proposed to be appropriated by the bill; nor does it in any manner 
affect the expenditure of the money proposed to be appropriated by the 
bill. The salary of the Public Printer for the current fiscal year has 
already been provided for in full, and it does not appear that there is 
any deficiency on that account.
  The amendment relates solely to the method of choosing a Public 
Printer; to the nature of the duties to be performed by him, and to the 
amount of his salary. As already stated, the original bill embraces 
none of these matters; and consequently none of these subjects are now 
under consideration. It seems quite clear, therefore, that the proposed 
amendment, if admitted, would introduce for consideration one or more 
new subjects, and is for that reason prohibited by the express language 
of the rule.
  Under the rule as it stood prior to 1822 the amendment, although on a 
subject different from that under consideration, would be in order, for 
it is not offered as a substitute for the bill or for the clause under 
consideration. But as already noticed, the prohibition applies now as 
well to ordinary amendments as to substitutes.
  Since the adoption of the rule in its present form there have been 
several decisions under it; and so far as the Chair has been able to 
discover, in every instance where an amendment proposed to introduce an 
entirely new subject it has been excluded. The Chair refers to the 
Journal of the House, Twenty-seventh Congress, first session, page 223, 
for a decision by Mr. Speaker White; Journal of the House, Thirtieth 
Congress, first session, page 737, a decision by Mr. Speaker Winthrop; 
Journal of the House, Thirtieth Congress, second session, page 645 
(Speaker Winthrop overruled); Journal of the House, Thirty-first 
Congress, first session, pages 1509 and 1510, a decision by Mr. Speaker 
Cobb.
                                                            Sec. 5826
  Having disposed of the point of order upon the first ground presented 
it is unnecessary to express an opinion upon the second ground, and the 
Chair prefers not to do so.
  The fourth clause of Rule XXI provides that ``no bill or resolution 
shall at any time be amended by annexing thereto or incorporating 
therewith the substance of any other bill or resolution pending before 
the House.'' \1\ Where a proposed amendment differs in any respect from 
a bill or resolution pending before the House, it will always be more 
or less difficult to determine whether or not they are substantially 
the same; and the Chair thinks he ought not to attempt to decide such a 
question unless it be absolutely necessary to do so.

  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is excluded.

  5826. To a bill for the relief of one individual an amendment 
providing a similar relief for another individual is not germane.--On 
February 18, 1886,\2\ the previous question had been ordered on the 
passage of the bill for the relief of Fitz-John Porter by appointing 
him to a certain rank in the Army and placing him on the retired list, 
when Mr. William Warner, of Missouri, moved to recommit the bill to the 
Committee on Military Affairs with instruction to add a second section, 
authorizing the President to appoint Andrew J. Smith a brigadier-
general in the Army of the United States and place him upon the retired 
list.
  Mr. Bragg, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that this 
proposition was not germane to the subject of the bill.
  After debate the Speaker \3\ ruled:

  The bill under consideration is a private bill, the title of which is 
``An act for the relief of Fitz-John Porter.'' So far as the Chair 
knows, it has always been held in the House that a bill for the benefit 
of one private individual could not be amended so as to extend its 
provisions to another by an amendment offered upon the floor, and the 
present occupant of the chair has had occasion to decide very 
frequently that it is not competent to do indirectly, by recommitting a 
bill with instructions, that which could not be done directly by an 
amendment.

  5827. On March 3, 1853,\4\ Mr. Albert G. Brown, of Mississippi, 
submitted by unanimous consent this resolution:

  Resolved, That the Clerk of the House, in executing so much of the 
resolution passed this day as relates to John Lewis Hickman, shall only 
compute the number of days that said Hickman has been actually employed 
during the sittings of Congress.

  Thereupon Mr. Thomas Y. Walsh, of Maryland, moved to amend the same 
by adding thereto a provision for the increase of the compensation paid 
to Francis Reilly for his services as a laborer in the Clerk's office.
  Mr. James L. Orr, of South Carolina, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane and consequently not in order.
  The Speaker pro tempore \5\ sustained the point of order and decided 
the amendment to be out of order.
  On an appeal the Chair was sustained.
  5828. On April 17, 1896,\6\ Mr. Andrew R. Kiefer, of Minnesota, by 
unanimous consent, presented the following bill:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ This is no longer a rule of the House.
  \2\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 1619, 1620; 
Journal, pp. 702, 703.
  \3\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, p. 414.
  \5\ Isham G. Harris, of Tennessee, Speaker pro tempore.
  \6\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 4096.
Sec. 5829
  Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Navy be, and he is 
hereby, authorized and directed to donate one condemned cannon and four 
pyramids of condemned cannon balls to the cemetery association in the 
city of St. Paul, Minn., for the purpose of placing the same at or near 
the monument erected to the memory of Union soldiers who are buried in 
the said cemetery.

  To this Mr. William A. Stone, of Pennsylvania, proposed the following 
amendment:

  And also three condemned cannon for the Grand Army of the Republic 
Post, No. 121 (Col. John M. Patterson Post), for the purpose of 
decorating the soldiers' plat in the South Side Cemetery, Pittsburg, 
Pa.

  Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, made a point of order against 
this amendment.
  The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order.
  5829. On July 27, 1894,\2\ by unanimous consent, on motion of Mr. 
William J. Bryan, of Nebraska, the Committee of the Whole House was 
discharged from the consideration of the bill (S. 463) to reimburse the 
State of Nebraska the expenses incurred by that State in repelling a 
threatened invasion and raid by the Sioux in 1890 and 1891, and the 
same was considered and was read twice.
  Mr. John A. Pickler, of South Dakota, submitted the following 
amendment:

  Add to the bill the following: ``And also audit and report as to like 
expenditures for the same time incurred by the State of South Dakota.''

  Mr. Joseph D. Sayers, of Texas, made the point that the amendment was 
not germane to the bill.
  The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order, holding that it was not 
in order to ingraft upon a bill for the relief of one individual or 
State a provision for the relief of another.
  5830. To a provision for an additional judge in one Territory an 
amendment providing for an additional judge in another Territory was 
held not to be germane.--On April 22, 1897,\4\ the House was 
considering, in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
the Senate amendments to the Indian appropriation bill, the particular 
amendment before the Committee being one to provide for the appointment 
of two additional judges for Indian Territory.
  Mr. H. B. Fergusson, of New Mexico, moved to concur in this 
amendment, with an amendment providing for an additional judge for the 
Territory of New Mexico.
  Mr. Nelson Dingley made the point of order that the amendment was not 
germane.
  The Chairman \5\ held:

  The amendment of the Senate provides for additional judges for the 
Indian Territory. The amendment of the gentleman from New Mexico 
proposes, as the Chair understands, to authorize a new judge for the 
Territory of New Mexico. That would not be germane to the amendment of 
the Senate. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 514, 515; 
Record, pp. 7940, 7941.
  \3\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 814.
  \5\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 5831
  5831. For a time a different principle prevailed in rulings of this 
class.--On March 4, 1852,\1\ the House was considering a bill (H. R. 
214) granting land to the State of Wisconsin to aid in the construction 
of a railroad and granting a right of way.
  Mr. Ben Edwards Grey, of Kentucky, moved to amend the same by adding 
thereto a provision for a grant of lands to Kentucky in aid of certain 
railroads.
  Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill under consideration.
  The Speaker \2\ stated that, inasmuch as the bill provided for a 
donation of lands to a State for railroads therein, it was competent to 
amend it by a provision for a donation to other States for similar 
purposes. He therefore overruled the point of order.
  Mr. Cyrus L. Dunham, of Indiana, having appealed, the appeal was laid 
on the table.
  Again, on July 29, 1852,\3\ Mr. Speaker Boyd, in a case involving the 
same conditions, reaffirmed the principles of this ruling.
  On March 2, 1857, Mr. Speaker Banks decided that, to a bill granting 
land to Minnesota for railroad purposes, an amendment granting land to 
Alabama was germane.\4\
  5832. To a bill providing for extermination of the cotton boll weevil 
an amendment including the gypsy moth was held not to be germane.--On 
January 8, 1904,\5\ the House was considering a proposition to make 
available for combating the ravages of the boll weevil and other 
insects destructive to the cotton plant an appropriation hitherto made 
for combating the foot-and-mouth disease among cattle.
  Mr. Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, proposed an amendment 
authorizing the use of a further sum for combating the gypsy moth.
  Mr. James W. Wadsworth, of New York, made the point of order that the 
proposed amendment was not germane.
  After debate the Speaker \6\ said:

  The effect of this bill is to make an appropriation which was made by 
the act of March 3, 1903, to stamp out the foot-and-mouth disease, also 
available to stamp out the boll weevil, and for that purpose only--a 
single purpose. Now, the point of order is made that this proposed 
amendment to the bill, to add the gypsy moth, is not germane.
  The Chair is not without precedents touching this point of order. On 
page 324 of the Manual the following decisions are found:
  ``To a bill providing for the admission of one Territory an amendment 
providing also for the admission of several other Territories was 
offered, and held not to be in order.\7\
  ``To a bill admitting one Territory into the Union an amendment 
relating to the statehood of another Territory is not germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, p. 427; Globe, p. 
673.
  \2\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, p. 967.
  \4\ Third session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 621.
  \5\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 575; Journal, p. 
118.
  \6\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \7\ See section 5837 of this chapter.
Sec. 5833
  ``It is not in order to ingraft upon a bill for the relief of one 
State a provision for the relief of another.'' \1\
  And various others along the same line. It has frequently been held 
that a bill to pension A is not amendable by a provision to pension B. 
Now, when you apply the former practice of the House and the decisions 
made by the Chair and concurred in by the House, it is evident that 
this amendment is not germane under the precedents; and the Chair 
sustains the point of order.

  5833. To a paragraph appropriating for a clerk to one committee an 
amendment providing for a clerk to another committee was held not to be 
germane.--On April 16, 1904,\2\ the general deficiency appropriation 
bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union, when the Clerk read:

  For clerk to the Committee on Industrial Arts and Expositions during 
the fiscal year 1905, $2,000.

  Mr. George W. Smith proposed to amend the paragraph by adding a 
provision so that it would read as follows:

  For clerk to the Committee on Industrial Arts and Expositions and for 
clerk to the Committee on Private Land Claims during the fiscal year 
1905, $2,000 each, in all, $4,000.

  Mr. James A. Hemenway, of Indiana, having made a point of order, the 
Chairman \3\ held:

  The Chair is of opinion that the point of order must be sustained. 
The amendment has no kind of relation to the paragraph, although it is 
the same kind of a proposition. If a bill were pending before the 
committee providing for the payment of a private pension to one 
individual, an amendment providing for a pension for another individual 
also would not be germane, although it would be of the same class of 
legislation. So here we have a proposition to pay a clerk for one 
designated committee, and an amendment to include another committee is 
not germane. The rule may be otherwise if the paragraph sought to be 
amended embraced a number of committees.

  5834. A resolution from the Committee on Rules providing for the 
consideration of a bill relating to a certain subject may not be 
amended by a proposition providing for the consideration of another and 
not germane subject.
  It is not in order to do indirectly by a motion to recommit with 
instructions what may not be done directly by way of amendment.
  On May 6, 1897,\4\ the House was considering a resolution reported 
from the Committee on Rules providing that ``from and after this day 
the House shall meet only on Monday and Thursday of each week until the 
further order of the House.''
  Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, moved to recommit the resolution, 
with instruction to report as a substitute a resolution providing a 
time for the consideration of the bankruptcy bill (S. 1035).
  Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, made a point of order against this 
motion.
  The Speaker \5\ ruled:

  The point of order being raised, the Chair thinks the amendment is 
not germane. * * * Here is a proposition that the House shall meet on 
Mondays and Thursdays. Here is an amendment requesting that a 
particular bill shall be considered under certain conditions and 
formalities. Now,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ See section 5829 of this chapter.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p 4951.
  \3\ Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, Chairman.
  \4\ First session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 939.
  \5\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 5835
if that is germane to the other, it would be difficult to limit the 
range of germaneness anywhere on earth, it seems to the Chair. It has 
been decided by one of the predecessors of the present Speaker that 
this motion was not in order at all; but the present Speaker has 
decided otherwise, and, he believes, with the approval of the House, 
giving the House more complete control over such matters; but it has 
been decided by all his predecessors that no proposition can be offered 
as an instruction to a committee that would not have been admissible as 
an amendment if it had been offered at the proper time. Now, will any 
gentleman of the House say that this would be a proper amendment to the 
original resolution? The Chair thinks that it could not be.

  5835. On January 21, 1891,\1\ Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, from 
the Committee on Rules, reported a resolution providing for the 
immediate consideration of the District of Columbia appropriation bill.
  Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, moved that the resolution be 
recommitted to the Committee on Rules with instructions to report back 
a resolution providing for the consideration of the bill (S. 4675) to 
provide a unit of value and for the coinage of gold and silver, etc.
  Mr. Cannon made the point of order that the proposed instructions, 
not being germane to the resolution, were not now in order.
  The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order, holding that the 
instructions were not germane to the subject-matter of the resolution.
  Mr. Bland appealed from the decision of the Chair. Mr. Cannon moved 
to lay the appeal on the table, and the question being put, it was 
decided in the affirmative, yeas 146, nays 122.
  5836. On February 24, 1891,\3\ Mr. William McKinley, jr., of Ohio, 
from the Committee on Rules, reported a resolution providing for the 
consideration of the bill (S. 172) to credit and pay to the several 
States and Territories and District of Columbia all moneys collected 
under the direct tax levied by the act of Congress approved August 5, 
1861.
  Mr. Nelson Dingley, jr., of Maine, offered an amendment to provide 
that immediately after the consideration of that bill the House should 
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union for the consideration of the bill (S. 3738) ``to place the 
American merchant marine engaged in the foreign trade upon an equality 
with that of other nations.''
  Mr. James H. Blount, of Georgia, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the subject-matter of the resolution.
  The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order.
  5837. To a bill for the admission of one Territory an amendment 
providing also for the admission of several other Territories was held 
not to be germane.--On January 17, 1889,\4\ the House was considering a 
bill of the Senate providing for the admission of the Territory of 
Dakota into the Union. The consideration of the bill was governed by a 
special order, which specified that the bill of the House (H. R. 8466) 
might be offered as a substitute. Instead of this bill, however, there 
was offered by Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, a substitute
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 165; Record, p. 
1638.
  \2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 295; Record, p. 
3215.
  \4\ Second session Fiftieth Congress, Journal, pp. 270, 293; Record, 
pp. 905, 907.
Sec. 5838
different in form and containing, with a provision relating to Dakota, 
other provisions providing for the admission of Montana, Washington, 
and New Mexico.
  Mr. Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, made the point of order that the 
proposed amendment was not germane.\1\
  After debate the Speaker \2\ held:

  When the gentleman from Michigan made the point of order, the Chair 
supposed that the gentleman from Illinois had offered as a substitute 
the bill H. R. 8466, which is the bill mentioned in the order made by 
the House. Of course, if the gentleman has not offered that bill, the 
question which the Chair proposed to submit to the House has not yet 
arisen. The Chair supposes that a mere technical difference between the 
two bills would not be material--for instance, a correction of a mere 
clerical error, or something of that sort. But it seems that the 
proposed substitute now offered by the gentleman from Illinois contains 
provisions of a substantial character and not contained in the original 
House bill. The Chair thinks, therefore, that the order does not apply 
to it, and believes that in accordance with the practice of the House 
and its rules, ever since the House overruled its own decision in the 
case of California,\3\ that this substitute is not in order under the 
rules. The Chair holds, therefore, that the substitute sent to the desk 
by the gentleman from Illinois does not come within the terms of the 
order made by the House, and hence is not in order under the rules and 
practice of the House.

  5838. To a bill admitting several Territories into the Union an 
amendment adding another Territory is germane.--On May 8, 1902,\4\ the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union was considering 
the bill (H. R. 12543) providing for the admission into the Union of 
the Territories of Oklahoma, Arizona, and New Mexico.
  Mr. Thomas C. McRae, of Arkansas, proposed an amendment providing for 
the addition of the Indian Territory to Oklahoma.
  Mr. James T. Lloyd, of Missouri, raised the question of order that 
the proposed amendment was not germane.
  After debate the Chairman \5\ held:

  The Chair is ready to rule. If this were a bill for the admission of 
Oklahoma Territory alone as a State, there would be no doubt as to the 
position taken by the gentleman from Missouri being correct. An 
amendment to admit some other Territory as a State would not be in 
order. But this is a general bill covering three different Territories, 
and an amendment as suggested by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Underwood] to admit Alaska as a State would be in order on this bill.
  For instance, a private claim bill for the allowance of a single 
claim would not be subject to an amendment allowing some other claim, 
but a general claims bill, such as often comes before this House, can 
be amended by adding another claim. So with public building bills. A 
bill to erect a public building at Birmingham, Ala., could not be 
amended by a proposition to erect a public building at Indianapolis, 
Ind.; but a bill providing for a number of public buildings could be 
amended by adding another public building. One is a general bill, the 
other is a bill for a single object: and as the Chair said, if this 
were a bill to admit Oklahoma alone as a State, this amendment would 
not be in order. On the other hand, it is a general bill proposing to 
admit three Territories as States.
  In the Thirty-fourth Congress a decision was made by the Speaker that 
covers this point clearly.\6\ On July 17, 1856, Mr. Elihu B. Washburne, 
of Illinois, reported from the Committee on Commerce a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Mr. Burrows gave an interesting citation of early precedents. 
(Second session Fiftieth Congress, Record, p. 906.)
  \2\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 1415, 1417; 
Speaker Cobb overruled. (See footnote of sec. 5859 of this chapter.)
  \4\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 5187-5189.
  \5\ James A. Hemenway, of Indiana, Chairman.
  \6\ See section 5840 of this chapter.
                                                            Sec. 5839
resolution of the Senate for enlarging the custom-house and post-office 
and court-house at Milwaukee, Wis., and at Detroit, Mich., and for the 
construction of a public building for the same purpose at Dubuque, 
Iowa, with an amendment providing for some public buildings at Toledo, 
Ohio, Ogdensburg, N. Y., Ellsworth, Me., Chicago, Ill., Nashville, 
Tenn., and other points.
  Mr. James L. Orr, of South Carolina, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the original resolution, inasmuch as it 
provided for the construction and enlargement of public buildings in 
different cities and States from those mentioned in the resolution to 
which the amendment was offered. The Speaker overruled the point of 
order. There was the exact question. There was a public-building bill 
providing for two or more buildings. An amendment was offered to add 
another building in another State.
  The point of order was made, and the Speaker of the House, Nathaniel 
P. Banks, jr., of Massachusetts, overruled the point of order. There is 
no doubt, in the opinion of the Chair, that the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. McRae] is in order on this bill, this 
being a general bill for the admission of Territories. The Chair 
therefore overrules the point of order.

  5839. To a resolution embodying two distinct phases of international 
relationship an amendment embodying a third was held to be germane.--On 
January 27, 1896,\1\ the House was considering a concurrent resolution 
of the Senate, which, after a recital in the preamble, was as follows:

  Resolved by the Senate of the United States (the House of 
Representatives concurring), That it is an imperative duty, in the 
interest of humanity, to express the earnest hope that the European 
concert brought about by the treaty referred to may speedily be given 
its just effect in such decisive measures as shall stay the hand of 
fanaticism and lawless violence, and as shall secure to the unoffending 
Christians of the Turkish Empire all the rights belonging to them, both 
as men and Christians and as beneficiaries of the explicit provisions 
of the treaty above recited.
  Resolved, That the President be requested to communicate these 
resolutions to the Governments of Great Britain, Germany, Austria, 
France, Italy, and Russia.
  Resolved further, That the Senate of the United States, the House of 
Representatives concurring, will support the President in the most 
vigorous action he may take for the protection and security of American 
citizens in Turkey, and to obtain redress for injuries committed upon 
the persons or property of such citizens.

  To this Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, offered the following 
amendment:

  That for the purpose of emphasizing our protest against the murders 
and outrages above recited the President is directed to furnish the 
Turkish minister his dismissal as a representative of the Sultan at 
this capital, and to at once terminate all diplomatic relations with 
the Government of Turkey.

  Mr. James B. McCreary, of Kentucky, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  While the matter is not free from doubt, the Chair overrules the 
point of order.

  5840. To a bill providing for the construction of a building in each 
of two cities an amendment providing for similar buildings in several 
other cities was held to be germane.--On July 7, 1856,\3\ Mr. Elihu B. 
Washburne, of Illinois, reported from the Committee on Commerce the 
resolution of the Senate (S. R. 17) ``for enlarging the custom-house, 
post-office, and court-house at Milwaukee, Wis., and at Detroit, Mich., 
and for the construction of a building for the same purposes at 
Dubuque, Iowa,'' with an amendment providing for similar public
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 1000, 1008, 
1009.
  \2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 1168, 1169, 
1171, 1173; Globe, pp. 1555, 1557.
Sec. 5841
buildings at Toledo, Ohio, Ogdensburg, N. Y., Galena, Ill., Ellsworth, 
Me., Chicago, Ill., Nashville, Tenn., and Perth Amboy, N.J.
  Mr. James L. Orr, of South Carolina, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the original resolution, inasmuch as it 
provided for the construction and enlargement of public buildings in 
different cities and States from those in the resolution to which it 
was an amendment.
  The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order.
  Mr. Orr having appealed, on the succeeding day the appeal was laid on 
the table, yeas 136, nays 49.
  5841. To a bill relating to commerce between the States an amendment 
relating to commerce within the several States was offered and held not 
to be germane.--On September 13, 1888,\2\ the House was considering the 
bill (S. 2851) to amend an act entitled ``An act to regulate commerce'' 
approved February 4, 1887, and Mr. Knute Nelson, of Minnesota, offered 
this amendment:

  Provided further, That any railroad company or other common carrier 
heretofore or hereafter created or incorporated under the laws of the 
United States shall, as to the transportation of passengers or property 
from one place or station to another place or station in the same 
State, over a route wholly in that State, be subject and amenable to 
the laws of such State relating to the transportation of passengers and 
property, the same as though it were a railroad company or common 
carrier created or incorporated under the laws of that State.

  Mr. Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill.
  The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order upon the grounds that 
the bill under consideration was one relating solely to commerce 
between the States, while the proposed amendment related solely to 
commerce within the States severally, and was, therefore, not germane 
to the bill.
  5842. To a bill relating to corporations engaged in interstate 
commerce an amendment relating to all corporations was held not to be 
germane.--On February 7, 1903,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 17) requiring 
all corporations engaged in interstate commerce to file returns with 
the Secretary of the Treasury, disclosing their true financial 
condition, and of their capital stock, and imposing a tax upon such as 
have outstanding capital stock unpaid in whole or in part.
  Mr. Henry D. Clayton, of Alabama, offered an amendment:

  Sec.--There is hereby levied and shall be assessed and collected 
annually the following taxes on all corporations, whether domestic or 
foreign, doing business in the United States for profit or gain and 
having a capital stock of $200,000 or more, at the rate of 10 per cent 
on its capital stock. The amount of the capital stock of any taxable 
corporation for the purposes of taxation shall be estimated according 
to its par value fixed by the charter, or by resolution of its board of 
stockholders or directors, and shall include all assets owned by such 
corporation which are reserved or funded or set aside for the benefit 
of its stockholders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Nathaniel P. Banks, jr., of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Fiftieth Congress, Journal, p. 2772; Record, p. 
8584.
  \3\ The Journal indicates that this ruling was made by Mr. Speaker 
Carlisle. The Record indicates that it was by Speaker pro tempore James 
B. McCreary, of Kentucky.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 1913.
                                                            Sec. 5843
  Mr. Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane, saying:

  The original bill proposes a tax upon corporations engaged in 
interstate commerce having unpaid capital stock outstanding. This bill 
relates entirely to corporations engaged in interstate commerce, and 
prohibits them from making unlawful discriminations or entering into 
unlawful or injurious combinations to control prices, etc. That is all 
right. It is also proper to control such corporations or trusts by way 
of taxation. But the gentleman from Alabama introduces an entirely new 
subject. This proposed amendment imposes a tax of 10 per cent on the 
entire capital stock of every corporation, big and little, in the 
United States, whether engaged in interstate commerce or not.

  The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order.
  5843. To a bill for the benefit of a single individual or 
corporation, an amendment embodying general provisions applicable to 
the class represented by the individual is not germane.--On March 7, 
1884,\2\ the previous question had been demanded on a bill to appoint 
and retire Alfred Pleasanton as a major-general. Pending this demand, 
Mr. George W. Steele, of Indiana, moved to recommit the bill to the 
Committee on Military Affairs with instructions to report a bill to 
place upon the retired list of the Army all officers and soldiers who 
served in the late civil war and were honorably discharged, who are 
suffering from total disabilities from wounds received in the line of 
duty with the rank of colonel, together with the bill restoring Alfred 
Pleasanton as colonel on the retired list of the Army.
  On which motion Mr. Martin Maginnis, of Montana, made the point of 
order that the same was not in order, for the reason that it converted 
a private into a public bill.
  The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order on the ground that the 
motion of Mr. Steele could not have been in order as an amendment to 
the bill, and also on the ground that it was not in order to convert a 
private into a public bill.\4\
  5844. On April 23, 1894,\5\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 
6171) to authorize the Metropolitan Railroad Company to change its 
motive power for the propulsion of cars.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and was read a third time.
  Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, moved to recommit the bill to 
the Committee on the District of Columbia with instructions to report a 
general bill applicable to all street-railway corporations seeking 
franchises, renewal of franchises, extension of franchises, increase of 
franchises, or amendment of charters, providing for the sale at public 
auction, for terms of years to the highest bidders, after due 
advertisement, of all such street-railway franchises to be hereafter 
exercised within the District, subject to provisions for existing 
equities.
  Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, made the point of order that 
the instruction proposed by Mr. Williams, of Mississippi, was not in 
order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Henry S. Boutell, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 761.
  \3\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \4\ So also in a case where it was proposed to recommit a private 
pension bill with instructions to inquire whether a general pension 
bill should be reported. (Second session Forty-eighth Congress, 
Journal, p. 621.)
  \5\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 350, 351 
Record, p. 4011.
Sec. 5845
  The Speaker pro tempore \1\ sustained the point of order, for the 
reason that it was not in order to amend a bill for the benefit of an 
individual by inserting therein general provisions of law.
  5845. On April 12, 1850,\2\ the bill from the Senate (No. 128) for 
the relief of Margaret L. Worth, widow of the late General Worth, of 
the Army of the United States, having been read a first and second 
time, Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, moved to amend the same by 
adding thereto the following:

  Be it further enacted, That all pensions which have been granted, or 
which shall hereafter be granted, to the widow of any officer, 
noncommissioned officer, musician, or private, in consequence of the 
death of the husband of such widow while in the military service of the 
United States, or in consequence of the death of the husband of any 
such widow in consequence of wounds received or of disease contracted 
while in the military service of the United States, shall be for and 
during the natural life of the widow to whom granted, to commence on 
the day of the death of the husband.
  Be it further enacted, That the widow of every officer, 
noncommississioned officer, musician, or private, whose husband has 
heretofore or shall hereafter die while in the military service of the 
United States, shall be entitled to a pension of half the monthly pay 
to which her husband was entitled at the time of his death, for and 
during her natural life, from the date of the death of her husband.

  The Speaker \3\ decided that the amendment was out of order, on the 
ground that the bill provided for the relief of a single individual, 
and the amendment sought to establish a general provision of law.
  From this decision of the Chair Mr. Jones appealed; and the question 
being put, ``Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of 
the House?'' it was decided in the affirmative.
  5846. On February 23, 1894,\4\ the pending question was the motion of 
Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, to discharge Mr. Robert Adams, jr., of 
Pennsylvania, from custody.
  Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, offered the following substitute 
for the motion of Mr. Reed:

  That all Members who have been arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms by 
authority of the resolution of the House adopted on the 19th instant 
be, and they are hereby, discharged from arrest.

  Mr. Reed made the point of order that it was not in order to move as 
a substitute for a proposition excusing one Member a proposition to 
excuse several Members.
  The Speaker pro tempore \5\ expressed the opinion that the point was 
well taken; whereupon Mr. Bland withdrew the amendment.
  5847. To a bill establishing a standard of time for the District of 
Columbia an amendment for distributing the benefits to the nation at 
large was held to be not germane.--On March 10, 1884,\6\ the House was 
considering the bill (S. 616) to establish a standard of time in the 
District of Columbia.
  Mr. John D. White, of Kentucky, proposed an amendment appropriating a 
sum of money for transmitting standard time from Washington to various 
portions of the country.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Alexander M. Dockery, of Missouri, Speaker pro tempore.
  \2\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 784; Globe, p. 
714.
  \3\ Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, p. 194; Record, p. 
2377.
  \5\ James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, Speaker pro tempore.
  \6\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 793; Record, p. 
1763.
                                                            Sec. 5848
  Mr. William. M. Springer, of Illinois, made the point of order that 
the amendment changed the character of the bill, making a general one 
out of a local one intended for the District of Columbia.
  The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order on the ground that the 
pending bill was simply to establish a standard of time for this 
District, while the amendment proposed would make it a general law and 
would appropriate $25,000 for the purpose; which amendment under the 
rule would send the bill to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union.
  5848.  To a resolution authorizing a class of employees in the 
service of the House an amendment providing for the employment of a 
specified individual was held not to be germane.--On March 1, 1890,\2\ 
Mr. Henry J. Spooner, of Rhode Island, reported this resolution from 
the Committee on Accounts:

  Resolved, That the Doorkeeper of the House be, and he is hereby, 
authorized to employ ten additional laborers in the folding room of the 
House for the purpose of folding public documents, at a compensation at 
the rate of $60 each per month, to be paid out of the contingent fund 
of the House: Provided, That all such employees shall be dropped from 
the rolls of the Doorkeeper at a period not later than one month from 
the expiration of the present session of Congress.

  Mr. John M. Brower, of North Carolina, moved to amend the resolution 
by adding thereto the following:

  That Henry G. Williams be appointed second assistant superintendent 
of the House document room, and shall receive the same salary as the 
assistant superintendent of said room.

  Mr. Spooner made the point of order that the amendment was not 
germane to the resolution; which point of order was sustained by the 
Speaker.\3\
  5849.  On January 7, 1896,\4\ Mr. J. Frank Aldrich, of Illinois, from 
the Committee on Accounts, submitted this resolution:

  Resolved, That the Chairmen of Committees on Military Affairs, Naval 
Affairs, and Interstate and Foreign Commerce be, and they are hereby, 
authorized to each appoint an assistant clerk for their respective 
committees.

  Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, offered this amendment:

  Resolved, That the Doorkeeper of the House be, and he is hereby, 
authorized and directed to appoint Lauritz Olson a messenger to the 
House gallery, at a salary of $1,200 per annum.

  Mr. Aldrich made the point of order that the amendment was not 
germane.
  The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order.
  5850.  To a bill authorizing the Court of Claims to adjudicate a 
claim an amendment providing for paying the claim outright was held not 
to be germane.--On January 14, 1898,\5\ the House was in Committee of 
the Whole House, considering the bill (S. 629) to confer jurisdiction 
on the Court of Claims in the case of The Book Agents of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church South against the United States. This bill directed 
that the claim with the accompanying petitions and papers should be 
referred to the Court of Claims; that the court should render
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 293.
  \3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 513.
  \5\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 627, 638, 842.
Sec. 5850
judgment against the United States and in favor of said corporation for 
whatever sum might be found due; that in the trial the affidavits on 
file before Congress should be admitted as competent evidence, etc.
  To this bill Mr. S. B. Cooper, of Texas, proposed as an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute a bill authorizing and requiring the 
Secretary of the Treasury to pay the sum of $288,000 in full 
satisfaction of the claim.
  Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that this 
amendment was not germane.
  On January 21, after debate, the Chairman \1\ decided:

  Prior to the adoption of any rules upon the subject it was in order 
to offer any amendment to the bill, whether it was germane or not, by 
way of substituting another bill or by way of an amendment. In March, 
1789, the House made a rule which changed general parliamentary law 
upon the subject, and that rule was in these words:
  ``No new motion or proposition shall be admitted under color of 
amendment as a substitute for the question or proposition under debate 
until it has been postponed or disagreed to.''
  That simply went to the substitute, and not to the amendment of the 
proposition; and I suppose that under that, until the adoption of a new 
rule by the House of Representatives, an amendment which was not in the 
nature of a substitute would have been in order. In 1822 the House 
adopted this rule:
  ``No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under 
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
  And that rule has been the rule of the House of Representatives from 
that day to this, and is now clause 7 of Rule XVI, under which this 
point of order is raised.
  The bill before the House is an act to confer jurisdiction on the 
Court of Claims in the case of The Book Agents of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church South against The United States; and the act provides 
not only to confer jurisdiction, but gives the court authority to 
render judgment for any amount, and further provides that either party 
may appeal from the judgment that is so rendered. That is the whole 
scope of the bill which is now before the Committee. The substitute 
offered is, briefly, an appropriation of some $288,000--the Chair does 
not recollect the precise amount--to be paid to The Book Agents of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church South. That is the whole scope of the 
substitute that is offered as an amendment. The question is whether, 
under the language of the rule, this is a proposition on a subject 
different from that under consideration. If it is, it can not be 
admitted as an amendment. If it is not, of course it would be in order 
as an amendment. * * * There is one precedent \2\ that seems to bear 
almost exactly upon the ease before the Committee, and that was the 
precedent cited the other day by the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Dingley] 
in the Forty-eighth Congress. A bill was before the House restoring 
General Pleasonton to the Army and putting him on the retired list, in 
order that he might draw the pay of a retired officer. It might have 
been a bill entitled ``For the relief of General Pleasonton,'' but it 
was entitled a bill to restore him to the Army and place his name on 
the retired list.
  When that bill was before the Committee of the Whole House, the 
gentleman from New York, the late Mr. Cox, an able parliamentarian, was 
in the chair. During the progress of the bill the gentleman from 
Indiana, the late Mr. Browne, offered an amendment striking out all 
after the enacting clause and authorizing the Secretary of the Interior 
to place his name on the pension list and pay him a pension at the rate 
of $100 a month. That question was debat*COM008*ed somewhat in 
Committee of the Whole, and the Chairman of the Committee [Mr. Cox], 
the point of order having been raised by the late Mr. Bayne, of 
Pennsylvania--and the House will observe the controversy was between 
two Republicans, Mr. Browne and Mr. Bayne, while the Chairman was of 
opposite politics, so that it would seem that no politics could enter 
into that question at that time--the Chair stated that he felt 
compelled to sustain the point of order, as it changed the whole 
character of the bill.
  That, of course, defeated the amendment in Committee of the Whole. 
The bill was finally reported to the House, and the gentleman from 
Indiana again obtained the floor and moved to recommit the bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
  \2\ See section 5843 of this chapter.
                                                            Sec. 5851
with directions to report back the bill with the same amendments that 
he had submitted. It was again debated in the House, and Mr. Carlisle 
in the chair held that it was obnoxious to clause 7 of Rule XVI and not 
germane to the original bill, and he sustained the point of order.
  Now, what is the proposition before the Committee? The title to the 
bill is to give the Court of Claims jurisdiction for the trial of this 
claim, with the further provision that an appeal may be taken by either 
party to the Supreme Court. The offer is to substitute for this a bill 
appropriating money to the Methodist Book Concern. It changes the whole 
character of the bill, and, as was well said by Mr. Cox of the bill 
before the Committee at that time, it is an entirely different bill, 
and to hold that it was germane and could be offered as an amendment to 
this bill, in the opinion of the Chair, would almost, if not entirely, 
abrogate clause 7 of Rule XVI. Therefore the Chair sustains the point 
of order.

  5851. To a proposition to pay a claim an amendment proposing to send 
the claim to the Court of Claims was held not to be germane.--On March 
8, 1904,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House were considering this 
bill:

  Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is 
hereby, directed to pay to N. F. Palmer, jr., & Co., the sum of 
$63,620.59, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated, in full of their claim for damages and losses incurred in 
the construction of the armored cruiser Maine, that being the amount 
recommended to be paid by the Secretary of the Navy.

  Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, proposed this amendment:

  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof 
the following:
  ``That the bill (S. 334) entitled `A bill for the relief of N. F. 
Palmer, jr., & Co.,' together with all the accompanying papers, be, and 
the same is hereby, referred to the Court of Claims, in pursuance of 
the provisions of an act entitled `An act to provide for the bringing 
of suits against the Government of the United States,' approved March 
3, 1887; and the said court shall proceed with the same in accordance 
with the provisions of such act, and report to the House of 
Representatives in accordance therewith.''

  Mr. Jack Beall, of Texas, made a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The Chairman \2\ held:

  The amendment proposed by the gentleman from New York provides for 
sending the whole matter to the Court of Claims for adjudication. The 
Chair is of the opinion that the point of order against the amendment 
is well taken. The Chair bases his judgment upon a decision \3\ made by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Payne] in the second session of the 
Fifty-fifth Congress, where a bill was pending referring a claim to the 
Court of Claims and an amendment was offered providing for the payment 
of the claim outright, and the gentleman from New York, as Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole, held that the amendment was not germane and 
sustained the point of order. Upon that precedent the Chair sustains 
the point of order.

  5852. A revenue amendment is not germane to an appropriation bill.--
On January 28, 1851,\4\ the House was in Committee of the Whole House 
on, the state of the Union considering the deficiency appropriation 
bill, when the Chairman \5\ rendered the following decision on a point 
of order which had been raised when the committee was last in session:

  When the committee last rose the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
William Strong], had moved an amendment as a separate clause--to modify 
the existing tariff law--to come in at the end of the bill, and on that 
amendment the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. George W. Jones], had 
raised a point
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3007.
  \2\ Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, Chairman.
  \3\ See section 5850 of this chapter.
  \4\ Second session Thirty-first Congress, Globe, p. 366.
  \5\ Richard K. Meade, of Virginia, Chairman.
Sec. 5853
of order. The Chair decides that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania is out of order. The amendment is in violation of the 
common law of Parliament. * * * The bill that was referred to the 
Committee of the Whole had for its object the appropriation of money to 
supply deficiencies. That was the subject referred to the Committee of 
the Whole. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania has 
not only a different object but quite an opposite one; it being in part 
to levy a tax, and in part to take off a tax. Hence, the Chair is of 
the opinion that it is entirely irrelevant, and can not be entertained 
by this committee. The Fifty-fifth rule \1\ of the House reads thus: 
``No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under 
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.'' The Chair 
can not conceive a proposition more irrelevant or more opposite to the 
one under consideration than that in the amendment of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania to the bill pending before the committee.
  The Constitution of the United States is very careful in throwing 
guards around the tax-imposing power; and hence it requires that all 
bills imposing taxes shall originate in the House of Representatives. 
The one hundred and thirty-second rule \2\ of the House, in pursuance 
of this jealous policy of the Constitution, declares, that ``no 
increase of tax shall be voted by the House until it has been discussed 
and voted in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union;'' the 
object being to secure full discussion upon every question involving 
the taxing power. The Chair, therefore, is of opinion that the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is contrary to the 
parliamentary law, irrelevant to the question under consideration, and 
opposed to the general policy of the Constitution, and the rules made 
in pursuance of it, and must be ruled to be out of order.

  Mr. Strong having appealed, the decision of the Chair was sustained, 
yeas 102, nays 87.
  5853. To a proposition giving a committee power to investigate tariff 
subjects an amendment commending tariff revision was held not to be 
germane.--On December 31, 1827,\3\ Mr. Rollin C. Mallary, of Vermont, 
presented this resolution from the Committee on Manufactures:

  Resolved, That the Committee on Manufactures be vested with the power 
to send for persons and papers.

  It was explained that the committee wished this power in order to 
acquire information to be used in framing a tariff bill.
  Mr. Andrew Stewart, of Pennsylvania, proposed an amendment to strike 
out all after the word ``Resolved'' and insert, ``That it is expedient 
to amend the present existing tariff by increasing the duties on the 
following importations, raw wool and woolens, bar iron, etc.''
  Mr. John Floyd, of Virginia, made a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The Speaker \4\ decided that the amendment was not in order, inasmuch 
as the proposition was on a subject different from that under 
consideration, and consequently inadmissible, under color of amendment, 
by the rules and practice of the House.
  5854. To a bill relating to the classification for customs purposes 
of worsted goods as woolens, an amendment relating to duties on wools 
and woolens and worsted cloths was held not to be germane.--On April 
29, 1890,\5\ the House being in Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ See section 5767 of this volume for this rule.
  \2\ See section 4792 of Vol. IV for changes in this rule.
  \3\ First session Twentieth Congress, Journal, p. 1037; Debates, p. 
865.
  \4\ Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, pp. 3996, 3997.
                                                            Sec. 5855
considering a bill (H. R. 9548) relating to the classification of 
worsted goods as woolens,
  Mr. W. C. P. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, offered an amendment 
providing:

  That all wools, hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like animals, 
wool on the skin, woolen rags, mungo, waste, and flax shall be 
admitted, when imported, free of duty. That on and after the 1st day of 
October, 1890, in lieu of the duties now imposed on the articles 
hereinafter mentioned, there shall be levied, collected, and paid on 
woolen and worsted cloths and all manufactures of wool of every 
description made wholly or in part of wool 35 per cent ad valorem.

  Mr. Nelson Dingley, jr., of Maine, made the point of order that the 
amendment related to a subject different from that with which the bill 
dealt.
  The Chairman \1\ ruled as follows:

  The latter part of clause 7 of Rule XVI, provides:
  ``And no motion or proposition on a subject different from that under 
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
  The subject under consideration in this bill is the classification of 
worsted cloths as woolen cloths. That is the subject. The proposition 
of the gentleman from Kentucky is to put wool on the free list as an 
amendment. It seems to the Chair that that is a different subject. The 
Chair remembers, in the last Congress, when a proposition was made on a 
bill for the admission of Dakota to amend it by adding the Territory of 
New Mexico, and the point was made that that was on a subject different 
from the one under consideration, the then Speaker of the House (Mr. 
Carlisle), decided \2\ that it was a different subject, although 
relating to the same general subject. The Chair therefore sustains the 
point of order and rules the amendment out of order.

  On a vote by tellers an appeal having been taken this decision was 
sustained-74 ayes to 36 noes.
  5855. On the question being submitted the House admitted a provision 
relating to duties as an amendment to an internal-revenue bill although 
the point of order that it was not germane had been made.
  Instance wherein the Speaker submitted a question of order to the 
decision of the House.
  On June 3, 1870,\3\ the House resumed the consideration of the bill 
of the House (H.R. 2045) to reduce internal taxes, and for other 
purposes, the pending question being on the forty-fifth section of the 
same.
  Mr. James Brooks, of New York, proposed to submit the following 
amendment:

  Add to the section the following proviso:
  ``Provided further, That on and after the first day of January next 
the duties levied upon the articles hereafter named, imported from 
foreign countries, shall be reduced as follows:
  ``On sirup of cane juice, or melado, or molasses from sugar-cane, and 
on all sugars, and on salt, thirty-three and a third per cent.
  ``On coffee and on tea, twenty percent; and on pig and scrap iron, 
twenty-two and a half percent.
  ``And all imported goods, wares, and merchandise here described, 
which may be in the public stores or bonded warehouses on the day of 
the year this act shall take effect, shall be subjected to no other 
duty upon the entry thereof for consumption than if the same were 
imported, respectively, after that date .\3\

  The same having been read,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, Chairman.
  \2\ See section 5837 of this chapter.
  \3\ Second session Forty-first Congress, Journal, p. 907; Globe, pp. 
4072, 4073.
Sec. 5856
  Mr. Charles A. Eldredge, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that 
the amendment was not in order, because it was an independent and new 
proposition for a tax upon the people, and must be first discussed in 
Committee of the Whole, and also because the amendment was not germane 
to the bill.
  The Speaker \1\ stated that the House had given unanimous consent for 
the consideration of this bill in the House, that would cover all 
amendments considered germane, and hence that the only question at 
issue is, whether the amendment be germane. In his judgment the 
amendment was germane, from the very necessities of the case; for it 
might be of the utmost importance, in determining the internal revenue 
to be derived from any article, to determine also what the external 
revenue shall be from the same article. He would, however, submit to 
the House the question, ``Will the House entertain an amendment of the 
kind proposed as germane to the bill under consideration?''
  And the question being put, it was decided in the affirmative.
  5856. To a bill relating to reciprocal trade relations between the 
United States and Cuba, the Committee of the Whole, overruling the 
Chair, added an amendment relating to the duties on sugar generally; 
but sustained the Chair in holding not germane amendments relating to 
the general duties on hides and iron manufactures.--On April 18, 
1902,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union was 
considering the bill (H. R. 12765) ``to provide for reciprocal trade 
relations with Cuba,'' when Mr. Page Morris, of Minnesota, offered the 
following amendment:

  Insert after ``countries,'' line 22, page 2, the following:
  ``And upon the making of the said agreement, and the issuance of said 
proclamation, and while said agreement shall remain in force, there 
shall be levied, collected, and paid, in lieu of the duties thereon now 
provided by law on all sugars above No. 16 Dutch standard in color, and 
on all sugar which has gone through a process of refining, imported 
into the United States, 1 cent and eight hundred and twenty-five one-
thousandths of 1 cent per pound.''

  Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill.
  The point of order was debated at length, especial stress being laid 
on the intimation of Mr. Speaker Blaine, on June 3, 1870, on the bill 
to reduce the internal taxes.\3\ Mr. Charles E. Little-field, of Maine, 
further argued that the customs regulations concerning sugar were 
peculiar, and because of this peculiarity the ordinary principles of 
germaneness would in this case be modified. He said:

  Any legislation that tends to disturb the tariff equilibrium in 
connection with this sugar schedule by disturbing the differential or 
otherwise, destroys the equilibrium and makes the consideration of the 
other branch of the proposition absolutely necessary in order to 
preserve and maintain the equilibrium. Unrefined sugar has one tariff, 
refined sugar another, to-day. If you shorten or diminish the 
unrefined-sugar tariff, you shorten one of the legs upon which the 
proposition stands; and if you increase it, you lengthen the leg upon 
which the proposition stands, and either process destroys alike the 
legislative equilibrium which ought to and economically must exist 
between the two tariffs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ James G. Blaine, of Maine, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 4405-4414, 
4415, 4416.
  \3\ See section 5855.
                                                            Sec. 5856
  At the close of the debate the Chairman \1\ ruled:

  The closing portion of section 7 of Rule XVI, which has been already 
read in the debate in the committee, reads:
  ``No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under 
consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
  The bill now before us is entitled ``A bill to provide for reciprocal 
trade relations with Cuba.'' It authorizes the President to enter into 
negotiations with the government of Cuba when established for the 
purpose of securing reciprocal trade relations with Cuba, and when an 
agreement is made that, in his judgment, is reciprocal and equivalent, 
to proclaim the fact, ``and thereafter until December 1, 1903, the 
imposition of the duties now imposed by law on all articles imported 
from Cuba, the products thereof, shall be suspended, and in lieu 
thereof 80 per cent of the duty imposed upon such articles coming from 
other countries shall be collected.''
  Clearly this is simply and solely a bill to provide for reciprocal 
relations with Cuba, and Cuba only. An amendment can then be in order 
only if it relates to trade between Cuba and the United States. In 
other words, it must be germane. A long line of decisions, covering a 
period of three-quarters of a century--because the present rule is 
worded precisely as it was adopted in 1822--made by distinguished 
Speakers of the House, from various sections of this country, have all 
emphasized the real intent and meaning of the rule above quoted.
  These decisions have been based upon its literal construction. Except 
a decision of Speaker Cobb, in the Thirty-first Congress, later in the 
same Congress reversed by the House,\2\ seemingly by the Speaker's 
acquiescence, these decisions are all in one direction. Speaker Blaine 
made no decision upon this question. He did emphatically express his 
judgment upon a like proposition, and after expressing his judgment, he 
referred the matter to the committee for decision. So that he made no 
decision overruling the long line preceding.
  Mr. Blackburn, presiding in Committee of the Whole, or Speaker pro 
tempore, I think, did not make the ruling that the gentleman from 
Tennessee says that he made. The gentleman is mistaken in the 
statement. He decided that the point of order was raised too late for 
consideration. Here is the exact wording of Speaker Blackburn's ruling:
  ``The Chair will state to the gentleman from Michigan that he is not 
prepared to say that he would not have sustained his point of order and 
ruled the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee out of order as not 
being germane to the subject-matter of the bill, if it had been made in 
time.''
  Speaker Blackburn held that the point of order was not raised in 
time. He expressly states that he does not hold that he would not have 
excluded it as not germane had it been raised in time.
  If the Chair might be permitted to make a brief citation of very many 
decisions made by former Speakers--and the Chair will refer in the main 
to the decisions made by Speakers, and not by chairmen of the Committee 
of the Whole--Ithink the committee will see that practically an 
unbroken line of precedents is in favor of the literal construction of 
the rule of germaneness.
  In the Thirtieth Congress, the resolution providing for an 
investigation to obtain information upon which to frame a tariff bill, 
an amendment was offered striking out all after the resolving clause 
and inserting ``that it is expedient to amend the present existing 
tariff by increasing the duties'' on certain commodities. Speaker 
Stevenson, of Virginia, held the amendment to be inadmissible because 
on a subject different from that under consideration.\3\
  In the Twenty-seventh Congress to a bill under consideration 
authorizing the issue of Treasury notes, an amendment was offered 
providing that so much of the act of September 4, 1841, as provided for 
the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of public land among 
States and Territories be suspended, and the said fund be applied to 
the payment of outstanding Treasury notes, outstanding as well as those 
issued under the act, Mr. Hopkins, of Virginia, decidedly a clear and 
strong parliamentarian, held that the amendment was not germane.\4\
  In the Thirtieth Congress, during the pendency of a bill locating 
military land warrants in Virginia, it was proposed to amend by 
providing that these land warrants might be located on any public land 
subject to entry. Speaker Winthrop, of Massachusetts, held this 
amendment not to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
  \2\ See footnote to section 5859.
  \3\ See section 5853 of this volume.
  \4\ See section 5883 of this volume.
Sec. 5856
  And in the same Congress the same Speaker held an amendment to a 
resolution to ascertain and equalize the salaries of United States 
district judges so as to include marshals and district attorneys not in 
order, and upon an appeal the Chair was sustained.
  In the Thirty-fifth Congress, while a bill was pending granting 
preemption to settlers upon public lands, an amendment was offered 
donating 160 acres free, upon certain conditions as to occupancy and 
cultivation. Speaker Orr, from South Carolina, held the amendment not 
to be germane.\1\
  In the Fiftieth Congress, to the bill for the admission of Dakota as 
a State, an amendment was offered to include New Mexico, Montana, and 
Washington. The question was discussed at considerable length. The 
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Burrows, now a Senator from that State, a 
gentleman justly famed as a parliamentarian, in arguing in support of 
the point of order that the amendment was not germane, fully reviewed 
the history of the rule and its application. Speaker Carlisle, an able 
parliamentarian, to whose great ability and fairness I gladly testify, 
held the amendment not to be germane and sustained the point of 
order.\2\
  On the 7th of this month, only the other day, while we were 
considering the Chinese-exclusion bill in the Committee of the Whole, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moody] in the chair, an amendment 
prohibiting the employment of Chinese labor on American ships was held 
not to be germane to a bill regulating the admission of Chinese into 
this country.\3\
  These are but a few of the decisions which all are on one side, all 
covering a period of more than seventy-five years.
  It has been said that the Speaker, on the day this bill was taken up 
for consideration, held that this was a revenue bill. The Speaker did 
not so hold. The Speaker did, in reply to a parliamentary inquiry, say 
that this was a bill affecting the revenue, and stated that it has been 
the custom of this House to consider bills affecting the revenue as 
privileged matters, and this holding of the Speaker is sustained by a 
direct holding upon that very proposition by Speaker Reed in the Fifty-
first Congress, and by many other decisions made at prior dates.
  The argument of the gentleman from Maine that we must maintain the 
``equilibrium,'' and that to maintain the ``equilibrium'' this 
amendment is in order, is not, as it seems to the Chair, tenable. As 
well might he say that when a bill to appropriate $50,000,000 for 
rivers and harbors is under consideration we must, in order to maintain 
the ``equilibrium,'' attach to it a provision to raise revenue, to 
bring money into the Treasury, to provide for that which is going out; 
and that proposition has been distinctly held in this House in the 
Thirty-first Congress not to be in order.
  The argument of the gentleman from Maine might and probably would and 
probably does affect the judgment of members of the committee, so far 
as the merits of the proposition are concerned, but with the merits of 
any proposition the Chair has not to do in applying the rules to a 
question of order which is raised for him to dispose of.
  Applying the rule, applying the precedents, applying to it the 
construction it has received for more than seventy-five years, it seems 
to the Chair just as clear as the hands of the clock before him are 
distinct, that this amendment, which relates to the duties upon sugar 
from the entire world, is not germane to a bill providing for 
reciprocal trad